Cover of book: The Harm Prevention Rule in Cyberspace
Book Titles Open Access Full access

The Harm Prevention Rule in Cyberspace

An Obligation of Due Diligence
Authors:
Publisher:
 2024

Summary

The harm prevention rule - including the due diligence standard of conduct it requires - is often seen as a potentially powerful accountability mechanism for malicious cyber operations of state and non-state actors when attribution fails. Yet a lack of clarity on its doctrinal status, content and scope has hampered its practical utility so far. To address this problem, the book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the harm prevention rule in cyberspace. Through an in-depth analysis of state practice and opinio iuris it carves out which risks of cyber harm trigger due diligence obligations to prevent harm and which measures states are required to take in concreto. The book differentiates between binding minimum standards and non-binding best practice standards.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2024
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-1356-2
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-1884-4
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht
Volume
335
Language
English
Pages
327
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 20 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. Introduction 21 - 26 Download chapter (PDF)
  3. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. I. Cyber espionage
      2. II. Cyber terrorism
      3. III. Cyber war
      4. IV. Cyber attack
      5. V. Cybercrime
      6. VI. Imprecision of categorical terms
      1. I. Cyber harm as exploitation of code vulnerability
      2. II. Means of causing cyber harm
      3. III. Exclusion: Human error, social engineering and content harm
      1. I. Intrusive access operations: Loss of confidentiality
      2. II. Disruptive operations: Impairment or loss of functionality
      3. III. Destructive operations: Physical harm
      4. IV. Other categorization of cyber harm effects
      1. I. Gradual recognition of the applicability of international law in cyberspace
      2. II. States’ preference for strategic ambiguity
      3. III. Filling the void: Non-state actor proposals
      4. IV. Turn to preventive approaches against cyber security risks
  4. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. I. The evolution of the harm prevention rule in international law
      2. II. Holistic protection of interests of other states
      3. III. Territory, jurisdiction or control: Risk proximity as basis of accountability
      4. IV. Knowledge of risk of harm required
        1. 1. Due diligence as an obligation of conduct
        2. 2. The preventive and remedial dimension of due diligence
      6. VI. The negative prohibitive dimension of the harm prevention rule
    2. B. The harm prevention rule as the most suitable term for expressing the due diligence rationale
      1. I. The harm prevention rule as a customary rule of a general character
      2. II. The harm prevention rule as a general principle of international law
      1. I. The inductive approach and its limits
      2. II. Complementary deductive considerations
      3. III. Threshold for deductive considerations
      4. IV. Endorsement of deductive considerations in cyberspace
      5. V. Relevant state practice and opinio iuris in cyberspace
      1. I. Momentum towards recognition of the rule
        1. 1. Concern about over-securitization
        2. 2. Capacity concerns
      1. I. Endorsement of the harm prevention rule in the UN GGE Reports
        1. 1. Hortatory language of the UN GGE Reports
        2. 2. Permissive assertions of freedom of action
    7. G. Need for specification in cyberspace
  5. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. I. Risk of significant cyber harm
      2. II. Integrating acts reaching the threshold of prohibitive rules into the risk of harm threshold
      3. III. Interpretation of risk of significant harm in cyberspace
      4. IV. Non-physical harm as relevant harm under the harm prevention rule
      5. V. Cumulative harm as relevant harm under the harm prevention rule
      6. VI. Context-dependent flexible assessment of significant cyber harm
        1. 1. Recognition of the prohibition on the use of force in cyberspace
        2. 2. Acts amounting to a use of force in cyberspace
        3. 3. Application of the threshold to specific cyber incidents
        4. 4. The exceptional implication of the threshold of prohibited force in cyberspace
        1. 1. Recognition of the prohibition of intervention in cyberspace
        2. 2. Domaine réservé
          1. 3.1 Interference with elections
          2. 3.2 Intervention in the fundamental operation of parliament
          3. 3.3 Cyber operations against critical infrastructure
          4. 3.4 Impacts on the stability of the financial system
          5. 3.5 Harm to the political and/or cultural system
          6. 3.6 Undermining the territorial state’s exclusive right to enforce the law
        4. 4. Lack of clarity regarding the threshold of prohibited intervention
        1. 1. The suggestion of a sovereignty rule in cyberspace
        2. 2. Sovereignty as a fundamental principle of international law
        3. 3. ‘Violations of sovereignty’ in international practice
        4. 4. Concepts of sovereignty in cyberspace
          1. 5.1 The absolutist ‘pure’ sovereigntist approach
          2. 5.2 Degree of infringement on territorial integrity
          3. 5.3 Interference with or usurpation of inherently governmental functions
          4. 5.4 Exercise of state power
          5. 5.5 Lack of sufficiently clear content of a sovereignty rule in cyberspace
        6. 6. Assessing risks and benefits of a sovereignty rule in cyberspace
        1. 1. The problem of economic cyber harm
        2. 2. Increasing concern about economic cyber harm
          1. 3.1 Violation of intellectual property rights and trade secrets
          2. 3.2 Further criteria for assessing the gravity of economic harm
        4. 4. Economic harm as an emerging category of significant cyber harm
        1. 1. Increasing concern about cyber operations against critical infrastructure
        2. 2. Diverging definitions of critical infrastructure
      3. III. Increasing concern about harm to the public core of the internet
        1. 1. The legality of espionage in international law
        2. 2. Increasing concern about harm caused by mass surveillance operations
        3. 3. Increasing concern about cyber espionage operations against governmental and international institutions
      5. V. Emerging legal yardsticks for risks of significant cyber harm
  6. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. I. Restrictive formulation regarding attacks on critical infrastructure in the UN GGE Reports
      2. II. States’ negative obligations regarding all categories of significant cyber harm
      1. I. Due diligence as a capacity-dependent binding obligation of conduct
      2. II. Due diligence vs. ‘soft’ best practice standards
      3. III. Systematic interpretation of due diligence requirements in cyberspace
      4. IV. The relevance of the duty to protect under international human rights law
      5. V. Categories of due diligence measures
        1. 1. Cooperation in international law
        2. 2. Cooperation and due diligence
        3. 3. Cooperation in cyberspace
        4. 4. Focus on specific cooperative duties preferable
        1. 1. Duty to take action and due diligence
        2. 2. Duty to take action in cyberspace
        3. 3. Knowledge
        4. 4. Required measures
        5. 5. Widespread support of a due diligence obligation to take action in cyberspace
