In 2022 viel Rusland Oekraïne binnen. In 2024 kende het Israëlisch-Palestijns conflict opnieuw gruwelijke feiten. Maar er woeden nog andere oorlogen, en wel veel dichter bij huis: cyberoorlogen.
Cyberaanvallen zijn alomtegenwoordig. Ze kennen verschillende vormen, doeleinden en gevolgen en dit zowel online als in de “echte” wereld. Vaak denken we hierbij aan een eenzaam individu achter een groot scherm, maar wist je dat landen dit soort middelen steeds meer gebruiken om oorlog te voeren tegen elkaar? Een cyberaanval is namelijk snel, relatief goedkoop en kan minstens even catastrofale gevolgen met zich meebrengen als conventionele oorlogsmiddelen. Zo was Oekraïne in 2017 het slachtoffer van een cyberaanval die leidde tot: een geschat verlies van negen miljard euro, het stilvallen van een kerncentrale voor onbepaalde tijd en de versleuteling van een aanzienlijke hoeveelheid digitale persoonsgegevens, oftewel data. De aanval kreeg de naam NotPetya.
Ook België heeft de afgelopen jaren meermaals te maken gehad met cyberaanvallen. Daarvoor zijn databanken een van de meest geliefde doelwitten. Maar mag dit zomaar? Over die vraag zijn de meningen in het internationaal recht sterk verdeeld. Dat komt goed uit… voor hackende landen.
Hoewel het niet altijd zo lijkt, zijn er wel degelijk regels van kracht tijdens oorlogsvoering. Van 1864 tot 2005 zijn principes uitgewerkt in verschillende Geneefse Conventies en Protocollen om de vormen van oorlogsvoering aan banden te leggen. Een van die principes is het beginsel van onderscheid: landen mogen burgers (en de goederen bedoeld voor burgers, bijvoorbeeld een ziekenhuis) nooit rechtstreeks aanvallen. Ze moeten dus een onderscheid maken tussen deelnemers van de strijd en zij die niet deelnemen. In het verleden is reeds besloten dat dit principe eveneens integraal toepasbaar is op cyberoorlogen. Dat klinkt als klare taal, maar dat is het niet.
Door de connectie tussen digitale netwerken is het bijzonder moeilijk om een onderscheid tussen burgers en niet-burgers te maken in een aanval. Daarbovenop hebben deskundigen van de Verenigde Naties besloten dat data niet als voorwerp beschouwd en beschermd worden in het oorlogsrecht. Dat zou tot gevolg hebben dat persoonsdata geen burgerlijk goed zijn, en dus zomaar mogen aangevallen, vernietigd of gestolen worden. De Notpetya aanval in Oekraïne zou in dat geval fair game zijn.
Dat bovenstaande conclusie niet wenselijk is, daar is het internationaal recht het over eens. Landen wringen zich al jaren in allerlei bochten om burgers en hun data, bescherming te bieden binnen het oorlogsrecht. Rechtsgeleerden raken het echter niet eens over hoe die bescherming vorm moet krijgen. Enkelingen vinden dat dit een nieuw internationaal verdrag vereist. De meerderheid houdt echter voet bij stuk dat een gewoonterechtelijke regel ontstaat in verschillende landen die data toch als goed beschouwd en beschermd. Als dat zo is, dan zou onze data altijd en overal veiliggesteld moeten worden van aanvallen: gewoonterechtelijke regels zijn immers meteen bindend over alle landen heen, zelfs als de regel niet in dat specifieke land ontstaan is. Hoera, we zijn gered! Toch?
