World Wide Warfare – Jus ad bellum and the Use of Cyber Force

Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law

Volumn 14, Issue , 2010, Pages 85-130

  Roscini, Marco ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85181951166     PISSN: 13894633     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (141)

1. 1 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks on securing the nation’s cyber infrastructure”, Press Release, 29 May 2009, .
2. ).
3. 1, 2 May 2007 – Incorporating Change 1, 20 March 2009, at GL-7 ).
4. The new United States National Security Strategy also recalls that “[t]he very technologies that empower us to lead and create also empower those who would disrupt and destroy”, National Security Strategy, May 2010, 27
5. .
6. 5 McAfee Report, In the Crossfire – Critical Infrastructure in the Age of Cyber War, 2010, 11 .
7. 6 United States National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, see note 3, 6. power: a cyber attack could for instance disable power generators, cut off the military command, control and communication systems, cause trains to derail and airplanes to crash, nuclear reactors to melt down, pipelines to explode, weapons to malfunction.
8. 10
9. 11 In fact, although – as will be seen – identification is problematic, several states have been the target of cyber attacks of which other states were suspected. In certain cases, the cyber attacks were an end in themselves. The United States, for instance, has been the target
10. 7 See, e.g., the Preambles of Resolutions A/RES/55/28 of 20 November 2000,
11. A/RES/56/19 of 29 November 2001, A/RES/59/61 of 3 December 2004,
12. A/RES/60/45 of 8 December 2005, A/RES/61/54 of 6 December 2006,
13. A/RES/62/17 of 5 December 2007, A/RES/63/37 of 2 December 2008, A/RES/64/25 of 2 December 2009.
14. 8 See, e.g., the Preambles of Resolutions A/RES/55/63 of 4 December 2000, A/RES/56/121 of 19 December 2001.
15. 10 For the documents adopted at the Summit, see .
16. S.J. Shackelford, “From Nuclear War to Net War: Analogizing Cyber Attacks in International Law”, Berkeley Journal of International Law 27 (2009), 192 et seq. (204).
17. 13 D.B. Hollis, “Why States Need an International Law for Information Operations”, Lewis and Clark Law Review 11 (2007), 1023
18. 14 J. Richards, “Thousands of cyber attacks each day on key utilities”, The Times, 23 August 2008. According to the Annual Report 2009-2010
19. , United Kingdom Intelligence and Security Committee, Annual Report 2009-2010, March 2010, 16.
20. 15 S.W. Brenner, “‘At Light Speed’: Attribution and Response to Cyber-crime/Terrorism/Warfare”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 97 (2006-2007), 379 et seq. (402).
21. 16 M. Weaver, “Cyber attackers target South Korea and US”, The Guardian, 8 July 2009.
22. 17 In June 2008, after the Lithuanian Parliament adopted a law prohibiting the public display of Soviet symbols, political and private websites were defaced, S. Rhodin, “Hackers Tag Lithuanian Web Sites With Soviet Symbols”, The New York Times, 1 July 2008.
23. 18 D. Bradbery, “The fog of cyberwar”, The Guardian, Technology Supplement, 5 February 2009, 1.
24. 19 M. Barkoviak, “Swiss Ministry Suffers Cyber Attack”, Daily Tech, 28 October 2009 .
25. 20 A cyber attack forced the shut down of more than 150 websites, including the postal service and several banks’ websites in March 2010. The attack apparently originated in Kosovo .
26. D.B. Silver, “Computer Network Attack as a Use of Force under Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter”, in: Schmitt/ O’Donnell, see note 11, 74;
27. N. Solce, “The Battlefield of Cyberspace: The Inevitable New Military Branch – The Cyber Force”, Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 18 (2008), 293 et seq. (315).
28. 22 Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE), Cyber Attacks Against Georgia: Legal Lessons Identified, November 2008, 5.
29. 23 J. Markoff, “Before the Gunfire, Cyberattacks”, The New York Times, 13 August 2008. “Defacement” is the replacement of the content of the website in order to change its visual appearance.