        1. 1. Duty to notify in international law and with regard to due diligence
        2. 2. Duty to notify in cyberspace
        3. 3. Reluctance of states to commit to a duty to notify in cyberspace
        4. 4. Nascent emergence of a due diligence obligation to notify in cyberspace
        1. 1. Prohibition of extraterritorial law enforcement as a challenge for cybercrime prosecution
        2. 2. Cooperation in legal instruments on cybercrime: Discussions on the UN level
        3. 3. Cooperation requirements in cybercrime treaties
          1. 4.1 Formal cooperation: Mutual legal assistance
          2. 4.2 Principles and limits of mutual legal assistance
          3. 4.3 Informal cooperation
        5. 5. The challenge of assessing cybercrime cooperation standards beyond a minimum standard
        1. 1. Definition of ICT vulnerabilities
        2. 2. Exploitation of ICT vulnerabilities by intelligence and law enforcement
          1. 3.1 Reporting of ICT vulnerabilities
          2. 3.2 Information on remedies
        4. 4. Links of state exploitation to attacks on the integrity of the supply chain
        5. 5. The protection of the integrity of the supply chain in the UN GGE Report 2015
        6. 6. Emergence of best practice standards regarding ICT vulnerability disclosure
      6. VI. Summary on procedural due diligence obligations
        1. 1. Criminal legislation and prosecution as due diligence requirements
        2. 2. Criminal legislation and prosecution under international human rights law
          1. 3.1 Criminalization requirements under cybercrime treaties
          2. 3.2 Convergence on an international minimum standard
          1. 4.1 Standard procedural measures
          2. 4.2 Divergences regarding human rights safeguards
          3. 4.3 Diverging capacities
          4. 4.4. The gradual emergence of an international minimum standard and associated risks
        1. 1. No rebuttable presumption of knowledge
        2. 2. Duty to have known under the harm prevention rule
        3. 3. Content of a duty to have known in cyberspace
        4. 4. Practical implications
          1. 1.1 Spill-over effects of cyber harm to critical infrastructure
          2. 1.2 Duty to protect critical infrastructure under human rights law
            1. 1.3.1 Ensuring IT security standards
            2. 1.3.2 Criminal legislation
            3. 1.3.3 Inter-state and public-private cooperation
          4. 1.4 Non-binding best practice standards
        2. 2. Duty to prevent cyber harm to the critical infrastructure of other states
        1. 1. Divergent understandings of emergency response teams and points of contact
        2. 2. Establishment of CERTs and points of contact as a due diligence requirement
        3. 3. Establishment of CERTs and points of contact under binding and non-binding norms
      5. V. Evolving due diligence standard regarding institutional capacity
  7. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. I. Harm not a constituent element of an internationally wrongful act
      2. II. Complementary applicability of the prevention rules and the rules on state responsibility
      1. I. Compensation and reparation in cases of cyber harm
      2. II. Cessation
      1. I. Purpose and proportionality requirements
      2. II. Notification requirement
      3. III. Countermeasures against states
      4. IV. The problem of collective countermeasures
      5. V. The limited role of countermeasures for the enforcement of the harm prevention rule
  8. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. A. The potential of the harm prevention rule in cyberspace
    2. B. Central findings
  9. Bibliography 307 - 324 Download chapter (PDF)
  10. Table of Cases 325 - 327 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (280)

  1. Bibliography Open Google Scholar
  2. Liisi Adamson, ‘Recommendation 13c’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 49–75 Open Google Scholar
  3. Daniel Albrecht, ‘Chinese Cybersecurity Law Compared to EU-NIS-Directive and German IT-Security Act’, Computer Law Review International (2018), 1–5 Open Google Scholar
  4. Anthony d’Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law (Cornell University Press, 1971) Open Google Scholar
  5. Elif Askin, ‘Economic and Social Rights, Extraterritorial Application’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Open Google Scholar
  6. Helmut Philipp Aust/Prisca Feihle, ‘Due Diligence in the History of the Codification of the Law of State Responsibility’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 42–58 Open Google Scholar
  7. Helmut Philipp Aust, ‘Spionage im Zeitalter von Big Data – Globale Überwachung und der Schutz der Privatsphäre im Völkerrecht’, Archiv des Völkerrechts 52 (2014), 375–406 Open Google Scholar
  8. Björnstjern Baade, ‘Due Diligence and the Duty to Protect Human Rights’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 92–108 Open Google Scholar
  9. Björnstjern Baade, ‘Fake News and International Law’, European Journal of International Law 29 (2018), 1357–1376 Open Google Scholar
  10. Bjönstjern Baade, Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte als Diskurswächter (Berlin: Springer 2017) Open Google Scholar
  11. Jelena Bäumler, Das Schädigungsverbot im Völkerrecht (Berlin: Springer: 2017) Open Google Scholar
  12. Jelena Bäumler, ‘Implementing the No Harm Principle in International Economic Law: A Comparison between Measure-Based Rules and Effect-Based Rules’, Journal of International Economic Law 20 (2017), 807–828 Open Google Scholar
  13. Christopher D. Baker, ‘Tolerance of International Espionage: A Functional Approach’, American University International Law Review 19 (2003), 1091–1113 Open Google Scholar
  14. Karine Bannelier/Theodore Christakis, ‘Prevention Reactions: The Role of States and Private Actors’ (Paris: Les Cahiers de la Revue Défense Nationale 2017) Open Google Scholar
  15. Karine Bannelier-Christakis, ‘Cyber Diligence: A Low-Intensity Due Diligence Principle for Low-Intensity Cyber Operations’, Baltic Yearbook of International Law 14 (2014), 23–39 Open Google Scholar
  16. Julio Barboza, ‘International Liability for the Injurious Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law and Protection of the Environment’, Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Haye 247 (1998), 291–406 Open Google Scholar
  17. Jens Bartelson, ‘Dating Sovereignty’, International Studies Review 20 (2018), 509–513 Open Google Scholar
  18. Giulio Bartolini, ‘The Historical Roots of the Due Diligence Standard’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer (eds.), Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 23–41 Open Google Scholar
  19. Eyal Benvenisti, ‘Community Interests in International Adjudication’, in Eyal Benvenisti/Georg Nolte (eds.), Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2018), 70–85 Open Google Scholar
  20. Michael Berk, ‘Recommendations 13 (g) and (h)’, in Eneken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 191–222 Open Google Scholar
  21. Antal Berkes, ‘Human Rights Obligations of the Territorial State in the Cyberspace of Areas Outside Its Effective Control’, Israel Law Review 52 (2019), 197–231 Open Google Scholar
  22. Antal Berkes, ‘The Standard of ‘Due Diligence’ as a Result of Interchange between the Law of Armed Conflict and General International Law’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 23 (2018), 433–460 Open Google Scholar
  23. Samantha Besson, ‘La Due Diligence en Droit International’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye 409 (2020) 153–398 Open Google Scholar
  24. Samantha Besson, ‘Sovereignty’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011) Open Google Scholar