Niet helemaal. De rechtsleer brengt dan wel een voor burgers zeer veilige theorie naar voren, ze onderbouwt deze nergens. Geen enkel bewijsstuk dat deze regel ontspruit uit de daadwerkelijke praktijk bevestigt deze stelling. Na het heft in eigen handen genomen te hebben en het onderzoek voor veertien landen zelf uit te voeren, is trouwens gebleken dat de rechtsgeleerden het niet bij het rechte eind hebben. Data wordt door landen gewoonlijk niet als goed beschouwd. Wat landen daarentegen wél doen is een goed ingeburgerd internationaalrechtelijke principe toepassen: “the scale and effects approach”. Data is geen goed, maar wanneer de mogelijke grootte en gevolgen van de aanval van een aanzienlijke omvang zijn, dan beschermen landen de data van burgers wel alsof ze een burgerlijk goed inhouden. Deze ontwikkeling kan, vanwege haar omvang, wel als een ontspringende gewoonterechtelijke regel beschouwd worden.
De scale and effects-regel klinkt als een stap in de goede richting, maar concreet betekent dit wel dat er nog steeds situaties zullen bestaan waar je data als burger niet beschermd is in het oorlogsrecht. De gevolgen daarvan mag je niet onderschatten: zo is bijvoorbeeld het internationaal noodnummer tijdens een vroegere cyberaanval urenlang onbruikbaar geweest.
Landen blijven zich wel bewust van dit hiaat in het recht, zo is uit het onderzoek gebleken, en dringen met aanstalten aan om bijzondere bescherming te voorzien voor “critical infrastructures” en de daaraan gekoppelde persoonsgegevens. Wat deze infrastructures exact zijn en wat de bescherming precies moet omvatten, verschilt dan weer enorm van land tot land. De Verenigde Naties organiseert daarom in 2026 voor de derde keer een samenkomst van deskundigen om richtlijnen over cyberoorlogvoering op te stellen. Waar ze het probleem van databescherming vorige keren nog grotendeels links lieten liggen, is het reikhalzend uitkijken, zeker met de huidige conflict in gedachten, hoe de deskundigen hier nu over zullen oordelen. Een ding is zeker: de strijd over cyberoorlog is nog niet gestreden. ☐
Art. 92 United Nations Charter, 26 June 1945.
Art. 38 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April 1946 (ICJ Statute).
Art. 3 Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949 Geneva Convention (I).
Art. 12, 48, and 52(2) Protocol Additional to the Geneva conventions, 12 August 1949 (AP I).
Art. 26 and 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969 (VCLT).
Section 476-478, Criminal Code concerning computer offences.
United Nations. “UN GAOR Special Comm. on Friendly Relations.” UN Doc. A/AC.125/SR.110 to 114 (1970).
International Committee of the Red Cross. “Commentary 8 June 1977 on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).” Accessed March 22, 2024. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977.
International Committee of the Red Cross. “Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law: A Contribution to the Understanding and Respect for the Rule of Law in Armed Conflict.” International Review of the Red Cross, no. 87 (2005): 175-212.
United Nations General Assembly, Sixth Committee. UN Doc. A/C.6/68/SR.17 (8 November 2013).
United Nations Cyber Toolkit. “Sony Pictures Entertainment Attack (2014).” Accessed November 2, 2023. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment_attack_(2014).
United Nations Cyber Toolkit. “Office of Personnel Management data breach (2015).” Accessed November 2, 2023. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach_(2015)
International Law Commission. “The Role of Decisions of National Courts in the Case Law of International Courts and Tribunals of a Universal Character for the Purpose of the Determination of Customary International Law: Memorandum by the Secretariat.” A/CN.4/691, (February 9, 2016).
International Law Commission. “ILC Report 2016.” Accessed October 3, 2023. https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2016/.
United Nations Cyber Toolkit. “Notpetya (2017).” Accessed March 20, 2024. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/NotPetya_(2017)#:~:text=The%20NotPetya%20malware%20was%20spread,and%20repurposed%20by%20the%20GRU.
International Law Commission. Draft Conclusions on identification of customary international law, with commentaries (2018).
United Nations Cyber Toolkit. “Springhill Medical Center ransomware attack (2019).” Accessed November 2, 2023. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Springhill_Medical_Center_ransomware_a….
