International Legal Guiding Principles for State Activity in Cyberspace

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The rapid development of information technologies and the emergence of cyberspace as a new domain of state activity raises critical questions regarding the regulation of state actions within this space under international law. It is evident that international law applies to cyberspace; any contrary approach would create a legal vacuum, implying that states lack international legal obligations related to cyberspace and undermining state sovereignty in this new realm. Given that states are the primary subjects of international law, denying their applicability to cyberspace is existentially untenable. Despite the clear applicability of international legal principles to cyberspace, international law, like law in general, is often rigid and fails to keep pace with rapid technological advancements. Consequently, a key challenge in the international legal regulation of cyberspace is the specific application of international law in these contexts. This leads to several fundamental questions: How do the fundamental principles of international law apply to cyberspace? What is the effect of sovereignty in cyberspace? How are cyber operations attributed to the state? How is cyber-armed conflict regulated? This article addresses these fundamental issues of international legal regulation in cyberspace. Based on the findings of this research, draft guiding principles for state activity in cyberspace were proposed, which could serve as the foundation for an international methodological document, offering an alternative to the unrepresentative Tallinn Manual and potentially paving the way for a future universal international treaty in this area.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Sergei Yu. Garkusha-Bozhko

Ust-Luga Oil

Author for correspondence.
Email: garkusha-bozhko.sergej@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1253-3157
SPIN-code: 9036-0962

