Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

A War on Terror? pp 171–219Cite as

Instruments of International Law: Against Terrorist Use of the Internet

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Because of its complex and transnational nature, to criminal justice systems within their traditional bounds, cyberterrorism presents fundamental challenges that can only be overcome by close international cooperation. The UN, the EU, and above all the Council of Europe have played key roles in attempts to facilitate such cooperation and ensure that an effective fight against cyberterrorism is possible. This chapter presents in detail the various legal instruments created, and presents an analysis of their potential to make a comprehensive provision for the fight against cyberterrorism. It investigates whether there are deficits in relation to the existing international instruments and suggests improvements where necessary.

This analysis is based on the author’s report prepared for the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) of the Council of Europe. See Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), pp. 44–97. Thanks are due to Emily Silverman and Indira Tie for invaluable translation and editing assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a more detailed analysis of these problems, see Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), pp. 212–218.

  2. 2.

    For the phenomena of cyberterrorism and other use of the Internet for terrorist purposes, see Brunst in: Council of Europe (2007), pp. 14–46; Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), pp. 173–175; Weimann (2005), pp. 129–149 as well as Brunst, this volume.

  3. 3.

    For a general analysis of deficits in the international conventions on terrorism, see Tomuschat (2005), p. 299 ff.

  4. 4.

    The identification and elimination of any such gaps requires a normative evaluation that depends, to some extent, on subjective attitudes. Thus, the identification of gaps is understood as the identification of a situation that – based on the subjective consideration of the author – might benefit from changes in the international law of cooperation, either to improve efficiency or to enhance the protection of civil liberties.

  5. 5.

    For a general overview on destructive attacks against computer systems via the Internet, see Brunst/Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), pp. 12–21; Foltz (2004), pp. 154–166; Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), pp. 173–175 and Brunst, this volume.

  6. 6.

    This can be achieved by manipulating the “supervisory control and data acquisition” (SCADA) systems that measure and control other systems, if these systems are connected to the Internet.

  7. 7.

    Furthermore, if the attacked system is protected by security measures, the intrusion cannot be achieved without the application of additional technical manipulations or deceptions, such as hacking techniques or methods of social engineering.

  8. 8.

    Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185).

  9. 9.

    Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, No. 65 interpreting Article 5 states that “the protected legal interest is the interest of operators and users of computer or telecommunication systems being able to have them function properly”.

  10. 10.

    Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, No. 65 interpreting Article 5. See also Nos. 60 and 61 describing the concept of Article 4.

  11. 11.

    Furthermore, there is a provision against computer-related forgery (Article 7), which can apply to preparatory electronic falsifications that might also facilitate intrusion.

  12. 12.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24.2.2005 on attacks against information systems (OJ L 69/67 of 16.3.2005).

  13. 13.

    The Framework Decision does not contain a provision on misuse of devices.

  14. 14.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  15. 15.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  16. 16.

    See Recital 4: “The Internet is […] thus functioning as a ‘virtual [terrorist] training camp’”.

  17. 17.

    Recital 11, second sentence: “These forms of behaviour should be equally punishable in all Member States irrespective of whether they are committed through the Internet or not”.

  18. 18.

    See Bassiouni (2001); Nuotio (2006), p. 1002 ff. For the UN Conventions on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999, see 5.3.2 and 5.4.2 infra.

  19. 19.

    Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft of 16.12.1970, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 12325; Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation of 23.9.1971, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 14118; Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation of 24.2.1988 (http://www.un.org/chinese/terrorism/1988E.pdf [last visited: 25 February 2009]). In addition, the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 14.9.1963, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 10106, regulates the powers of the aircraft commander with respect to offences committed on board.

  20. 20.

    Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons of 14.12.1973, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 15410.

  21. 21.

    Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 17.12.1979, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 21931.

  22. 22.

    Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material of 3.3.1980, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 37517.

  23. 23.

    International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism of 13.4.2005, see http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/English_18_15.pdf [last visited: 25 February 2009]; for status of signatures and ratifications, see http://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/mtdsg/volume%20ii/chapter%20xviii/xviii-15.en.pdf [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  24. 24.

    Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 10.3.1988, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 29004.

  25. 25.

    Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf of 10.3.1988, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 29004.

  26. 26.

    Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 15.12.1997, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 37517. In this connection, see also the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection of 1991, UN Treaties Series Reg. No. 36984, which provides for chemical marking to facilitate detection of plastic explosives, e.g. to combat aircraft sabotage.

  27. 27.

    See Sieber (2004), p. 26 ff.

  28. 28.

    See also Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, No. 8 of Recommendation 1644 (2004) on Terrorism: A Threat to Democracies (adopted 29.1.2004).