International Committee of the Red Cross. “ICRC Report 2020.” Accessed March 20, 2024. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/annual-report-2020.
International Committee of the Red Cross. “The Principle of Distinction, March 2023.” Accessed May 1, 2024. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/war-and-law/03_distinction-0.pdf.
International Committee of the Red Cross Global Advisory Board on Digital Threats During Armed Conflicts. “Protecting civilians against digital threats during armed conflict: recommendations to States, belligerents, tech companies, and humanitarian organizations.” Accessed October 25, 2023. https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/473501-protecting-civilians-against-digital-threats-during-armed-conflict.
United Nations Cyber Toolkit. “Scenario 12: Cyber operations against computer data.” Accessed December 19, 2023. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Scenario_12:_Cyber_operations_against_computer_data#:~:text=The%20ICRC%20has%20highlighted%20medical,essential%20component%20of%20digitalized%20societies%27.
United Nations Cyber Toolkit. “Scenario 22: Cyber methods of warfare.” Accessed December 19, 2023. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Scenario_22:_Cyber_methods_of_warfare.
Statement by the ICRC delivered by Tilman Rodenhauser, Legal Advisor, at the 7th substantive meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021-2025 New York 6 March 2024. “Focus on cyber operations that cause physical damage is not enough.” Accessed May 20, 2024. https://www.icrc.org/en/oewg-cyber-new-statement.
United Nations Cyber Toolkit. “Interactive Toolkit.” Accessed May 17, 2024. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Main_Page.
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Australia’s International Cyber Engagement Strategy (4 October 2017).
Commonwealth of Australia, Australian institute on international affairs. “Data as military objective (20 September 2018).” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/data-as-a-military-objective/.
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Comments on the draft of the report of the United Nations Open-ended Working Group (16 April 2020).
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Annex B to the 2020 International Cyber and Technology Engagement Strategy: position on how international law applies to State conduct in cyberspace (5 November 2020).
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Australia’s submission to the report of the United National Group of Governmental Experts on Cyber (28 May 2021).
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Australian Cyber Security Strategy 2023-2030 (1 January 2023).
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Cyber threat report 2022-2023 (14 November 2023).
Belgian Intelligence Studies Center. Cyber Security (19 November 2012).
Centre for Cyber Security Belgium. Cyber Security Strategy 2021-2025 (1 May 2021).
Belgian Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs. Communication (18 January 2022).
Brazil. Comments on the draft of the report of the United Nations Open-ended Working Group (8 April 2020).
Brazil. Official Statement to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Cyber (10 May 2021).
Brazil. “National Position: contribution to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Cyber (August 2021).” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/National_position_of_Brazil_(2021).
Brazil. Official Statement after cyberattack against Brazilian Ministry of Health (10 December 2021).
Brazil. Cyber Security Strategy (8 August 2023).
Chile. “Cyber Security Strategy 2017-2022 (1January 2017).” Accessed May 1, 2024. https://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Cybersecurity/Documents/National_Strategies_Repository/Chile_NCSP%20%28ENG%29.pdf.
Chile. “State Report: international law applicable to cyberspace (21 October 2022).” Accessed May 1, 2024. https://www.oas.org/en/sla/iajc/docs/CJI-doc_671-22_rev2_corr1_ENG.pdf.
Chile. Official Statement after cyberattack against the government of Chile (17 October 2023).
Denmark. National Position: contribution to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Cyber (July 2013).
Denmark. Military Manual on international law relevant to Danish armed forces in international operations (September 2016).
Danish Government. Danish Cyber and Information Security Strategy (May 2018).
Denmark. Military Manual (January 2020).
Danish Ministry of Defence. Official Statement (3 November 2022).
Denmark. Official Statement after cyberattack on companies in the energy industry (8 December 2023).
Finnish Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Cyber Security Strategy (8 May 2011).
Finland. “Nordic Statement at the Open-ended Working Group on developments of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (10 February 2020).” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://finlandabroad.fi/web/un/nordic-statements/-/asset_publisher/7Aj….