  25. Alan E. Boyle, ‘State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious Consequences of Acts not Prohibited by International Law: A Necessary Distinction?’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 39 (1990), 1–26 Open Google Scholar
  26. Jordan Branch, ‘What’s in a Name? Metaphors and Cybersecurity’, International Organization 75 (2021), 39–70 Open Google Scholar
  27. Dennis Broeders, The Public Core of the Internet (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2015) Open Google Scholar
  28. Gary Brown/Keira Poellet, ‘The Customary International Law of Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly 6 (2012), 126–145 Open Google Scholar
  29. Jutta Brunnée, ‘Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye 405 (2020), 77–240 Open Google Scholar
  30. Jutta Brunnée/Stephen J. Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010) Open Google Scholar
  31. Russell Buchan, Cyber Espionage and International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing 2018) Open Google Scholar
  32. Russell Buchan, ‘The International Legal Regulation of Cyber Espionage’, in Anna Maria Osula/Henry Rõigas (eds.) International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives (NATO CCD COE Publications 2016), 65–86 Open Google Scholar
  33. Russell Buchan, ‘Cyberspace, Non-State Actors and the Obligation to Prevent Transboundary Harm’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 21 (2016), 429–453 Open Google Scholar
  34. Russell Buchan, ‘Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 17 (2012), 211–227 Open Google Scholar
  35. Els de Busser, ‘Recommendation 13d’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 77–94 Open Google Scholar
  36. Christian Calliess/Ansgar Baumgarten, ‘Cybersecurity in the EU The Example of the Financial Sector: A Legal Perspective’, German Law Journal 21 (2020), 1149–1179 Open Google Scholar
  37. Simon Chesterman, ‘Secret Intelligence’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009) Open Google Scholar
  38. Luke Chircop, ‘A Due Diligence Standard of Attribution in Cyberspace’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67 (2018), 1–26 Open Google Scholar
  39. Luke Chircop, ‘Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace after Tallinn Manual 2.0’, Melbourne Journal of International Law 20 (2019), 349–377 Open Google Scholar
  40. Theodore Christakis/Fabien Terpan, ‘EU–US negotiations on law enforcement access to data: divergences, challenges and EU law procedures and options’, International Data Privacy Law 11 (2021), 81–106 Open Google Scholar
  41. Jonathan Clough, ‘A World of Difference: The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the Challenges of Harmonisation’, Monash University Law Review 40 (2015), 698–736 Open Google Scholar
  42. Talita de Souza Dias/Antonio Coco, Cyber Due Diligence in International Law (Print version: Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict 2021) Open Google Scholar
  43. Antonio Coco/Talita de Souza Dias, ‘“Cyber Due Diligence”: A Patchwork of Protective Obligations in International Law’, European Journal of International Law 32 (2021), 771–805 Open Google Scholar
  44. Antonio Coco/Talita de Souza Dias/Tsvetelina van Benthem, ‘Illegal: The SolarWinds Hack under International Law’, European Journal of International Law 33 (2022), 1275–1286 Open Google Scholar
  45. Gary P. Corn/Robert Taylor, ‘Sovereignty in the Age of Cyber’, AJIL Unbound 111 (2017), 207–212 Open Google Scholar
  46. Olivier Corten, The Law against War – The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Oxford: Hart 2010) Open Google Scholar
  47. James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Open Google Scholar
  48. James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012) Open Google Scholar
  49. Rebecca Crootof, ‘International Cybertorts: Expanding State Accountability in Cyberspace’, Cornell Law Review 103 (2018), 565–644 Open Google Scholar
  50. Georg Dahm/Jost Delbrück/Rüdiger Wolfrum, Völkerrecht vol 1/1 Die Grundlagen: Die Völkerrechtssubjekte (2nd edition, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1989) Open Google Scholar
  51. François Delerue, Cyber Operations and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020) Open Google Scholar
  52. François Delerue, ‘Covid-19 and the Cyber Pandemic: A Plea for International Law and the Rule of Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, in Taťána Jančárková/Lauri Lindström et al. (eds.), Going Viral (NATO CCDCOE 2021), 9–24 Open Google Scholar
  53. Hollin Dickerson, ‘Best Practices’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010) Open Google Scholar
  54. Oliver Dörr, ‘Prohibition of Use of Force’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Open Google Scholar
  55. Julia Dornbusch, Das Kampfführungsrecht im internationalen Cyberkrieg (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2018) Open Google Scholar
  56. Pierre-Marie Dupuy/Cristina Hoss, ‘Trail Smelter and Terrorism: International Mechanism to Combat Transboundary Harm’, in Rebecca M. Bratspies/Russell A. Miller (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006), 225–239 Open Google Scholar
  57. Leslie-Anne Duvic-Paoli, The Prevention Principle in International Environmental Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2018) Open Google Scholar
  58. Dan Efrony/Yuval Shany, ‘A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice’, The American Journal of International Law 112 (2018), 583–657 Open Google Scholar
  59. Isabel Feichtner, ‘Community Interest’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007) Open Google Scholar
  60. David P. Fidler, ‘Cyberspace, Terrorism and International Law’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 21 (2016), 475–493 Open Google Scholar
  61. Martha Finnemore/Duncan B. Hollis, ‘Constructing Norms for Global Cybersecurity’, American Journal of International 110 (2016), 425–478 Open Google Scholar
  62. Martha Finnemore/Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52 (1998), 887–917 Open Google Scholar
  63. Caroline E. Foster, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals. Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011) Open Google Scholar
  64. Danielle Flonk/Markus Jachtenfuchs/Aanke S. Obendiek, ‘Authority Conflicts in Internet Governance: Liberals vs. Sovereigntists?’, Global Constitutionalism 9 (2020), 364–386 Open Google Scholar
  65. Wolfgang Friedman, The Changing Structure of International Law (London: Stevens 1964) Open Google Scholar
  66. Marco Gercke, ‘The Slow Wake of A Global Approach Against Cybercrime’, Computer Law Review International 5 (2006), 140–145 Open Google Scholar
  67. Terry D. Gill, ‘Non-intervention in the Cyber Context’, in Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.) Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 217–238 Open Google Scholar
  68. Oren Gross, ‘Cyber Responsibility to Protect: Legal Obligations of States Directly Affected by Cyber-Incidents’, Cornell International Law Journal 48 (2015), 481–511 Open Google Scholar
  69. Kari Hakapää, ‘Innocent Passage’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) Open Google Scholar
  70. Oona Hathaway et al, ‘The Law of Cyber Attack’, California Law Review 100 (2012), 817–885 Open Google Scholar
  71. Melissa Hathaway, ‘Introduction: International Engagement on Cyber V: Securing Critical Infrastructure’, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs (2015), 3–7 Open Google Scholar
  72. Sarah Heathcote, ‘State Omissions and Due Diligence: Aspects of Fault, Damage and Contribution to Injury in the Law of State Responsibility’, in Karine Bannelier/Theodore Christakis/Sarah Heathcote (eds.), The ICJ and the Evolution of International Law: The Enduring Impact of the Corfu Channel Case (London et al.: Routledge 2012), 295–314 Open Google Scholar