  29. 29.

    See Tomuschat (2005), p. 292 ff.

  30. 30.

    See, e.g., the specific sentencing rule of sec. 303b subsection 4 no. 3 of the current German draft combating computer crime (“Entwurf eines Strafrechtsänderungsgesetzes zur Bekämpfung der Computerkriminalität”), BT-Drucksache 16/3656.

  31. 31.

    See Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int/ [last visited: 25 February 2009]; Gercke (2006b), p. 145.

  32. 32.

    See Coll and Glasser (2005).

  33. 33.

    See the comparative legal analysis by Sieber (1999), p. 27.

  34. 34.

    For general threats against Germany and Austria via a video message sent to a website called “Global Islamic Mediafront” (GIMF), see Ramelsberger (2007), p. 5. For terrorist webpages, other forms of propaganda, and psychological warfare, as well as inciting, advertising, glorifying, and justifying terrorism, see Brunst/Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), pp. 25–29; Denning in: Arquilla (2001), pp. 239–288; Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), pp. 173–178; Thomas (2003), p. 117; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (2006), pp. 1–3; Weimann (2004a), pp. 1–12. For fundraising by selling books, videos, and CDs in online stores and by giving instructions for online donations, see Brunst/Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), p. 29; Gercke (2006a), p. 65; Thomas (2003), p. 116; Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), p. 178; Weimann (2004a), pp. 5–7. For teaching and training manuals, such as the “Terrorist’s Handbook”, the “Anarchist Cookbook”, the “Mujahadeen Poisons Handbook”, the “Encyclopedia of Jihad”, the “Sabotage Handbook”, and the pamphlet “How to Make Bombs”, see Brunst/Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), pp. 28–29; Coll and Glasser (2005); Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), pp. 173–178, 179–180; Weimann (2004a), p. 9. For recruiting for terrorism, see Brunst/Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), pp. 28–29; Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), p. 178.

  35. 35.

    See 5.2.2.6, infra.

  36. 36.

    See 5.2.1.2, supra.

  37. 37.

    See notes 22 and 23.

  38. 38.

    See notes 19, 21 and 26.

  39. 39.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  40. 40.

    Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196).

  41. 41.

    For details, see the evaluation at 5.2.2.7 infra.

  42. 42.

    See the comparative legal analysis by Sieber (1999), p. 27.

  43. 43.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  44. 44.

    However, the scope of application of the EU Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism and that of the CoE Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism differ: While a “terrorist offence” in terms of Article 1 of the CoE Convention means any of the offences within the scope of and as defined in the major UN conventions against terrorism, the EU Council Framework Decision defines terrorist offences autonomously in Article 1. See 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.3, supra.

  45. 45.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) of 14.9.2005.

  46. 46.

    The UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 38349, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 54/109 of 9.12.1999.

  47. 47.

    With respect to the financing of terrorism, this Convention is more specific and far-reaching than the above-mentioned UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. See United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime of 8.1.2001 (A/Res/55/25).

  48. 48.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) of 28.9.2001.

  49. 49.

    Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 198).

  50. 50.

    See Murphy (2002), pp. 973–975; Gercke (2006b), p. 144.

  51. 51.

    Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems of 28.1.2003 (ETS No. 189).

  52. 52.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28.11. 2008 (OJ L 328/55 of 6.12.2008).

  53. 53.

    The content of the latter provision corresponds largely with Article 6 of the Additional Protocol to the CoE Cybercrime Convention. However, unlike Article 6.2 (b) of Additional Protocol, Article 1 (c) and (d) do not allow for the right of the States not to apply this provision.

  54. 54.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4.11.1950 (ETS No. 5), as amended by Protocol No. 14 of 13.5.2004 (ETS No. 194).

  55. 55.

    See, e.g., Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196), Article 12, and Explanatory Report, Nos. 30, 88–98, 143–152, 143–152.

  56. 56.

    See, e.g., Council of Europe (2005b); UN Resolution No. 60/158 of the UN General Assembly and the report of the Secretary-General pursuant to this resolution of 11.9.2006.

  57. 57.

    CoE Declaration on freedom of expression and information in the media in the context of the fight against terrorism adopted by the CoE Committee of Ministers on 2.3.2005 at the 917th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

  58. 58.

    Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1706 (2005) of 20.6.2005 on “Media and Terrorism”.

  59. 59.

    Council of Europe Plenary Assembly, Recommendation 1687 (2004) on “Combating terrorism through culture”.

  60. 60.

    E.g., Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Media and Terrorism, of 20.5.2005, Doc. 10557, and the corresponding reply from the Committee of Ministers of 18.1.2006, Doc. 10791.