Finland. “National Position: contribution to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (October 2020).” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/National_position_of_Finland_(2020).
Finland. National Position on public international law in cyberspace (15 October 2020).
Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Official Statement (October 2020).
Finnish Government. Defence Report (September 2021).
Finland. Official Statement to the United Nations Open-ended Working Group on ICTs in the context of international security (April 2022).
Finland. Official Statement after cyberattack on the website of the Finnish government (8 April 2022).
French Ministry of Defence. White Paper on Defence and National Security (9 July 2008).
France. Cyberdefence Policy (8 June 2012).
France. Cyber Security Report (March 2017).
French Ministry of Defence. Report International Law applicable to operations in cyberspace (12 November 2018).
France. Official Statement to the United Nations Open-ended Working Group on international law applied to operations in cyberspace (14 July 2021).
German Federal Ministry of Defence. Manual on the law of armed conflict (1 May 2013).
Germany. Official Statement after Bundestag Hack (1 May 2015).
Germany. Official Statement after cyber-attack against German government’s network (18 March 2018).
Germany. “National Position: contribution to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (6 April 2020).” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://www.justsecurity.org/75242/germanys-positions-on-international-law-in-cyberspace/.
Germany. National Position on public international law in cyberspace (1 March 2021).
German Ministry of Defence. Position Paper: Cyber Operations (16 March 2021).
Israel. National Cybernatic Taskforce (18 May 2011).
Israel. Comments on the draft of the report of the United Nations Open-ended Working Group (1 April 2020).
Israel. Official Statement after cyberattack on Israel’s water facilities (25 April 2020).
Israel. Perspective on key legal and practical issues concerning application of international law to cyber operations (9 December 2020).
Israel. “Israel’s Perspective on Key Legal and Practical Issues Concerning the Application of International Law to Cyber Operations (26 January 2021).” Accessed May 1, 2024. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol97/iss1/21.
Israel. Official Statement on the application of international law to cyberspace (25 October 2021).
New Zealand. Manual on the Law of Armed Conflict (7 August 2017).
New Zealand. National Position: contribution to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (February 2020).
New Zealand. Official Statement on the application of international law to cyberspace (1 December 2020).
Ministry of Defence. Manual on the law of armed conflict (19 March 2013).
Norway. Oslo Manual on Select Topics of the Law of Armed Conflict (9 October 2020).
Norway. National Position: contribution to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (13 July 2021).
Norway. Official Statement on the application of international law to cyberspace (4 July 2023).
Romanian Ministry of National Defence. The Military Strategy of Romania (1 January 2016).
Romania. Official Statement: the security fears that keep European awake at night (1 July 2018).
Romania. “Voluntary national contribution on the subject of how international law applies to the use of information and communications technologies submitted in the Group of Governmental Experts (13 July 2021).” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/National_position_of_Romania_(2021).
Switzerland. Report on the Security Policy (23 June 2010).
Switzerland. Law Manual of Air and Missile Warfare (1 March 2017).
Switzerland. National Position: contribution to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (9 April 2020).
Switzerland. “National Position: public international law in cyberspace (18 March 2021).” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://docs-library.unoda.org/Open Ended_Working_Group_on_Information_and_Communication_Technologies_(2021)/20230308_Switzerland_submission_OEWG_international_law_as_delivered.pdf.
Switzerland. Official Statement: maintaining international peace and security in cyberspace (29 June 2021).
Switzerland. Official Statement (10 March 2023).
Switzerland. Official Statement after cyberattacks (2 November 2023).
United States. Cyberspace Review Policy (1 May 2011).
United States. US Department of State (18 December 2012).
United States. Official Report on the Tallinn Manual and US Cyber Policy (18 February 2013).
United States. National Position: public international law in cyberspace (1 April 2016).
United States. Cyberspace Operations Report (8 June 2018).
United States. Legal Conference: Cyber Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict (18 April 2023).