  73. Wolf Heintschel von Heinegg, ‘Legal Implications of Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, in Christian Czosseck/Rain Ottis/Katharina Ziolkowski (eds.), International Conference on Cyber Conflict (2012), 7–19 Open Google Scholar
  74. Caitriona Heinl, ‘Recommendation para. 13i’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 223–239 Open Google Scholar
  75. Kevin Jon Heller, ‘In Defense of Pure Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, International Law Studies 97 (2021), 1432–1499 Open Google Scholar
  76. An Hertogen, ‘Letting Lotus Bloom’, European Journal of International Law 26 (2015), 901–926 Open Google Scholar
  77. Stephen C. Hicks, ‘International Order and Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice’, Suffolk Transnational Law Journal 2 (1978), 1–42 Open Google Scholar
  78. Zine Homburger, ‘Recommendation 13a’, in Eneken Tikk (ed.) Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary, (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 9–25 Open Google Scholar
  79. Eric Hutchins/Michael J. Cloppert/Rohan M. Amin, ‘Reconnnaisance, Weaponization, Delivery, Exploitation, Installation, Command and Control and Action on objective’, in Information Warfare & Security Research 1 (2011), 1–14 Open Google Scholar
  80. Eric Talbot Jensen, ‘Computer Attacks on Critical National Infrastructure: A Use of Force Invoking the Right to Self-Defense’, Stanford Journal of International Law (38) 2002, 207–240 Open Google Scholar
  81. Jason D. Jolley, ‘Recommendation para. 13f’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 169–190 Open Google Scholar
  82. Jason D. Jolley, Attribution, State Responsibility, and the Duty to Prevent Malicious Cyber-Attacks in International Law (University of Glasgow 2017) Open Google Scholar
  83. Christopher C. Joyner, ‘Coercion’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006) Open Google Scholar
  84. Asaf Lubin, ‘The Liberty to Spy’, Harvard International Law Journal 61 (2020), 185–243 Open Google Scholar
  85. Jörn Axel Kämmerer, ‘Comity’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020) Open Google Scholar
  86. Krešimir Kamber, ‘Substantive and Procedural Criminal Law Protection of Human Rights in the Law of the European Convention on Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review 20 (2020), 75–100 Open Google Scholar
  87. Jörg Kammerhofer, ‘Uncertainty in the Formal Sources of International Law: Customary International Law and Some of Its Problems’, European Journal of International Law 15 (2004), 523–553 Open Google Scholar
  88. Menno T. Kamminga, ‘Extraterritoriality’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012) Open Google Scholar
  89. Helen Keller, ‘Friendly Relations Declaration (1970)’, in Anne Peters (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2021) Open Google Scholar
  90. Ido Kilovaty, ‘The Elephant in the Room: Coercion’, AJIL Unbound 113 (2019), 87–91 Open Google Scholar
  91. Frederic L. Kirgis, ‘Custom on a Sliding Scale’, American Journal of International Law 81 (1987), 146–151 Open Google Scholar
  92. Uta Kohl, ‘Jurisdiction in Cyberspace’, in Nicholas Tsagourias/Russell Buchan (eds.) Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015), 30–54 Open Google Scholar
  93. Jeff Kosseff, ‘Collective Countermeasures in Cyberspace’, in Notre Dame Journal of International and Comparative Law 10 (2020), 18–39 Open Google Scholar
  94. Jan Kleijssen/Pierluigi Perri, ‘Cybercrime, Evidence and Territoriality: Issues and Options’, in Martin Kuijer/Wouter Werner (eds.), The Changing Nature of Territoriality in International Law (Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2016), 147–173 Open Google Scholar
  95. Thomas Kleinlein, ‘Customary International Law and General Principles Rethinking Their Relationship’, in Brian D. Lepard (ed.) Reexamining Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres 2017), 131–158 Open Google Scholar
  96. Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1999) Open Google Scholar
  97. Markus Krajewski, ‘Due Diligence in International Trade Law’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 312–328 Open Google Scholar
  98. Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Sovereignty in Cyberspace – A Rule Without Content?, in Antonio Segura Serrano (ed.), Global Cybersecurity and International Law (London: Routledge 2024), 29–43. Open Google Scholar
  99. Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Hobbesscher Naturzustand im Cyberspace? Enge Grenzen der Völkerrechtsdurchsetzung bei Cyberangriffen’, in Ines-Jacqueline Werkner/Niklas Schörnig (eds.), Cyberwar – die Digitalisierung der Kriegsführung (Wiesbaden: Springer 2019), 63–86 Open Google Scholar
  100. Heike Krieger/Jonas Püschmann, ‘Law-making and legitimacy in international humanitarian law’, in Heike Krieger (ed.), Law-Making and Legitimacy in International Humanitarian Law (Cheltenham et al.: Edward Elgar 2021), 1–14 Open Google Scholar
  101. Heike Krieger/Anne Peters, ‘Due Diligence and Structural Change in the International Legal Order’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 351–390 Open Google Scholar
  102. Heike Krieger, ‘Conceptualizing Cyberwar, Changing the Law by Imagining Extreme Conditions?’, in Thomas Eger/Stefan Oeter/Stefan Voigt (eds), International Law and the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions: An Economic Perspective (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2017), 195–212 Open Google Scholar
  103. Heike Krieger/Georg Nolte, ‘The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline? – Approaching Current Foundational Challenges’, in Heike Krieger/Georg Nolte/Andreas Zimmermann (eds.), The International Rule of Law: Rise or Decline? (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019), 3–30. Open Google Scholar
  104. Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020) Open Google Scholar
  105. Heike Krieger, ‘Positive Verpflichtungen unter der EMRK: Unentbehrliches Element einer gemeineuropäischen Grundrechtsdogmatik, leeres Versprechen oder Grenze der Justiziabilität?’, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 74 (2014), 187–213 Open Google Scholar
  106. Heike Krieger, ‘Krieg gegen anonymous’, Archiv des Völkerrechts 50 (2012), 1–20 Open Google Scholar
  107. Philip Kunig, ‘Prohibition of Intervention’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008) Open Google Scholar
  108. Henning Christian Lahmann, ‘On the Politics and Ideologies of the Sovereignty Discourse in Cyberspace’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 32 (2021), 61–107 Open Google Scholar
  109. Henning Christian Lahmann, Unilateral Remedies to Cyber Operations: Self-Defence, Countermeasures, Necessity, and the Question of Attribution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020) Open Google Scholar
  110. Henning Lahmann/Robin Geiß, ‘Freedom and Security in Cyberspace: Non-Forcible Countermeasures and Collective Threat-Prevention’, in Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.) Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 621–657 Open Google Scholar
  111. Laurens Lavrysen, Human Rights in a Positive State (Cambridge et al.: intersentia 2017) Open Google Scholar
  112. Brian Lepard (ed.), Re-examining Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) Open Google Scholar
  113. Martin C. Libicki, ‘Cyberspace is not a Warfighting Domain’, I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 8 (2012), 321–336 Open Google Scholar
  114. Andreas Lichter/Max Löffler/Sebastian Siegloch, ‘The Long-Term Costs of Government Surveillance’, Journal of the European Economic Association 19 (2021), 741–789 Open Google Scholar
