Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Contents:

Information:

  • Access
  • Open access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Concluding Observations on Sovereignty in Cyberspace
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Concluding Observations on Sovereignty in Cyberspace
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Concluding Observations on Sovereignty in Cyberspace
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Extract

In Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Lex Lata Vel Non?, Michael Schmitt and Liis Vihul argue that territorial sovereignty is a primary rule of international law that limits cyber activities. They recognize, however, that not all cyber effects constitute violations of territorial sovereignty, and like Rule 4 in the Tallinn Manual 2.0 and its commentary, they acknowledge a distinct lack of consensus among the Tallinn participants on the critical question of applicable thresholds. Problematically, they do not identify the necessary state practice and opinio juris that would be required to establish either the primary rule that they proffer or the existence and contours of the exception they would recognize.

In Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Lex Lata Vel Non?, Michael Schmitt and Liis Vihul argue that territorial sovereignty is a primary rule of international law that limits cyber activities. 1 They recognize, however, that not all cyber effects constitute violations of territorial sovereignty, and like Rule 4 in the Tallinn Manual 2.0 and its commentary, they acknowledge a distinct lack of consensus among the Tallinn participants on the critical question of applicable thresholds. Problematically, they do not identify the necessary state practice and opinio juris that would be required to establish either the primary rule that they proffer or the existence and contours of the exception they would recognize.

Schmitt and Vihul, as well as Phil Spector, 2 look to sources dealing with very different domains and very different kinds of activities, and attempt to divine a rule where we see an absence of binding law. In this regard, it is telling that at no point has the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UNGGE), the only international body to date charged with the task of examining how international law applies to cyber operations by states, identified sovereignty as a primary rule of international law that would, absent a justification, bar some or any nonconsensual cyber operations below the threshold of a prohibited intervention within the territory or on the infrastructure of another state. On the contrary, before backtracking and failing to reach a consensus report in 2017 on the applicability of international law to cyber operations vel non, the 2015 UNGGE adopted “general and declaratory” language that “[state sovereignty] and international norms and principles that flow from sovereignty apply to the conduct by States of [information and communications technologies]-related activities,” a position fully consonant with the preponderance of sources cited in Phil Spector's essay. 3 The 2015 UNGGE then went on to adopt a number of nonbinding, voluntary peacetime norms, many if not all of which would be superfluous if sovereignty were the primary rule that Schmitt, Vihul, and Spector assert it is.

Outside of the clearly established primary rules against the use of armed force and against unlawful intervention, it remains for states to consider the demarcation between what is lawful and what is not. How traditional principles and extant rules of international law apply to the emerging cyberspace domain are critical questions requiring the work and attention of the international community. That work must take into account the unique nature of cyberspace, as well as the foundational principle of respect for a nation's sovereign authority, without sliding into the overly simplistic position that any prejudicial action in another state's territory constitutes a breach of international law whenever those actions might violate that state's domestic law. It also must take into account the need of states to effectively defend against actors—state, nonstate, and hybrid actors—intent on causing harm from outside the borders of the defending state.

1 Michael N. Schmitt & Liis Vihul, Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Lex Lata Vel Non?, 111 AJIL Unbound 213 (2017).

2 Phil Spector, In Defense of Sovereignty in the Wake of Tallinn 2.0, 111 AJIL Unbound 219 (2017).

3 Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, 2015 Report para. 27, UN Doc. A/70/174 (July 22, 2015) (emphasis added).