The case of the SS ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey), Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), 7 September 1927 (Lotus Case).
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Noway), ICJ Reports 1951, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 18 December 1951 (Fisheries Case).
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark and Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands), ICJ Reports 1969, 3, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 20 February 1969 (North Sea Continental Shelf Cases).
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), ICJ Reports 1986, 14, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986 (Nicaragua case).
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, 226, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 8 July 1996 (Nuclear Weapons Case).
The Prosecutor v Duško Tadić, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 15 July 1999 (Tadić Case).
Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo (Declaration of Judge Simma), ICJ Reports Advisory Opinions 2010, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 22 July 2010 (Kosovo Case).
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening), ICJ Reports 2012, 99, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 3 February 2012 (Jurisdictional Immunities Case).
Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v United Kingdom), ICJ Reports 2016, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 5 October 2016 (Marshall Islands Case).
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RI Advice Group Pty Ltd, Federal Court of Australia, 5 May 2022.
CR-19-02064, Criminal Division of County Court of Victoria, Melbourne, 20 November 2020.
AR P.04.0974.F, Court of Cassation, Second Chamber, 10 November 2004.
AR P.10.1094.F, Court of Cassation, 5 January 2011.
AR P.16.0048.N/1, Court of Cassation, 24 January 2017.
No. 2007/81, Criminal Court of Dendermonde, 14 May 2007.
Criminal Court of Hasselt, Fifteenth Chamber, 21 January 2004.
N° 20/07493, Court of Appeal of Lyon, Eigth Chamber, 10 November 2021.
N° 19/00160, Court of Appeal of Versailles, Fifth Chamber, 3 December 2020.
28 O 328/21, Regional Court of Köln, 18 May 2022.
CIV-2021-485-379, High Court of New Zealand, 4 August 2021.
CIV-2020-404-000609, High Court of New Zealand, 2 March 2023.
McMorris, United States Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 April 2021.
Stockx Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, United States Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2 December 2021.
Adams, Maurice, and John Griffiths. “Against comparative method: explaining similarities and differences.” In Practice and theory in comparative law, edited by Maurice Adams and Jacco Bomhoff, 279-301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Ammann, Odile. Domestic Courts and the Interpretation of International Law: Methods and Reasoning Based on the Swiss Example. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409873.
Black-Branch, Jonathan L. The treaty prohibitions on Nuclear Weapons: legal challenges for military doctrines and deterrence policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Bourgeois, Hanna, and Jan Wouters. “Methods of identification of international custom: a new role for opinio juris?” In Global Justice, Human Rights and the Modernization of International Law, edited by Riccardo Piscillo Mazzeschi and Pasquale de Sena, 69-111. Cham: Springer international Publishing, 2018.
Byers, Michael. Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Choi, Stephen J., and Mitu Gulati. “Customary international law: how do courts do it?” In Custom’s Future: International Law in a Changing World, edited by Curtis A. Bradley, 117-147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Crawford, Emily. Non-binding Norms in International Humanitarian Law: Efficacy, Legitimacy and Legality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
D’Aspremont, Jean. “Non-State Actors and the formation of international customary law: unlearning some common tropes.” In Non-State Actors and the formation of customary international law, edited by Ian Scobbie and Sufyan Droubi. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020.
Distefano, Giovanni, Fundamentals of Public International Law: A Sketch of the International Legal Order. Brill: Nijhoff, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004396692.
Fuentes, Carlos Iván. Normative Plurality in International Law: A Theory of the Determination of Applicable Rules. Berlin: Springer, 2016.
Green, James A. The persistent objector rule in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Hakimi, Monica. “Custom’s method and process in custom’s future.” In Custom’s Future: International Law in a Changing World, edited by Curtis A. Bradley, 148-171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Haljan, David. Separating powers: international law before national courts. Den Haag: Asser Press, 2013.
Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck. ICRC: Customary International Humanitarian Law: Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Hernández, Gleider. International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Hutchinson, Terry C. M., Researching and Writing in Law: Third Edition. Pyrmont: N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters/Lawbook Co., 2010.