  115. Kubo Mačák, ‘From Cyber Norms to Cyber Rules: Re-engaging States as Law-makers ‘, Leiden Journal of International Law 30 (2017), 877–899 Open Google Scholar
  116. Ian H. Mack, Towards Intelligent Self-Defence: Bringing Peacetime Espionage in From the Cold and Under the Rubric of the Right of Self-Defence (Sydney Law School 2013) Open Google Scholar
  117. Dieter Martiny, ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009) Open Google Scholar
  118. Nele Matz-Lück, ‘Norm Interpretation across International Regimes: Competences and Legitimacy’, in Margaret A. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law – Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012), 201–234 Open Google Scholar
  119. Neil McDonald, ‘The Role of Due Diligence in International Law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 68 (2019), 1041–1054 Open Google Scholar
  120. Alexander Melnitzky, ‘Defending America against Chinese Cyber Espionage Though the Use of Active Defences’, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 20 (2012), 537–570 Open Google Scholar
  121. Nils Melzer, Cyberwarfare and International Law (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Ideas for Peace and Security-Resources 2011) Open Google Scholar
  122. Marko Milanovic/Michael Schmitt, ‘Cyber Attacks and Cyber (Mis)information Operations during a Pandemic’, Journal of National Security Law & Policy 11 (2020), 247–284 Open Google Scholar
  123. Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011) Open Google Scholar
  124. Alex Mills, ‘Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law 84 (2014), 187–239 Open Google Scholar
  125. Maria Monnheimer, Due Diligence Obligations in International Human Rights Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2021) Open Google Scholar
  126. Milton L. Mueller, ‘Against Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, International Studies Review 22 (2020), 779–801 Open Google Scholar
  127. Martin Ney/Andreas Zimmermann, ‘Cyber-Security Beyond the Military Perspective: International Law, “Cyberspace” and the Concept of Due Diligence’, German Yearbook of International Law 58 (2015), 51–66 Open Google Scholar
  128. Jens David Ohlin, ‘Did Russian Cyber Interference in the 2016 Election Violate International Law?’, Texas Law Review (95) 2017, 1579–1598 Open Google Scholar
  129. Alice Ollino, Due Diligence Obligations in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2022) Open Google Scholar
  130. Phoebe Okowa, ‘Procedural Obligations in International Environmental Agreements’, British Yearbook of International Law 67 (1997), 275–336 Open Google Scholar
  131. Lassa Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, War and Neutrality (New York/Bombay: Longmans, Green and Co. 1906) Open Google Scholar
  132. Bernard H. Oxman, ‘Jurisdiction of States’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007) Open Google Scholar
  133. Andreas Paulus, ‘The Judge and International Custom’, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 12 (2013), 253–265 Open Google Scholar
  134. Anne Peters/Heike Krieger/Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Due diligence: the risky risk management tool in international law’, Cambridge Journal of International Law 9 (2020), 121–136 Open Google Scholar
  135. Anne Peters/Heike Krieger/Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Dissecting the Leitmotif of Current Accountability Debates: Due Diligence in the International Legal Order’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 1–19 Open Google Scholar
  136. Anne Peters, ‘Corruption as a Violation of International Human Rights’, European Journal of International Law 29 (2018), 1251–1287 Open Google Scholar
  137. Anne Peters, ‘The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 15 (2017), 671–704 Open Google Scholar
  138. Niels Petersen, ‘The Role of Consent and Uncertainty in the Formation of Customary International Law’, in Brian D. Lepard (ed.) Reexamining Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2017), 111–130 Open Google Scholar
  139. Anton Petrov, Expert Laws of War Restating and Making Law in Expert Processes (Cheltenham et al.: Edward Elgar 2020) Open Google Scholar
  140. Benedikt Pirker, ‘Territorial Sovereignty and Integrity and the Challenges of Cyberspace’, in: Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.), Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 189–216 Open Google Scholar
  141. Mark A. Pollack/Gregory C. Shaffer, ‘The Interaction of Formal and Informal International Lawmaking, in Joost Pauwelyn/Ramses A. Wessel/Jan Wouters (eds), Informal International Lawmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012), 241–270 Open Google Scholar
  142. Lavanya Rajamani, ‘Due Diligence in International Change Law’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 163–180 Open Google Scholar
  143. Elspeth Reid, ‘Liability for Dangerous Activities: A Comparative Analysis’, International Comparative Law Quarterly 48 (1999), 731–756 Open Google Scholar
  144. August Reinisch/Markus Beham, ‘Mitigating Risks: Inter-State Due Diligence Obligations in Case of Harmful Cyber Incidents and Malicious Cyber Activity – Obligations of the Transit State’, German Yearbook of International Law 58 (2015), 101–112 Open Google Scholar
  145. Thomas Rid, Cyber War Will Not Take Place (Hurst 2017) Open Google Scholar
  146. Anthea Roberts, ‘Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation’, American Journal of International Law 95 (2001) 757–791 Open Google Scholar
  147. Przemysław Roguski, ‘An Inspection Regime for Cyber Weapons: A Challenge Too Far?, AJIL Unbound 115 (2021) 110–115 Open Google Scholar
  148. Przemysław Roguski, ‘Violations of Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace – an Intrusion-Based Approach’, in Dennis Broeders/Bibi van den Berg (eds.), Governing Cyberspace: Behaviour, Power and Diplomacy (London: Rowman & Littlefield 2020), 65–84 Open Google Scholar
  149. Przemysław Roguski, ‘Collective Countermeasures in Cyberspace – Lex Lata, Progressive Development or a Bad Idea?’ in Taťána Jančárková/Lauri Lindström et al. (eds.), 20/20 Vision: The Next Decade (NATO CCDCOE 2020), 25–42 Open Google Scholar
  150. Marco Roscini, ‘Military Objectives in Cyber Warfare’, in Mariarosaria Taddeo/Ludovica Glorioso (ed.), Ethics and Policies for Cyber Operations (NATO CCDCO 2017), 99–114 Open Google Scholar
  151. Marco Roscini, Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014) Open Google Scholar
  152. Tom Ruys, ‘The Meaning of Force and the Boundaries of the Jus ad Bellum’, American Journal of International Law 108 (2014) 159–210 Open Google Scholar
  153. Time René Salomon, ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) Open Google Scholar
  154. Barrie Sander, ‘Democracy Under The Influence: Paradigms of State Responsibility for Cyber Influence Operations on Elections’, Chinese Journal of International Law 18 (2019), 1–56 Open Google Scholar
  155. Beth van Schaack, ‘The United States’ Position on the Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Obligations: Now is the Time for Change’, International Law Studies 90 (2014), 20–65 Open Google Scholar
  156. Oscar Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice (Dordrecht et al.: Martinus Nijhoff 1991) Open Google Scholar
  157. Stein Schjolberg/Solange Ghernaouti-Hélie, A Global Treaty on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime (2nd edition, Oslo: AiTOslo 2011) Open Google Scholar
  158. Michael N. Schmitt (ed.), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2017) Open Google Scholar
  159. Michael N. Schmitt/Liis Vihul, ‘Respect for Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, Texas Law Review 95 (2017), 1639–1670 Open Google Scholar