legal counsel

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Danelyan AA. International legal regulation of cyberspace. Education and Law. 2020;(1):261–269. EDN: WPUZZF doi: 10.24411/2076-1503-2020-10140
  2. Khanna P. State sovereignty and self-defence in cyberspace. BRICS Law Journal. 2018;5(4):139–154. doi: 10.21684/2412-2343-2018-5-4-139-154
  3. Terentieva LV. The issue of state sovereignty in cyberspace. Legal Issues in the Digital Age. 2021;2(2):49–67.
  4. Terentieva LV. Governing cyberspace under the conditions of confrontation between Russia and the countries of the North Atlantic alliance. Legal Informatics. 2022;(3):51–60. EDN: GZELBU doi: 10.21681/1994-1404-2022-3-51-60
  5. Streltsov AA. Application of international humanitarian law to armed conflicts in cyberspace. In: Galenskaya LN, editor. Russian Yearbook of International Law. 2015. Special Issue. Saint-Petersburg: Russia-Neva; 2016. P. 152–169.
  6. Terentieva LV. Differentiation of extraterritorial and territorial jurisdiction in cyberspace. Law and the Digital Economy. 2022;(1): 41–51. EDN: RJFLJE doi: 10.17803/2618-8198.2022.15.1.041-051
  7. Krasikov DV. Territorial sovereignty and jurisdictional delimitation in cyberspace. In: Alferova EV, Lovtsov DA, editors. State and law in the new information reality: collection of scientific papers. Moscow: Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2018. P. 99–111. EDN: LHZPHU doi: 10.31249/pras/2018.01.06
  8. Martirosyan AZh. Formation of cyberspace security system. Moscow: Prospect; 2022. 118 p. (In Russ.) EDN: AITTGJ
  9. Corn GP, Taylor R. Sovereignty in the age of cyber. AJIL Unbound. 2017;111:207–212. doi: 10.1017/aju.2017.57
  10. Schmitt MN, Vihul L. Sovereignty in cyberspace: lex lata vel non? AJIL Unbound. 2017;111:213–218. doi: 10.1017/aju.2017.55
  11. Schmitt MN, Vihul L. Respect for sovereignty in cyberspace. Texas Law Review. 2017;95:1639–1671.
  12. Arkhipov VV. Reinventing «magic circle» in the age of internet government control: the lessons of videogame law for modern practices of legal interpretation. Legal Issues in the Digital Age. 2020;1(1):79–98. EDN: AAFWIE doi: 10.1017/aju.2017.55
  13. Vinogradova EV, Polyakova TA. On the place of information sovereignty in the constitutional legal sphere in modern Russia. The rule-of-law state: theory and practice. 2021;(1):32–49. EDN: EQLLGL doi: 10.33184/pravgos-2021.1.3
  14. Efremov AA. Information and legal mechanism for ensuring the state sovereignty of the Russian Federation [dissertation]. Moscow, 2020. 418 p. (In Russ.) EDN: OKQWLN
  15. Lahmann H. On the politics and ideologies of the sovereignty discourse in cyberspace. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. 2021;32:61–107.
  16. Rusinova VN, Assaf AN, Moshnikov DK. Dispute on sovereignty in cyberspace: content, limits, and prospects for the development of positivistic discourse. International Justice. 2020;(3):55–66. EDN: CNCCGK doi: 10.21128/2226-2059-2020-3-55-66
  17. Terentieva LV. Territorial aspect of state jurisdiction and sovereignty in cyberspace. Lex Russica. 2019;(4):139–150. EDN: WAYQRS doi: 10.17803/1729-5920.2019.149.4.139-150
  18. Levin ID. Sovereignty. Saint-Petersburg: Law Center Press; 2003. 373 p. (In Russ.) EDN: QVQZKL
  19. Shershenevich GF. Favorites: in 6 vol. Vol. 4. Moscow: Statut; 2016. 752 p. (In Russ.)
  20. Lukashuk II. Criminal Jurisdiction. State and Law. 1998;(2): 112–116. (In Russ.)
  21. Romashev YuS, Fetishchev DV. The state jurisdiction in the law enforcement sphere. Moscow: Scientific Book; 2009. 48 p. (In Russ.)
  22. Terentieva LV. Principles for determining territorial jurisdiction of the state in cyberspace. Lex Russica. 2019;(7):119–129. EDN: OGJYKT doi: 10.17803/1729-5920.2019.152.7.119-129
  23. Lukashuk II. Law of international responsibility. Moscow: Wolters Kluwer; 2004. 432 p. (In Russ.)
  24. Gisel L, Rodenhäuser T. and Dörmann K. Twenty years on: international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians against the effects of cyber operations during armed conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross. 2020;102(913):287–334. doi: 10.1017/S1816383120000387
  25. Arkhipov VV. Internet law. Moscow: Yurayt; 2023. 254 p. (In Russ.)
  26. Droege C. Get off my cloud: cyber warfare, international humanitarian law, and the protection of civilians. International Review of the Red Cross. 2014;94(886): 533–578. (In Russ.)
  27. Hathaway OA, Crootof R, Levitz Ph, et al. The law of cyber-attack. California Law Review. 2012;100(4):817–886.
  28. Tsagourias N. Cyber-attacks, self-defence and the problem of attribution. Journal of Conflict and Security Law. 2012;17(2):229–244.
  29. Kelsey JTG. Hacking into international humanitarian law: the principles of distinction and neutrality in the age of cyber warfare. Michigan Law Review. 2008;106(7):1427–1452.
  30. Naumov VB. Institute of identification in information law [dissertation]. Moscow; 2020. 455 p. (In Russ.) EDN: QWDSXG
  31. Zhang LA Chinese perspective on cyber war. International Review of the Red Cross. 2012;94(886):801–807.
  32. Döge J. Cyber warfare. Challenges for the applicability of the traditional laws of war regime. Archiv des Völkerrechts. 2010;48(4):486–501.
  33. Carlin JP. Detect, disrupt, deter: a whole-of-government approach to national security cyber threats. Harvard National Security Journal. 2016;7:391–436.
  34. Krasikov DV. International legal responsibility of states in cyberspace. In: Alferova EV, Lovtsov DA, editors. State and law in the new information reality: collection of scientific papers. Moscow: Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2018. P. 235–247. (In Russ.)
  35. Chircop L. Territorial sovereignty in cyberspace after Tallinn manual 2.0. Melbourne Journal of International Law. 2019;20(2):349–377.
  36. Lin H. Cyber conflict and international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross. 2012;94(886):515–531.
  37. Banks W. State responsibility and attribution of cyber intrusions after Tallinn 2.0. Texas Law Review. 2017;95(7):1487–1513.
  38. Shany Y, Schmitt MN. An international attribution mechanism for hostile cyber operations. International Law Studies. 2020;96:196–222.
  39. Eichensehr KE. The law and politics of cyberattack attribution. UCLA Law Review. 2020;67:520–598.
  40. Danelyan AA, Gulyaeva EE. International legal aspects of cybersecurity. Moscow Journal of International Law. 2020;(1):44–53. EDN: GISRWK doi: 10.24833/0869-0049-2020-1-44-53
  41. Pictet JS, editor. Geneva convention (I) for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field commentary. Geneva: ICRC; 1952. 466 p.
  42. Sassòli М, Bouvier А. How does law protect in war? Cases, documents and teaching materials on contemporary practice in international humanitarian law: in 4 vol. Vol. I. Moscow: ICRC; 2008. 669 p. (In Russ.)
  43. David E. Principles of the law of armed conflicts: lecture course delivered at the faculty of law of the Open University of Brussels. Moscow: ICRC; 2011. 1144 p. (In Russ.).
  44. Garkusha-Bozhko SYu. The definition of armed conflict in cyberspace. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law. 2023;14(1):194–210. EDN: ZSWFVK doi: 10.21638/spbu14.2023.112
  45. Melzer N. International humanitarian law: a comprehensive introduction. Moscow: ICRC; 2017. 417 p. (In Russ.)
  46. Tomilova Yu. The UN and the problem of ensuring international information security. International Affairs. 2015;(8):73–85. (In Russ.) EDN: UCQMTP
  47. Kozik AL. Computer network attacks and modern international law. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2014;(2):169–177. (In Russ.) EDN: SBWXTV
  48. Gavrilova MS, Demidov OV, Kozik AL, et al. Application of international law in cyberspace. Security Index. 2015:21(4):99–118. EDN: SBWXTV
  49. International humanitarian law and cyber operations during armed conflicts. ICRC position paper. Moscow: ICRC; 2021. 30 p. (In Russ.)
  50. Garkusha-Bozhko SYu. International humanitarian law in cyberspace: ratione materiae, ratione temporis and problem of cyber-attack qualification. Digital Law Journal. 2021;2(1):64–82. EDN: SBWXTV doi: 10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-1-64-82
  51. A guide to the legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare: measures to implement Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977. Moscow: ICRC; 2006. 32 p. (In Russ.)
  52. Garkusha-Bozhko SYu. Application of the principles of international humanitarian law (principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution) to armed conflicts in cyberspace. Russian Journal of Legal Studies. 2021;8(3):73–90. EDN: RGBWA doi: 10.17816/RJLS71332
  53. Dinniss HH. Cyber warfare and the laws of war. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 331 p.
  54. Ivanenko VS. The origins, causes and enduring significance of the Martens Clause: a view from Russia. International Review of the Red Cross. 2022;104:1708–1724. doi: 10.1017/S1816383122000273
  55. Schmitt MN, editor. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the international law applicable to cyber operations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; 2017. 598 p. doi: 10.1017/9781316822524

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Eco-Vector


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС77-76621 от 06.09.2019