Kestemont, Lina, Handbook on Legal Methodology: From Objective to Method. Antwerp: Intersentia, 2018.
Klabbers, Johannes Antonius Maria, and August Reinisch. “Sources of international organizations law: reflextions on accountability.” In The Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law, edited by Jean d’Aspremont and Samantha Besson, 987-1006. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Kolb, Robert. Advanced Introduction to International Humanitarian Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014.
Kontou, Nancy. The Termination and Revision of Treaties in the Light of New Customary International Law, Oxford Monographs in International Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
La Haye, Eva. War crimes in internal armed conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Lepard, Brian D. Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Lepard, Brian. “Reexamining Customary International Law.” In Custom’s Future: International Law in a Changing World, edited by Curtis A. Bradley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Lusa Bordin, Fernando, Andreas Th. Müller, and Francisco Pascual-Vives. The European Union and Customary International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Maxwell, Jospeh A. Qualitative Research Design. An Interactive Approach. New York: Sage, 2013.
Müller, Andreas Th. “The direct effect of Customary International Law: The Treaty Analogy’ and Its Limits.” In The EU and customary international law, edited by Fernando Lusa Bordin, Andreas Th. Müller and Francisco Pascual-Vives, 210-239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Palchetti, Paolo. “The Role of General Principles in Promoting the Development of Customary International Rules.” In General Principles and the Coherence of International Law, edited by Paolo Palchetti, 47-59. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004390935_005.
Ratner, Steven R. “Sources of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law: War/Crimes and the Limits of the Doctrine of Sources.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law, edited by Jean d’Aspremont and Samantha Besson, 912-936. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Saunders, Imogen. General Principles as a Source of International Law: Art. 38(1)(C) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
Schmitt, Michael N., ed. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law applicable to cyber-operations prepared by the International Groups of Experts at the Invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Thirlway, Hugh. The sources of International law: Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Trachtman, Joel P. “The growing obsolescence of customary international law.” In Custom’s Future: International Law in a changing world, edited by Curtis A. Bradley, 172-204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Van Steenberghe, Raphaël. “Sources of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law: Specific Features.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law, edited by Jean d’Aspremont and Samanta Besson, 891-911. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Verschuren, Piet, and Hans Doorewaard. Designing a Research Project. The Hague: Eleven Publishing, 2010.
Villiger, Mark Eugen. Customary International Law and Treaties: A Manual on the Theory and Practice of the Interrelation of Sources. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
Azaria, Danae. “Codification by interpretation: The International Law Commission as an interpreter of international law.” The European journal of international law, no. 31 (2020): 171-200.
Baker,Roozbeh (Rudy) B. “Customary international law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New Debates.” European Journal of International Law 21, no. 1 (1 February 2010): 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chq015.
Blutman, László. “Conceptual Confusion and Methodological Deficiencies: Some Ways That Theories on Customary International Law Fail.” European Journal of International Law 25, no. 2 (1 May 2014): 529-552. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chu034.
Crootof, Rebecca. “Change without Consent: How Customary International Law Modifies Treaties.” Yale Journal of International Law 41, no. 2 (2016): 237-300.
Dordeska, Marija. “The process of International Law-making: The relationship between the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission.” ICLR 15, no. 1 (2015): 7-57.
Droege, Cordula. “Get off My Cloud: Cyber Warfare, International Humanitarian Law, and the Protection of Civilians.” International Review of the Red Cross 94, no. 886 (June 2012): 533–578. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383113000246.
Eggett, Craig. “The Role of Principles and General Principles in the “Constitutional Processes” of International Law.” Netherlands International Law Review 66, no. 2 (July 2019): 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-019-00139-1.
Geiß, Robin, and Henning Lahmann. “Cyber Warfare: Applying the Principle of Distinction in an Interconnected Space.” Israel Law Review 45, no. 3 (November 2012): 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223712000179.