  160. Michael N. Schmitt, ‘In Defense of Due Diligence in Cyberspace’, Yale Law Journal Forum 125 (2015), 68–81 Open Google Scholar
  161. Sven-Hendrik Schulze, Cyber-»War« – Testfall der Staatenverantwortlichkeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2015) Open Google Scholar
  162. Antonio Segura-Serrano, ‘The Challenge of Global Cybersecurity’, in: Antonio Segura-Serrano (ed.), Global Cybersecurity and International Law (Routledge 2024), 1–9 Open Google Scholar
  163. Anja Seibert-Fohr, ‘From Complicity to Due Diligence: When Do States Incur Responsibility for Their Involvement in Serious International Wrongdoing?’, German Yearbook of International Law 60 (2017), 667–708 Open Google Scholar
  164. Yuval Shany, ‘Taking Universality Seriously: A Functional Approach to Extraterritoriality in International Human Rights Law’, The Law & Ethics of Human Rights 7 (2013), 47–71 Open Google Scholar
  165. Dinah L. Shelton, ‘Law, Non-Law and the Problem of “Soft Law”’, in Dina L. Shelton (ed.) Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non‐Binding Norms in the International Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000), 1–20 Open Google Scholar
  166. Christina Parajon Skinner, ‘An International Law Response to Economic Cyber Espionage’, Connecticut Law Review 46 (2014) 1165–1207 Open Google Scholar
  167. Matthew Sklerov, ‘Solving the Dilemma of State Response to Cyberattacks’, Military Law Review 201 (2009), 1–85 Open Google Scholar
  168. Peter Stockburger, ‘From Grey Zone to Customary International Law: How Adopting the Precautionary Principle May Help Crystallize the Due Diligence Principle in Cyberspace’, in Tomás̆ Minárik/Raik Jakschis/Lauri Lindström (eds.), 10th International Conference on Cyber Conflict CyCon X: Maximising Effects 2018 (NATO CCD COE 2018), 245–262 Open Google Scholar
  169. Vladislava Stoyanova, ‘Fault, Knowledge and Risk Within the Framework of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’, Leiden Journal of International Law 33 (2020), 601–620 Open Google Scholar
  170. Jamie Strawbridge, ‘The Big Bluff: Obama, Cyber Economic Espionage, and the Threat of WTO Litigation’, Georgetown Journal of International Law 47 (2016), 833–870 Open Google Scholar
  171. Milan Tahraoui, ‘Surveillance des flux de données: juridiction ou compétences de l’État, des notions à refonder’, in Matthias Audit/Etienne Pataut (eds.), L'extraterritorialité (Paris: Pedone 2020), 141–194 Open Google Scholar
  172. Stefan Talmon, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’, European Journal of International Law 26 (2015), 417–443 Open Google Scholar
  173. Christian Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2009) Open Google Scholar
  174. Attila Tanzi, ‘Liability for Lawful Acts’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010) Open Google Scholar
  175. Hugh W.A Thirlway, International Customary Law and Codification: An Examination of the Continuing Role of Custom in the Present Period of Codification of International Law (Leiden: Sijthoff 1972) Open Google Scholar
  176. Eneken Tikk, ‘Introduction’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017) Open Google Scholar
  177. Eneken Tikk/Kadri Kaska/Liis Vihul, International Cyber Incidents – Legal Considerations (NATO CCDCOE 2010) Open Google Scholar
  178. Stephen Townley, ‘The Rise of Risk in International Law’, Chicago Journal of International Law 18 (2018), 594–646 Open Google Scholar
  179. Arie Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff 2006) Open Google Scholar
  180. Nicholas Tsagourias/Michael Farrell, ‘Cyber Attribution: Technical and Legal Approaches and Challenges’, European Journal of International Law 31 (2020), 941–967 Open Google Scholar
  181. Nicholas Tsagourias, ‘Recommendation 13j’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 241–264 Open Google Scholar
  182. Bobby Vedral, ‘The Vulnerability of the Financial System to a Systemic Cyberattack’, in Taťána Jančárková/Lauri Lindström et al. (eds.), Going Viral (NATO CCDCOE 2021), 95–110 Open Google Scholar
  183. Eleonora Viganò/Michele Loi/Emad Yaghmaei, ‘Cybersecurity of Critical Infrastructure’, in Markus Christen Bert Gordijn Michele Loi (eds.), The Ethics of Cybersecurity (Berlin: Springer Nature 2020), 157–178 Open Google Scholar
  184. Federica Violi, ‘The Function of the Triad “Territory”, “Jurisdiction”, and “Control” in Due Diligence Obligations’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 75–91 Open Google Scholar
  185. Silja Vöneky, ‘Analogy’, in Anne Peters (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia for Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020) Open Google Scholar
  186. Beatrice A. Walton, ‘Duties Owed: Low-Intensity Cyber Attacks and Liability for Transboundary Torts in International Law’, Yale Law Journal 126 (2017), 1460–1519 Open Google Scholar
  187. Sean Watts, ‘Low-Intensity Cyber Operations and the Principle of Non-Intervention,’ in Jens D. Ohlin/Kevin Govern/Claire Finkelstein, Cyber War: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015), 249–270 Open Google Scholar
  188. Stephan Wilske, ‘Abduction’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Open Google Scholar
  189. Thomas Wischmeyer, Informationssicherheit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2023) Open Google Scholar
  190. Rüdiger Wolfrum/Mirka Möldner, ‘International Courts and Tribunals, Evidence’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) Open Google Scholar
  191. Rüdiger Wolfrum, ‘International Law of Cooperation’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010) Open Google Scholar
  192. Johann-Christoph Woltag, Cyber Warfare: Military Cross-Border Computer Network Operations Under International Law (Cambridge et al.: Intersentia 2014) Open Google Scholar
  193. Michael Wood, ‘Customary International Law and the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations’, International Community Law Review 21 (2019) 307–324 Open Google Scholar
  194. William Thomas Worster, ‘The Inductive and Deductive Methods in Customary International Law Analysis: Traditional and Modern Approaches’, Georgetown Journal of International Law 45 (2014), 445–521 Open Google Scholar
  195. Quincy Wright, ‘Espionage and the Doctrine of Non-Intervention in Internal Affairs’, in Roland J. Stanger (ed.), Essays on Espionage and International Law (Columbus: Ohio State University Press 1962) Open Google Scholar
  196. Li Zhang, ‘A Chinese Perspective on Cyber War’, International Review of the Red Cross 94 (2012), 801–807 Open Google Scholar
  197. Zhixiong Huang/Kubo Mačák, ‘Towards the International Rule of Law in Cyberspace: Contrasting Chinese and Western Approaches’, Chinese Journal of International Law 16 (2017), 271–310 Open Google Scholar
  198. Katharina Ziolkowski, ‘General Principles of International Law as Applicable in Cyberspace’ in Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.) Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 135–188 Open Google Scholar
  199. Blogposts Open Google Scholar
  200. Dapo Akande/Antonio Coco/Talita de Souza Dias, ‘Old Habits Die Hard: Applying Existing International Law in Cyberspace and Beyond’, 5 January 2021, EJIL:Talk!, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/old-habits-die-hard-applying-existing-international-law-in-cyberspace-and-beyond/ Open Google Scholar
  201. Prableen Bajpai, ‘The 5 Largest Economies In The World And Their Growth In 2020’, Nasdaq, 22 January 2020, available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-5-largest-economies-in-the-world-and-their-growth-in-2020-2020-01-22 Open Google Scholar
  202. Russell Buchan, ‘Eye on the Spy: International Law, Digital Supply Chains and the SolarWinds and Microsoft Hacks’, Völkerrechtsblog, 31 March 2021, available at: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/eye-on-the-spy/ Open Google Scholar