  61. 61.

    Recital 10 of the EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002), as amended by Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  62. 62.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  63. 63.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002).

  64. 64.

    See, e.g., Ministerial Council Decision No. 3/04 of 7.12.2004 of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) on combating the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes.

  65. 65.

    For details, see Sieber in: Hoeren/Sieber (2007), Part 18.1.

  66. 66.

    See Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196), Explanatory Report, No. 102 mentioning “hyperlinks” and No. 132 mentioning a “service provider” without considering the limiting function of the rules of participation and respective special provisions.

  67. 67.

    Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8.6.2000 on certain legal aspects of information services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce), OJ L 178/1 of 17.7.2000.

  68. 68.

    See Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council, Final evaluation of the implementation of the multiannual community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks, Brussels 6.11.2006, COM (2006) 663 final.

  69. 69.

    For more details, see below.

  70. 70.

    See also Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196), Explanatory Report, Nos. 30, 88–98.

  71. 71.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002), as amended by Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  72. 72.

    See Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196), Explanatory Report, Nos. 17, 26 in connection with No. 49; Ribbelink (2004), p. 11 ff.

  73. 73.

    For this proposal, see Tomuschat (2005), p. 299 ff.; Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196), Explanatory Report, Nos. 5–23.

  74. 74.

    “Notice and takedown procedures” are based on liability rules establishing responsibility only if the provider has actual knowledge of illegal content. Thus, by giving notice to the provider, he or she is forced to remove the illegal content in order to avoid responsibility.

  75. 75.

    See Sieber in: Lederman/Shapira (2001), pp. 231–292; Sieber in: Waltermann/Machill (2000), pp. 319–400, as well as the other contributions in this volume.

  76. 76.

    See Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (A/RES/54/263) of 25.5.2000, which entered into force on 18.1.2002; CoE Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse of 25.10.2007, not yet entered into force, see Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int/[last visited: 25 February 2009].

  77. 77.

    See Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int/ [last visited: 25 February 2009]; Gercke (2006b), p. 145.

  78. 78.

    As Article 34.2 (b) of the Treaty on European Union defines, “Framework decisions shall be binding upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. They shall not entail direct effect”. However, in contrast to EU directives, there is no efficient enforcement mechanism for framework decisions.

  79. 79.

    The EU Member States are to comply with the amendments to the EU Council Framework Decision on combating terrorism by 9 December 2010, pursuant to Article 3 para.1 Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA.

  80. 80.

    For the communication of terrorists on the Internet, see Brunst/Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), p. 7–34 (30–31); Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), p. 179; Weimann (2004a), p. 9 f.; Weimann (2004b); Whine (1999), p. 233 ff.; Wilson (2003), p. 18. For the use of the Internet by terrorists for logistical planning see Brunst/Sieber in: Council of Europe (2007), pp. 31–33; Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), p. 180; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (2006), pp. 1–2; Weimann (2004a), p. 2. For other patterns of terrorists seeking financial gains, see Sieber in: Council of Europe (2005b), p. 180 f.

  81. 81.

    United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime of 8.1.2001, (A/Res/55/25).

  82. 82.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 OJ L 300/42 of 11.11.2008.

  83. 83.

    However, in comparison to the UN Convention, the Framework Decision only focuses on criminalizing participation in a criminal organisation or agreements to conduct serious crimes. The UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime additionally aims at criminalizing corruption, the laundering of proceeds of crime and the obstruction of justice, see 5.2.3.2, supra.

  84. 84.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002), as amended by Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  85. 85.

    For the activities of the EU, see also the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning terrorist recruitment: addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation, 21.9.2005, COM (2005) 313 final.

  86. 86.

    For an analysis of the various legislative techniques employed to provide for the early onset of criminal liability, see Sieber (2006), pp. 27–40; Sieber (2009), pp. 353–408.

  87. 87.

    5.2.2.3.

  88. 88.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13.6.2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002) as amended by Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28.11.2008 (OJ L 330/21 of 9.12.2008).

  89. 89.

    With respect to the financing of terrorism, this Convention is more specific and far-reaching than the aforementioned UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. See United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime of 8.1.2001 (A/Res/55/25).

  90. 90.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24.10.2008 on the fight against organised crime (OJ L 300/42 of 11.11.2008).

  91. 91.

    The same question applies to the “conspiracy approach” of Article 5.1. (a) (i) of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and Article 2 (b) of the EU Council Framework Decision on the fight against organized crime.

  92. 92.

    Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185).

  93. 93.

    For details, see Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, Nos. 131–239.

  94. 94.