Gisel, Laurent, Tilman Rodenhäuser, and Knut Dörmann. “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 102, no. 913 (April 2020): 287–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383120000387.
Grote, Tatjana. “Best of Both Worlds? The Interplay between International Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict in Cyberspace.” LSE Law Review, no. 8 (2023): 179-226.
Gül, Yunus Emre. “Changing Notion of Object and Targeting Data Under the Law of Armed Conflict.” Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 27, no. 2 (December 2021): 1298–1313.
Hakimi, Monica. “Making sense of customary international law.” Michigan Law Review 118, (2020): 1487-1538.
Harrison Dinniss, Heather A. “The Nature of Objects: Targeting Networks and the Challenge of Defining Cyber Military Objectives.” Israel Law Review 48, no. 1 (March 2015): 39–54.
Heller, Kevin Jon. “Specifically-affected States and the formation of custom.” The American Society of International Law, no. 1 (2018).
Jarose, Joanna. “Reconsidering the Definition of “attack” and “Damage” in Cyber Operations during Armed Conflict: Emerging Subsequent State Practice.” TheAdelaide Law Review 1, (December 2023): 317-338. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.514594046455151.
Kent, Avidan, and Jamie Trinidad. “International Law Scholars as Amici Curiae : An Emerging Dialogue (of the Deaf)?” Leiden Journal of International Law 29, no. 4 (December 2016): 1081-1101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156516000510.
Lahmann, Henning. “State Behaviour in Cyberspace: Normative Development and Points of Contention.” Zeitschrift Für Außen- Und Sicherheitspolitik 16, no. 1 (March 2023): 31–41.
Lekkas, Sotirios-Ioannis, and Panos Merkouris. “Interpretation of International Law: Rules, Content, and Evolution.” Netherlands International Law Review 69, no. 2 (September 2022): 183-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00226-w.
Mačák, Kubo. “Military Objectives 2.0: The Case for Interpreting Computer Data as Objects under International Humanitarian Law.” Israel law Review, no. 48 (2015): 55-80.
Mačák, Kubo. “From the Vanishing Point Back to the Core: The Impact of the Development of the Cyber Law of War on General International Law.” 9th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon) (2017): 1–14.
McKenzie, Simon. “Cyber Operations against Civilian Data: Revisiting War Crimes against Protected Objects and Property in the Rome Statute.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 19, no. 5 (1 November 2021): 1165–1192. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab067.
Pascucci, Peter. “Distinction and Proportionality in Cyber War: Virtual Problems with a Real Solution.” Minnesota Journal of International Law, no. 26 (2017): 419-460.
Petersen, Niels. “The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Politics of Identifying Customary International Law.” European Journal of International Law 28, no. 2 (May 2017): 357-385. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chx024.
Sari, Aurel. “Hybrid Threats and the Law: Concepts, Trends and Implications.” Hybrid CoE Trend Report, no. 3 (April 2020): 1-28.
Sender, Omri, and Michael Wood. “A Mystery No Longer? Opinio Juris and Other Theoretical Controversies Associated with Customary International Law.” Israel Law Review 50, no. 3 (November 2017): 299-330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223717000115.
Schmitt, Michael N., and Sean Watts. “The Decline of International Humanitarian Law Opinio Juris and the Law of Cyber Warfare.” Texas International Law Journal 50, no. 2–3 (2016): 189–232.
Schmitt, Michael N. “Wired Warfare 3.0: Protecting the Civilian Population during Cyber Operations.” International Review of the Red Cross 101, no. 910 (April 2019): 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383119000018
Scoville, Ryan M. “Finding Customary International Law.” Iowa Law Review 101, (2016): 1894-1948.
Sohail, Humna. “Fault Lines in the Application of International Humanitarian law to Cyberwarfare.” The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law : JDFSL 17 (2022): 1–13.