  203. Gary Corn, ‘Covert Deception, Strategic Fraud, and the Rule of Prohibited Intervention’, LawfareBlog, 24 September 2020, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/covert-deception-strategic-fraud-and-rule-prohibited-intervention Open Google Scholar
  204. Kristen Eichensehr, ‘Three Questions on the WannaCry Attribution to North Korea’, JustSecurity, 20 December 2017, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/49889/questions-wannacry-attribution-north-korea Open Google Scholar
  205. Tomaso Falchetta, ‘The Draft UN Cybercrime Treaty Is Overbroad and Falls Short On Human Rights Protection’, JustSecurity, 22 January 2024, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/91318/the-draft-un-cybercrime-treaty-is-overbroad-and-falls-short-on-human-rights-protection/ Open Google Scholar
  206. Michael P. Fischerkeller, ‘Current International Law Is Not an Adequate Regime for Cyberspace’, LawfareBlog, 22 April 2021, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/current-international-law-not-adequate-regime-cyberspace Open Google Scholar
  207. Jack Goldsmith, ‘Self-Delusion on the Russia Hack’, 18 December 2020, The Dispatch, available at: https://thedispatch.com/p/self-delusion-on-the-russia-hack?s=r Open Google Scholar
  208. Oona Hathaway/Alasdair Phillips-Robins, ‘COVID-19 and International Law Series: Vaccine Theft, Disinformation, the Law Governing Cyber Operations’, JustSecurity, 4 December 2020, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/73699/covid-19-and-international-law-series-vaccine-theft-disinformation-the-law-governing-cyber-operations/ Open Google Scholar
  209. Sven Herpig/Ari Schwartz, ‘The Future of Vulnerabilities Equities Processes Around the World’, Lawfare, 4 January 2019, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/future-vulnerabilities-equities-processes-around-world Open Google Scholar
  210. Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Disentangling the Cyber Security Debate’, Völkerrechtsblog, 20 June 2018, available at: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/disentangling-the-cyber-security-debate/ Open Google Scholar
  211. Heike Krieger, ‘Sovereignty – an Empty Vessel?’, EJIL:Talk!, 7 July 2020, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/sovereignty-an-empty-vessel/ Open Google Scholar
  212. Marko Milanovic, ‘Wieder and Guarnieri v UK: A Justifiably Expansive Approach to the Extraterritorial Application of the Right to Privacy in Surveillance Cases’, EJIL:Talk!, 21 March 2024, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/wieder-and-guarnieri-v-uk-a-justifiably-expansive-approach-to-the-extraterritorial-application-of-the-right-to-privacy-in-surveillance-cases/ Open Google Scholar
  213. Marko Milanovic, ‘The Grand Normalization of Mass Surveillance: ECtHR Grand Chamber Judgments in Big Brother Watch and Centrum för rättvisa’, EJIL:Talk!, 26 May 2021 available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-grand-normalization-of-mass-surveillance-ecthr-grand-chamber-judgments-in-big-brother-watch-and-centrum-for-rattvisa/ Open Google Scholar
  214. Anne Peters, ‘Surveillance Without Borders? The Unlawfulness of the NSA-Panopticon, Part II’, Ejil:Talk!, 4 November 2013, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/surveillance-without-borders-the-unlawfulness-of-the-nsa-panopticon-part-ii/ Open Google Scholar
  215. Mark Pomerleau, ‘What is ‘sovereignty’ in cyberspace? Depends who you ask’, FifthDomain, 21 November 2019, available at: https://www.c4isrnet.com/international/2019/11/21/what-is-sovereignty-in-cyberspace-depends-who-you-ask/ Open Google Scholar
  216. Przemysław Roguski, ‘The Importance of New Statements on Sovereignty in Cyberspace by Austria, the Czech Republic and United States’, 11 May 2020, JustSecurity, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/70108/the-importance-of-new-statements-on-sovereignty-in-cyberspace-by-austria-the-czech-republic-and-united-states/ Open Google Scholar
  217. Michael N. Schmitt, ‘Three International Law Rules for Responding Effectively to Hostile Cyber Operations’, JustSecurity, 13 July 2021, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/77402/three-international-law-rules-for-responding-effectively-to-hostile-cyber-operations/ Open Google Scholar
  218. Michael N. Schmitt, ‘The Sixth United Nations GGE and International Law in Cyberspace’, JustSecurity, 10 June 2021, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76864/the-sixth-united-nations-gge-and-international-law-in-cyberspace/ Open Google Scholar
  219. Michael N. Schmitt, ‘Terminological Precision and International Cyber Law’, Articles of War, 29 July 2021, available at: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/terminological-precision-international-cyber-law/ Open Google Scholar
  220. Michael N. Schmitt, ‘Russia’s SolarWinds Operation and International Law’, JustSecurity, 21 December 2020, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/73946/russias-solarwinds-operation-and-international-law/ Open Google Scholar
  221. Michael N. Schmitt, ‘In Defense of Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, JustSecurity, 8 May 2018, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/55876/defense-sovereignty-cyberspace/ Open Google Scholar
  222. Alexis Steffaro, ‘Detour or Deadlock? Decoding the Suspended UN Cybercrime Treaty Negotiations’, 4 March 2024, available at: https://www.centerforcybersecuritypolicy.org/insights-and-research/detour-or-deadlock-decoding-the-suspended-un-cybercrime-treaty-negotiations/ Open Google Scholar
  223. Yevgeny Vindman, ‘Is the SolarWinds Cyberattack an Act of War? It Is, If the United States Says It Is’, JustSecurity, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/solarwinds-cyberattack-act-war-it-if-united-states-says-it/ Open Google Scholar
  224. Research paper Open Google Scholar
  225. Annegret Bendiek, ‘Due Diligence in Cyberspace – Guidelines for International and European Cyber Policy and Cybersecurity Policy’, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik – Research Paper 2016 Open Google Scholar
  226. Carme Colomina/Héctor Sanchez Margalef/Richard Youngs, ‘The Impact of Disinformation on Democratic Processes and Human Rights in the World’, Study Requested by the DROI subcommittee (European Parliament), April 2021 Open Google Scholar
  227. David P. Fidler, ‘Economic Cyber Espionage and International Law: Controversies Involving Government Acquisition of Trade Secrets Through Cyber Technologies’, ASIL Insights 17 (2013) Open Google Scholar
  228. Sven Herpig, Active Cyber Defense – Toward Operational Norms (Stiftung Neue Verantwortung 2023) Open Google Scholar
  229. Sven Herpig, A Framework for Government Hacking in Criminal Investigations (Stiftung Neue Verantwortung 2018) Open Google Scholar
  230. Klaus Lenssen, ‘…on the Ground: An Industry Perspective’, in Ingolf Pernice/Jörg Pohle (eds.), Privacy and Cyber Security on the Books and on the Ground (Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society 2018), 107–110 Open Google Scholar
  231. James Lewis, ‘Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats’, Center for Strategic and International Studies 2002 Open Google Scholar
  232. Tambiama Madiega, ‘Digital Sovereignty for Europe’, EPRS – European Parliamentary Research Service, July 2020 Open Google Scholar
  233. Zhanna Malekos Smith/Eugenia Lostri/James A. Lewis (Project Director), McAfee, ‘The Hidden Costs of Cybercrime’, 9 December 2020 Open Google Scholar
  234. Tim Maurer/Robert Morgus, Tipping the Scale: An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate (The Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Royal Institute for International Affairs 2014) Open Google Scholar