    For details, see Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, Nos. 140–148. See also Article 8 of the “Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems” of 28.1.2003 (ETS No. 189) confirming that the relevant articles of the Cybercrime Convention are applied to the crimes defined in the Additional Protocol.

  95. 95.

    Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15.3.2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communication services of public communication networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ L 105, 13.4.2006), pp. 54–63.

  96. 96.

    Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 198).

  97. 97.

    “Financing of terrorism” means the acts set out in Article 2 of the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 38349, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 54/109 on 9.12.1999.

  98. 98.

    UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 38349, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 54/109 on 9.12.1999.

  99. 99.

    United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of 8.1.2001 (A/Res/55/25).

  100. 100.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) of 28.9.2001.

  101. 101.

    Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196).

  102. 102.

    United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of 8.1.2001 (A/Res/55/25).

  103. 103.

    European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20.4.1959 (ETS No. 30); Additional Protocol on the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 17.3.1978 (ETS No. 99); Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 8.11.2001 (ETS No. 182).

  104. 104.

    European Convention on Extradition of 13.12.1957 (ETS No. 24) and its additional protocols of 15.10.1975 (ETS No. 86) and of 17.3.1978 (ETS No. 98).

  105. 105.

    See Article 15 of the Convention and Breyer (2001), p. 594; Dix (2001), p. 588 f.; Gercke (2004), p. 783; Taylor (2002). See also the comments of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International on Draft 27 of the CoE Convention on Cybercrime at http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cybercrime/coe/ngo_letter_601.htm [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  106. 106.

    For details, see Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, Nos. 145–148.

  107. 107.

    Abuses of third-party computers for attacks involving mass queries raise the additional question of the necessity of creating obligatory security measures.

  108. 108.

    For the interpretation of this clause, see Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, Explanatory Report (ETS No. 185), Nos. 196–199 (especially the indication in No. 199: “seize or similarly secure data has two functions”).

  109. 109.

    See Sieber in: Waltermann/Machill (2000), p. 319 ff. See also Sieber (2009), p. 653 ff.

  110. 110.

    110 Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185).

  111. 111.

    For details, see Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, Nos. 240–302.

  112. 112.

    For details, see Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, No. 297–302.

  113. 113.

    For details, see Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185), Explanatory Report, Nos. 243, 245, 253.

  114. 114.

    EU Union Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24.2.2005 on attacks against information systems (OJ L 69/67 of 16.3.2005).

  115. 115.

    However, judging by the wording of Article 10.4, it remains unclear whether this rule of precedence is optional or obligatory and what is meant by the wording “sequentially”.

  116. 116.

    Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 198).

  117. 117.

    UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 38349, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 54/109 on 9.12.1999.

  118. 118.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) of 28.9.2001.

  119. 119.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1535 (2004) of 26.3.2004.

  120. 120.

    The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 27.1.1977 (ETS No. 90) as amended by the Protocol of 15.5.2003 (ETS No. 190). The Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 2003 addresses offences within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism with new rules on reservations.

  121. 121.

    Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.5.2005 (ETS No. 196).

  122. 122.

    EU Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20.9.2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences. OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, pp. 22–24.

  123. 123.

    EU Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13.06.2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190/1 of 18.7.2002).

  124. 124.

    See 5.2.1.2, supra.

  125. 125.

    E.g. Article 8 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft of 16.12.1970, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 12325; Article 8 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons of 14.12.1973, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 15410.; Article 11 of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material of 3.3.1980, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 37517; Article 11 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 10.3.1988, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 29004; Article 9 of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing of 15.12.1997, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 37517; Extradition Exception Clause Article 9 of the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 17.12.1979, UN Treaty Series Reg. No. 21931.

  126. 126.

    European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20.4.1959 (ETS No. 30); Additional Protocol on the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 17.3.1978 (ETS No. 99); Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 8.11.2001 (ETS No. 182).

  127. 127.

    European Convention on Extradition of 13.12.1957 (ETS No. 24) and its additional protocols of 15.10.1975 (ETS No. 86) and of 17.3.1978 (ETS No. 98).

  128. 128.

    In this context, it is worth noting that the EU Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13.6.2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States does not contain a political offence exception clause.

  129. 129.

    See 5.2.1.2, supra.

  130. 130.

    The need for international action to deal with illegal content has been shown in all three areas dealt with above: national substantive law, national procedural law, and international cooperation law. See 5.2.3.3, 5.3.4, and 5.4.5, supra.

  131. 131.

    For a comparative analysis of the substantive criminal law provisions in the area of illegal content, see Sieber (1999).

  132. 132.