30. 24 , J.A. Lewis, “The ‘Korean’ Cyber Attacks and Their Implications for Cyber Conflict”, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), October 2009, 8.
31. 26 M.N. Schmitt, “Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative Framework”, Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 37 (1998-1999), 885 et seq. (890 – 891).
32. 28 United States National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, see note 2, GL-1.
33. 29 S. Watts, “Combatant Status and Computer Network Attack”, Va. J. Int’l L. 50 (2010), 391 et seq. (400 et seq.).
34. Kingdom: Update 2009, June 2009, 105, .
35. 31 Y. Dinstein, “Computer Network Attacks and Self-Defense”, in: Schmitt/ O’Donnell, see note 11, 101;
36. R.W. Aldrich, “How do you know you are at War in the Information Age?”, Houston Journal of International Law 22 (1999-2000), 223
37. Dalai Lama, T. Branigan, “Cyber-spies based in China target Indian Government and Dalai Lama”, The Guardian, 6 April 2010.
38. T.A. Morth, “Considering Our Position: Viewing Information Warfare as a Use of Force Prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the U.N. Charter”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 30 (1998), 567 et seq. (572).
39. 33 S.J. Cox, “Confronting Threats Through Unconventional Means: Offensive Information Warfare as a Covert Alternative to Preemptive War”, Houston Law Review 42 (2005-2006), 881 et seq. (888 - 889).
40. 39 HPCR, Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare, 15 May 2009, Rule 1 (m) .
41. 40 Commentary on the HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare, March 2010, 34 .
42. 42 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Doctrine for Information Operations, see note 27, II-5 (emphasis added).
43. J.A. Simpson/ E.S.C. Weiner, The Oxford Compact English Dictionary, 2003, 268.
44. 45 D. Delibasis, The Right to National Self-Defence in Information Warfare Operations, 2007, 303.
45. 50 R. Barnett, “A Different Kettle of Fish: Computer Network Attack”, in: Schmitt/ O’Donnell, see note 11, 22.
46. 52 Read the text of the articles in: ILC (ed.), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, 26 et seq.
47. 53 S.M. Condron, “Getting It Right: Protecting American Critical Infrastructure in Cyberspace”, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 20 (2006-2007), 373 et seq. (405);
48. E.T. Jensen, “Computer Attacks on Critical National Infrastructure: A Use of Force Invoking the Right of Self-Defence”, Stanford J. Int’l L. 38 (2002), 207 et seq. (212); Watts, see note 29, 405.
49. 54 D. Eshel, “Israel Adds Cyber-Attack to IDF”, 10 February 2010, .
50. 55 P. Beaumont, “US appoints first cyber warfare general”, The Observer, 23 May 2010, 10.
51. 56 J. Goetz/ M. Rosenbach/ A. Szandar, “National Defense in Cyberspace”, Spiegel Online International, 2 November 2009.
52. 57 T. Kington, “Italy Weighs Cyber-Defense Command”, Defense News, 31 May 2010, .
53. 59 United Kingdom Government, Cyber Security Strategy of the United Kingdom, June 2009, 5 .
54. 60 McAfee Report, see note 5, 36. Information on Australia’s Cyber Security Operations Centre is available at .
55. 61 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, article 5, see note 52.
56. 62 J.A. Ophardt, “Cyber Warfare and the Crime of Aggression: The Need for Individual Accountability on Tomorrow’s Battlefield”, Duke Law and Technology Review 3 (2010), paras 12-18 .
57. ,
58. 66 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, 15 July 1999, , para. 117.
59. 72 N. Weisbord, “Conceptualizing Aggression”, Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 20 (2009), 1 et seq. (20).
60. 74 When expressly provided, however, incitement can be an unlawful act per se, see, e.g., article III of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
61. 79 Shackelford, see note 12, 208.
62. R. Sapienza, Il principio del non intervento negli affari interni, 1990.
63. 81 A/RES/36/103 of 9 December 1981.