  235. Harriet Moynihan, ‘The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks Sovereignty and Non-intervention’, Chatham House – Research Paper, 2019 Open Google Scholar
  236. Przemysław Roguski, ‘Application of International Law to Cyber Operations: A Comparative Analysis of States’ Views’, The Hague Program for Cyber Norms, Policy Brief, 2020 Open Google Scholar
  237. Christina Rupp/Alexandra Paulus, Official Public Political Attribution of Cyber Operations – State of Play and Policy Options (Stiftung Neue Verantwortung 2023) Open Google Scholar
  238. Stefan Talmon, ‘Das Abhören des Kanzlerhandys und das Völkerrecht’, Bonn Research Papers on Public International Law 3 (2013) Open Google Scholar
  239. Enekken Tikk/Mika Kerttunen, ‘The Alleged Demise of the UN GGE: An Autopsy and Eulogy’, Cyber Policy Institute, 2017 Open Google Scholar
  240. Ann Valjataga, ‘Tracing Opinio Juris in National Cyber Security Strategy Documents‘, NATO CCDCOE 2018, 1–18 Open Google Scholar
  241. Expert testimonies Open Google Scholar
  242. Helmut Philipp Aust, 1. Untersuchungsausschuss der 18. Wahlperiode des Deutschen Bundestages Stellungnahme zur Sachverständigenanhörung am 5. Juni 2014 Open Google Scholar
  243. Non-legal articles/news (online) Open Google Scholar
  244. Ronen Bergman/David M Halbfinger, ‘Israel Hack of Iran Port Is Latest Salvo in Exchange of Cyberattacks’, NYTimes, 18 May 2021 Open Google Scholar
  245. Ronen Bergman/Rick Gladstone/Farnaz Fassihi’, Blackout Hits Iran Nuclear Site in What Appears to Be Israeli Sabotage, New York Times, 11 April 2021 Open Google Scholar
  246. Patrick Beuth, ‘Der Spionagefall des Jahres’, Der Spiegel, 18 December 2020 Open Google Scholar
  247. Russell Brandom, ‘UK Hospitals Hit with Massive Ransomware Attack’, The Verge, 12 May 2017, available at: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/12/15630354/nhs-hospitals-ransomware-hack-wannacry-bitcoin Open Google Scholar
  248. Gary D. Brown/Owen W. Tullos, ‘On the Spectrum of Cyberspace Operations’, Small Wars Journal, 11 December 2012, available at: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/on-the-spectrum-of-cyberspace-operations Open Google Scholar
  249. Kellen Browning, ‘Hundreds of Businesses, From Sweden to U.S., Affected by Cyberattack’, New York Times, 2 July 2021 Open Google Scholar
  250. Tom Burt, ‘New Cyberattacks Targeting U.S. Elections’, MicrosoftBlog, 10 September 2020 Open Google Scholar
  251. Adrian Croft, ‘EU Threatens to Suspend Data-sharing with U.S. over Spying Reports’, Reuters, 5 July 2013, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-security-eu-idINDEE96409F20130705 Open Google Scholar
  252. Grace Dobush, ‘20-year-old German Hacker Confesses in Doxxing Case’, Handelsblatt, 1 August 2019 Open Google Scholar
  253. Ryan Dube, ‘What Is Binary Code and How Does It Work?’, Lifewire, 2 March 2022, available at: https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-binary-and-how-does-it-work-4692749 Open Google Scholar
  254. Myriam Dunn Cavelty/Jacqueline Eggenschwiler, ‘Behavioral Norms in Cyberspace’, The Security Times, February 2019 Open Google Scholar
  255. Melissa Eddy/Nicole Pelroth, ‘Cyber Attack Suspected in German Woman’s Death’, New York Times, 18 September 2020, Open Google Scholar
  256. Josh Frühliner, ‘The CIA Triad: Definition, Components and Examples’, CSO Online, 10 February 2020, available at: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3519908/the-cia-triad-definition-components-and-examples.html Open Google Scholar
  257. Alex Grigsby, ‘The United Nations Doubles Its Workload on Cyber Norms, and Not Everyone Is Pleased’, Council on Foreign Relations, 15 November 2018, available at: https://www.cfr.org/blog/united-nations-doubles-its-workload-cyber-norms-and-not-everyone-pleased Open Google Scholar
  258. Thomas Holt, ‘What Are Software Vulnerabilities, and Why Are There so Many of Them?’, The Conversation, 23 May 2017 Open Google Scholar
  259. Michael Knigge, ‘NSA Surveillance Eroded Transatlantic Trust’, DW, 27 December 2013, available at: https://www.dw.com/en/nsa-surveillance-eroded-transatlantic-trust/a-17311216 Open Google Scholar
  260. Meike Laaff, ‘Wie eine Cyberattacke einen ganzen Landkreis lahmlegt’, ZEIT Online, 12 July 2021 Open Google Scholar
  261. Steve Morgan, ‘Cybercrime To Cost The World $10.5 Trillion Annually By 2025’, 13 November 2020, available at: https://cybersecurityventures.com/cybercrime-damage-costs-10-trillion-by-2025/ Open Google Scholar
  262. Olga Pavlova, ‘Putin says Russia Prepared to Extradite Cyber Criminals to US on Reciprocal Basis’, CNN, 13 June 2021 Open Google Scholar
  263. Chad Perrin, ‘The CIA Triad’, TechRepublic, 30 June 2008, available at: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-cia-triad/ Open Google Scholar
  264. Ian Phillips/Vladimir Isachenkov, ‘Putin: Russia Doesn’t Hack but “Patriotic” Individuals Might’, APNews, 1 June 2017 Open Google Scholar
  265. James Risen/Eric Lichtblau, ‘How the U.S. Uses Technology to Mine More Data More Quickly’, New York Times, 8 June 2013 Open Google Scholar
  266. Irina Rizmal, ‘Cyberterrorism: What Are We (not) Talking About?’, Diplo, 3 August 2017 Open Google Scholar
  267. Jordan Robertson/Laurence Arnold, ‘Cyberwar: How Nations Attack Without Bullets or Bombs’, Washington Post, 14 December 2020 Open Google Scholar
  268. Dan Sabbagh/Andrew Roth, ‘Russian State-Sponsored Hackers Target Covid-19 Vaccine Researchers’, Guardian, 16 July 2020 Open Google Scholar
  269. David E. Sanger/Nicole Perlroth/Eric Schmitt, ‘Scope of Russian Hacking Becomes Clear: Multiple U.S. Agencies Were Hit’, New York Times, 9 September 2021 Open Google Scholar
  270. Bruce Schneier, ‘Class Breaks’, Schneier on Security, 3 January 2017 Open Google Scholar
  271. Bruce Schneier, ‘Simultaneous Discovery of Vulnerabilities’, Schneier on Security, 15 February 2016 Open Google Scholar
  272. Vladimir Soldatkin/Humeyra Pamuk, ‘Biden Tells Putin Certain Cyberattacks Should be 'off-limits'’, Reuters, 17 June 2021 Open Google Scholar
  273. Robert Sprague/Sean Valentine, ‘Due Diligence’, Encyclopædia Britannica, 4 October 2018. Open Google Scholar
  274. Mehul Srivastava, ‘WhatsApp voice calls used to inject Israeli spyware on phones’, Financial Times, 14 May 2019 Open Google Scholar
  275. Friedel Taube, ‘Russia-Ukraine Conflict: What Role Do Cyberattacks Play?’, Deutsche Welle, 28 February 2022, available at: https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-conflict-what-role-do-cyberattacks-play/a-60945572. Open Google Scholar
  276. Ian Tennant/Summer Walker, ‘Cyber, Fire and Fury’, Global Initiative, 17 March 2022, available at: https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/un-cybercrime-treaty/. Open Google Scholar
  277. Maegan Vazquez/Allie Malloy, ‘Biden Will Discuss Recent Cyber Attack on Meat Producer with Putin in Geneva’, CNN, 2 June 2021 Open Google Scholar
  278. Kim Zetter, ‘Inside the Cunning, Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine's Power Grid’, Wired, 3 March 2016 Open Google Scholar
  279. Unnamed: ‘Pegasus: Spyware Sold to Governments 'Targets Activists'’, BBC, 19 July 2021, available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57881364 Open Google Scholar
  280. Unnamed: ‘How the Dutch Foiled Russian “Cyber-attack” on OPCW’, BBC, 4 October 2018, available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45747472 Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Book Titles No access
Yannis Ockernahl
Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Cover of book: Der Volkseinwand
Book Titles No access
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Book Titles No access
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex