Abstract
ABSTRACTThere is a growing consensus in the literature on the applicability of the jus ad bellum to cyber-attacks that the effects caused by an attack should determine whether the attack constitutes a use of force (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter) or an armed attack giving rise to self-defence (Article 51 of the UN Charter). This article argues that this approach is inconsistent and dangerous. The push to include cyber-attacks in the existing framework on the use of force disregards the consensus on other non-conventional uses of force like economic sanctions and damage caused by espionage, and it is premised on dangerous hyperbole in sensational media stories. Such an approach ignores serious practical problems regarding the attribution of cyber-attacks and would open the door wide for abuse. There is no reason to weaken the effectiveness of a deliberately narrow system on the use of force based on dystopian scenarios.
Accepted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call