64. R. Ago, “Eighth Report on State Responsibility”, in: ILC (ed.), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, Vol. II, Part One, 44;
65. R. Müllerson, “Jus ad bellum: Plus Ça Change (Le Monde) Plus C’Est la Même Chose (Le Droit)?”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law 7 (2002), 149 et seq. (169);
66. N. Ronzitti, Diritto internazionale dei conflitti armati, 2006, 33.
67. 84 M. Roscini, “Threats of Armed Force and Contemporary International Law”, NILR 54 (2007), 229 et seq. (235).
68. 86 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports 1996, 226
69. et seq. (246 para. 47).
70. G. Ress, “The Interpretation of the Charter”, in: B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Vol. I, 2002, 18.
71. 88 B.A. Garner (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary, 2009, 717.
72. 90 A. Randelzhofer, “Article 2 (4)”, in: Simma, see note 87, 118.
73. 93 Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, 1945, Vol. VI, 559, 720-721.
74. 95 Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, A/RES/42/22 of 18 November 1997.
75. M. Benatar, “The Use of Cyber Force: Need for Legal Justification?”, Göttingen Journal of International Law 1 (2009), 375 et seq. (384-385).
76. 101 I. Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States, 1963, 362.
77. D.M. Creekman, “A Helpless America? An Examination of the Legal Options Available to the United States in Response to Varying Types of Cyber-Attacks from China”, Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 17 (2002), 642 et seq. (652).
78. 112
79. 106 The National Military Strategy of the United States of America – A Strategy for Today; a Vision for Tomorrow, 2004, 1 .
80. 108 J. Markoff, “At Internet Conference, Signs of Agreement Appear Between U.S. and Russia”, The New York Times, 15 April 2010.
81. 109 P.A. Johnson, “Is It Time for a Treaty on Information Warfare?”, in: Schmitt/ O’Donnell, see note 11, 443.
82. 110 Quote from the speech of a senior Russian military officer, reported in: V.M. Antolin-Jenkins, “Defining the Parameters of Cyberwar Operations: Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places?”, Naval Law Review 51 (2005), 132 et seq. (166).
83. 111 J. Doward, “Britain fends off flood of foreign cyber-attacks”, The Observer, 7 March 2010, 19.
84. .
85. L.T. Greenberg/ S.E. Goodman/ K.J. Soo Hoo, Information Warfare and International Law, 1998, 19.
86. 114 Certain situations envisaged in A/RES/3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 containing the Definition of Aggression could well cover cyber attacks as well. In any case, the list contained in the Definition is not exhaustive and is not binding on the Security Council.
87. 115 I. Österdahl, Threat to Peace, 1998, 85.
88. 116 It is well-known that the drafters of the Charter deliberately left the notion undefined, United Nations Conference on International Organization, Documents, Vol. XII, 1945, 505.
89. 117 DoD, An Assessment, see note 27, 15.
90. 120 CCDCOE Report, see note 22, 17.
91. 121 B. Conforti, The Law and Practice of the United Nations, 2005, 276.
92. D. Brown, “A Proposal for an International Convention to Regulate the Use of Information Systems in Armed Conflict”, Harv. Int’l L. J. 47 (2006), 179 et seq. (212-213).
93. 124 Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Resumed 6th Sess., 2-6 June 2008 (ICC-ASP/6/20/Add. 1), para. 35.
94. 129 Article 50 para. 1 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, see note 52. See also ICJ Reports 1996, see note 86, 246 para. 46.
95. 134 K. Zemanek, “Armed attack”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2010, para. 21.
96. 135 See S/RES/1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and S/RES/1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001.
97. 136 ICJ Reports 1986, see note 64, 101 para. 191, 103 para. 195.
98. 137 A. Constantinou, The Right of Self-Defence under Customary International Law and Article 51 of the UN Charter, 2000, 63-64.
99. (C.C. Joyner/ C. Lotrionte, “Information Warfare as International Coercion: Elements of a Legal Framework”, EJIL 12 (2001), 825 et seq. (855)) cannot thus be shared.
100. C. Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, 2008, 146.
101. 144 M. Glenny, “In America’s new cyber war Google is on the front line”, The Guardian, 19 January 2010, 32.
