Cyber-Attack in Estonia: a New Challenge in The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law

Iradhati Zahra, Irawati Handayani, Diajeng Wulan Christianti

Abstract

This article aimed to analyze the classification of armed conflict in Estonia's cyber-attack and how the existing IHL are answering this problem, and whether those regulations are enough for future cases of cyber-attack. This article uses the normative method by comparing the Geneva Convention 1949 and Additional Protocol I 1977 with Rule 30 Tallinn Manual 1.0 and some relevant literary works, using a descriptive-analytic to explain the object comprehensively. The result shows that Estonia's cyber-attack could be classified as an International Armed Conflict, which first started as a Non-International Armed Conflict by proving attribution from Russia to Nashi Youth Group following the Overall Control in Tadic Case. The distinction between information warfare and cyber-attack is related to the physical impact, which a threshold of a cyber-attack under Tallinn Manual 1.0. It means Rule 30 of Tallinn Manual 1.0 also answered Jus ad Bellum's threshold and Jus in Bello in terms of cyber-attack. Although, this article needs some improvements regarding the limitation of this issue only focused on the Material Scope of IHL. In addition, Rule 30 of Tallinn Manual 1.0 is not legally binding because it is not one source of international law. However, it is possible for the Rule 30 Tallinn Manual 1.0 to be a new norm and becoming customary international law in the future.

Keywords

Application of International Humanitarian Law; Estonia’s Cyber-Attack; Armed conflict

Full Text:

PDF

References

Books:

Amazon Web Services. (2019). AWS Best Practices for DDoS Resiliency.

Arnold, C. (n.d.). Russian’s Group Claims Reopen Debate on Estonian Cyber Attacks.Retrieved August 29, 2020, from https://www.rferl.org/a/Russian_Groups_ Claims_Reopen_Debate_On_Estonian_Cyberattacks_/1564694.html

Atwal, M. and E. B. (2012). The Youth Movement Nashi: Contentious Politics, Civil Society, and Party Politics. East European Politics, 28(3).

Brierly, J. L. (2012). Brierly’s Law of Nations. Brierly’s Law of Nations. https://doi. org/10.1093/law/9780199657933.001.0001

Cassese, A. (2007). The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests revisited in light of the ICJ judgment on genocide in Bosnia. European Journal of International Law, 18(4), 649–668. https:// doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm034

CCD COE NATO. (2013). Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (Tallinn Manual 1.0). In M. N. Schmitt (Ed.), NATO (Vol. 82, Issue 12). https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gpdw3.13

HPCR. (2009). Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. In Group.

Kolb, R. and R. H. (2008). An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts. Hart Publishing.

Sassoli, M. (n.d.). How Does Law Protect in War? In ICRC Online Casebook. https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/internationalized-internal-armed-conflict. Tikk, E. (2010). International Cyber Incidents Legal Considerations. CCD COE.

Zetter, K. (2014). Countdown to Zero Day Stuxnet and the Lunch of the World’s First Digital Weapons. Crown Publishers.

Legal Documents:

Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949, 30 (1977). https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0321.pdf

Charter of the United Nations and statute of the International Court of Justice, 3 (2014). https://doi.org/10.18356/c89fd759-en Commentary 2016 on Geneva Convention I 1949, (2016).

Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Prosecutor V.Dusko Tadic A/K/A “Dule,” (1995).

GA resolution 3314, Pub. L. No. 3314 (1974). https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/3314(XXIX) Geneva Convention III, (1949).

ICRC. (2008). How is Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law (Opinion Paper). International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). The Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949. August, 224.

Opinion and Judgement on Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic A/K/A “Dule,” (1997).

Walter, C., Vöneky, S., Röben, V., & Schorkopf, F. (2004). Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001). II, 1465–1482. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-18896-1_61


Journal Articles:

Arend, A. C. (2003). International law and the preemptive use of military force. Washington Quarterly, 26(2), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1162/01636600360569711

Atwal, M. and E. B. (2012). The Youth Movement Nashi: Contentious Politics, Civil Society, and Party Politics. East European Politics, 28(3).

Cassese, A. (2007). The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests revisited in light of the ICJ judgment on genocide in Bosnia. European Journal of International Law, 18(4), 649–668. https:// doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm034

Grignon, J. (2014). The beginning of application of international humanitarian law: A discussion of a few challenges. International Review of the Red Cross, 96(893), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383115000326

Herzog,S.(2011).RevisitingtheEstonianCyberAttacks:DigitalThreatsandMultinational Responses. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.2.3

Hurley, W. J. (2009). Non-Kinetic Capabilities for Irregular Warfare: Four Case Studies.In Institute for Defense Analysis Paper.

Julie Hemment. (2012). Nashi, Youth Voluntarism, and Potemkin NGOs: Making Sense of Civil Society in Post-Soviet Russia. Slavic Review, 71(2), 234. https://doi. org/10.5612/slavicreview.71.2.0234

Kilovaty, I. (2014). Cyber Warfare and the Jus Ad Bellum Challenges: Evaluation in the Light of the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. American University National Security Law Brief, 5(1), 4.

Peagler, J. (2014). The Stuxnet Attack: A New Form of Warfare and the (In)applicability of Current International Law. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law,31(2), 399–434.

Hidayat, S. N., Karjoko, L., & Hermawan, S. (2020). Discourse on Legal Expression in Arrangements of Corruption Eradication in Indonesia. JILS (Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies), 5(2).

Marttinen, K. (2016). State Responsibility for Genocide – The International Court of Justice’s Judgment in the Genocide Case and its Aftermath. http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/downloa d?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8897226&fileOId=8900463

NATO. (n.d.). 2007 Cyber Attacks on Estonia. Thematic Area: Cyber Operations. https:// webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O8F8g08TxSQJ:https://www.stratcomcoe.org/download/file/fid/80772+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=id

Ottis, R. (2008). Analysis of the 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia from the information warfare perspective. 7th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security 2008, ECIW 2008, April, 163–168.

YAPICI, M. İ. (2016). What Role Did Nashi Play in Russian Internal Politics and Foreign Policy A Formulator or an Implementer? Review of International Law and Politics, 12(2), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.19096/rilp.2016216812

Schmidt, A. (2013). The Estonian Cyber Attacks. In J. Healey (Ed.), The Fierce Domain Conflicts in Cyberspace 1986 - 2012. Atlantic Council.

Website:

Arnold, C. (n.d.). Russian’s Group Claims Reopen Debate on Estonian Cyber Attacks. Retrieved August 29, 2020, from https://www.rferl.org/a/Russian_Groups_ Claims_Reopen_Debate_On_Estonian_Cyberattacks_/1564694.html

Kimberly kagan. (2007). Iran’s Proxy War Against U.S. and the Iraqi Government. Institute for the Study of War. http://www.understandingwar.org/report/irans- proxy-war-against-united-states-and-iraq

Parker, D. (n.d.). Iran, the United States, and the Political Seesaw. The New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/07/ world/middleeast/iran-timeline.html#/#time5_211

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v10i1.48336

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.