Son, Hye-Ryon, Son-Gyong Jong, Won-U Kang, Myong-Il Ri, Yun-Chol Ko, and Hui-Chol Pak. “Reassessment of the “General Principles of Law” Referred to in Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute.” International Studies (New Delhi) 59, no. 2 (2022): 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817221100912.
Talbot Jensen, Eric. “The Tallinn Manual 2.0: highlights and insights.” Georgetown Journal of International Law, no. 48 (2017): 735.
Talmon, Stefan. “Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion.” European Journal of International Law 26, no. 2 (May 2015): 417–443. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv020.
Wood, Michael. “The present position within the ILC on the topic “Identification of customary international law”: in partial response to Sienho Yee, Report on the ILC Project on “Identification of Customary International Law.” Chinese Journal of International Law, (2016): 3-15.
Zammit Borda, Aldo. “A Formal Approach to Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute from the Perspective of the International Criminal Courts and Tribunals.” European Journal of International Law 24, no. 2 (2013): 649-661. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/cht023.
Dark Reading. “New research suggests Africa is being used as a ‘testing ground’ for nation state cyber warfare.” Accessed May 1, 2024. https://www.darkreading.com/cybersecurity-operations/new-research-suggests-africa-is-being-used-as-a-testing-ground-for-nation-state-cyber-warfare.
DeepL. “DeepL Translate.” Accessed May 19, 2024. https://www.deepl.com/translator.
EJIL Talk: Blog of the European Journal of International Law. “Israel’s cautious perspective on International Law in cyberspace: part II (jus ad bellum and jus in bello).” Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.ejiltalk.org/israels-cautious-perspective-on-international-law-in-cyberspace-part-ii-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-in-bello/.
ICRC. “Who we are.” Accessed May 20, 2024. https://www.icrc.org/en/who-we-are.
Kleinlein, Thomas. “Customary International Law and General Principles: Rethinking Their Relationship.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Accessed March 22, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2923964.
Mačák, Kubo. “Unblurring the Lines: Military Cyber Operations and International Law.” Accessed April 23, 2023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/23738871.2021.2014919?needAccess=true&role=button.
Marxsen, Christian. “What Do Different Theories of Customary International Law Have to Say About the Individual Right to Reparation Under International Humanitarian Law?” Accessed May 17, 2024. https://www.zaoerv.de.
Sender, Omri, and Michael Wood. “The International Court of Justice and Customary International Law: a reply to Stefan Talmon.” Accessed March 22, 2024. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-international-court-of-justice-and-customary-international-law-a-reply-to-stefan-talmon/.
Schmitt, Michael M. N. “The Notion of ‘Objects’ During Cyber Operations: A Riposte in Defence of Interpretive and Applicative Precision.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Accessed May 20, 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2557989.
Stephan, Paul B. “Big Data and the Future Law of Armed Conflict in Cyberspace.” Accessed March 20, 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3521387.
Talmon, Stefan. “Determining Customary International Law: the ICJ’s Methodology and the Idyllic World of the ILC.” EJIL Talk. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://www.ejiltalk.org/determining-customary-international-law-the-icjs-methodology-and-the-idyllic-world-of-the-ilc/.
The Wire. “State-sponsored cyberattacks against India went up by 278% between 2021 and September 2023: Report.” Accessed May 1, 2024. https://thewire.in/tech/state-sponsored-cyber-attacks-against-india-went-up-by-278-between-2021-and-september-2023report#:~:text=New%20Delhi%3A%20State%2Dsponsored%20cyber,a%20new%20report%20has%20found.
US Army. “US Army Investing Additional 25 million in Cybersecurity.” Accessed December 19, 2023. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/07/13/us-army-cybersecurity/.
Clapson, Colin. “Belgium invests extra 14 billion euros in defence over the next eight years.” VRT News. Accessed December 19, 2023. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2022/01/27/belgium-to-announce-major-defence-investments/.
Wong, Jing Zhi. “Comparative Legal Methodology and Its Relation to the Identification of Customary International Law.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Accessed March 22, 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3655195.