102. 145 See, e.g., A/RES/58/199 of 23 December 2003.
103. 146 DoD, An Assessment, see note 27, 16.
104. 147 Public Law 107-56, 26 October 2001, Section 1016 (e). The text can be read at .
105. 148 United States National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, see note 3, 1. See also The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets, February 2003, 35 .
106. 149 United Kingdom Cyber Security Strategy, see note 59, 9.
107. 150 Australia’s Cyber Security Strategy, see note 4, 20.
108. 153 Th. Christakis, “L’Etat avant le droit? L’exception de ‘sécurité nationale’ en droit international”, RGDIP 112 (2008), 5 et seq. (8-16).
109. 155 Y. Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 2005, 208-211.
110. M. Hoisington, “Cyberwarfare and the Use of Force Giving Rise to the Right of Self-Defense”, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 32 (2009), 439 et seq. (453); Condron, see note 53, 415-416.
111. 158 DoD, An Assessment, see note 27, 21.
112. 159 Greenberg/ Goodman/ Soo Hoo, see note 112, 32.
113. 160 Zemanek, see note 134, para. 7; Dinstein, see note 31, 109.
114. 161 ICJ Reports 2003, see note 143, 191 para. 64.
115. 162 Robertson, Jr., see note 89, 139.
116. 164 M. Glenny, “Cyber armies are gearing up in the cold war of the web”, The Guardian, 25 June 2009, .
117. 166 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), ICJ Reports 2005, 168 et seq. (222 para. 143).
118. 170 “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility”, Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Doc. A/59/565, 63.
119. 171 “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All”, Report of the Secretary-General, Doc. A/59/2005, 33.
120. 172 Note from Daniel Webster on the Caroline incident to Henry S. Fox of 24 April 1841, in: British and Foreign State Papers 29 (1857), 1137-1138.
121. 173 Classic examples of imminent attacks are an advancing army or ships on the horizon or a large scale mobilization of troops by an unfriendly neighboring state on its frontiers, W.H. Taft, IV, The Legal Basis for Preemption, 18 November 2002, ).
122. 178 A. D’Amato, “International Law, Cybernetics, and Cyberspace”, in: Schmitt/ O’Donnell, see note 11, 69.
123. 180 North Sea Continental Shelf, ICJ Reports 1969, 3 et seq. (43 para. 74).
124. 181 Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law, in: International Law Association (ILA), Report of the Sixty-Ninth Conference, 2000, 731.
125. 185 A.T. Guzman, “Saving Customary International Law”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 27 (2005-2006), 115 et seq. (151).
126. 192 2006 United States National Security Strategy, see note 169, 43 (emphasis added).
127. 193 L.C. Baldor, “Military asserts right to return cyber attacks”, Associated Press, 14 April 2010, . A separate classified document discusses whether the United States should first ask the government from which the cyber attack originates to deal with it.
128. 194 N.C. Cabana, “Cyber Attack Response: The Military in a Support Role”, Chronicles On Line Journal, 4 April 2000, .
129. 195 , E.M. Grossman, “U.S. General Reserves the Right to Use Force, Even Nuclear, in Response to Cyber Attack”, Global Security Newswire, 12 May 2009.
130. 196 “Pentagon: Military Response to Cyber Attack Possible”, 12 May 2010 .
131. 197 United Kingdom Cyber Security Strategy, see note 59, 14.
132. 198 Quoted in Antolin-Jenkins, see note 110, 166.
133. 201 NATO 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement, Analysis and Recommendations of the Group of Experts on a New Strategic Concept for NATO, 17 May 2010, 45.
134. NATO’s new strategic concept should be adopted in November 2010 in Lisbon.
135. 203 Read the text of the Final Declaration .
136. 204 R.B. Hughes, “NATO and Global Cyber Defense”, in: R. Sheperd (ed.), The Bucharest Conference Papers, 2008, 48, ).
137. 205 See . Similar agreements have also been signed with Slovakia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
138. 207 “NATO agrees common approach to cyber defence”, 4 April 2008, .
139. 208 NATO 2020, see note 201, 9.