    For a comparative analysis of the responsibility regime of Internet providers, see Sieber in: Lederman/Shapira (2001), pp. 231–292; for the situation in Germany, see Sieber/Höfinger in: Hoeren/Sieber (2009), Chapter 18.1, pp. 1–72.

  133. 133.

    See Sieber and Nolde (2008). See also Sieber (2009), p. 653 ff.

References

  • Bassiouni, M. C. (2001). International Terrorism: Multilateral Conventions (1937–2001). Transnational Publishers: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, P. (2001). Cyber-Crime-Konvention des Europarats. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit. Volume 25, pp. 592–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, S., Glasser, S. B. (2005). Terrorists Turn to the Web as Base of Operations. The Washington Post. 7 August 2005, Section A01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2001). Council of Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23.11.2001 (ETS No. 185). Explanatory Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2005a). Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16.05.2005 (ETS No. 196). Explanatory Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2005b). Human Rights and the Fight Against Terrorism. The Council of Europe Guidelines. Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning, D. (2001). Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy. In: Arquilla, J. The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy. Rand: Santa Monica et al., pp. 239–288. Also online available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch8.pdf [last visited: 25 February 2009].

    Google Scholar 

  • Dix, A. (2001). Regelungsdefizite der Cyber-Crime-Konvention und der E-TKÜV. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit. Volume 25, pp. 588–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foltz, C. (2004). Cyberterrorism, Computer Crime, and Reality. Information Management & Computer Security. Volume 12, No. 2, pp. 154–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gercke, M. (2004). Cybercrime Konvention des Europarates. Computer und Recht. Volume 20, pp. 782–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gercke, M. (2006a). “Cyberterrorismus” - Aktivitäten Terroristischer Organisationen im Internet. Computer & Recht. pp. 62–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gercke, M. (2006b). The Slow Wake of a Global Approach Against Cybercrime. Computer Law Review International. pp. 140–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeren, T., Sieber, U. (2007). Handbuch Multimedia-Recht. Rechtsfragen des elektronischen Geschäftsverkehrs. Loose leaf. Beck: München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. D. (2002). Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law. American Journal of International Law. Volume 96, pp. 956–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuotio, K. (2006). Terrorism as a Catalyst for the Emergence, Harmonization and Reform of Law. Journal of International Criminal Justice. Volume 4, pp. 998–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oeter, S. (2002). Terrorismus und Menschenrechte. Archiv des Völkerrechts. Volume 40, pp. 422–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramelsberger, A. (2007). Krieger im Internet. Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. 5. Also online available at http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/327/396114/text/[last visited: 25 February 2009].

  • Ribbelink, O. M. (2004). Apologie du Terrorisme“and “Incitement to Terrorism. Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretary-General of the UN (2006). Protecting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism. Report pursuant to the UN Resolution No. 60/158 of the UN General Assembly. A/61/353. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/526/78/PDF/N0652678.pdf?OpenElement [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  • Sieber, U. (1999). Kinderpornographie, Jugendschutz und Providerverantwortlichkeit im Internet – Eine strafrechtsvergleichende Untersuchung. Edited by the German Ministry of Justice in the series “recht”. Forum Verlag: Mönchengladbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2000). Legal Regulation, Law Enforcement and Self-Regulation – A New Alliance for Preventing Illegal Contents on the Internet. In: Waltermann, J., Machill, M. Protecting Our Children on the Internet. Towards a New Culture of Responsibility. Bertelsmann Foundation Publishing: Gütersloh, pp. 319–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2001). Responsibility of Internet Providers: Comparative Analysis of a Basic Question of Information Law. In: Lederman, E., Shapira, R. Law, Information and Information Technology. Kluwer Law International: The Hague, pp. 231–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2004). Punishment of Serious Crimes. A Comparative Analysis of Sentencing Law and Practice. Ed. Iuscrim: Freiburg im Breisgau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2005). The Threat of Cybercrime. In: Council of Europe (2005b). Organised Crime in Europe. The Threat of Cybercrime. Situation Report 2004. Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, pp. 81–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2006). Grenzen des Strafrechts. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft. Volume 119, pp. 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2009). Sperrverpflichtungen gegen Kinderpornografie im Internet: Bewertung und Weiterentwicklung des Gesetzentwurfs BT-Drucks. 16/12850 vom 5. 5. 2009. Juristenzeitung, Volume 64, pp. 653–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U., Brunst, P. (2007). Cyberterrorism and Other Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes – Threat Analysis and Evaluation of International Conventions. In: Council of Europe (2007). Cyberterrorism – The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes. Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, pp. 9–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U., Höfinger, F. (2009). Allgemeine Grundsätze der Haftung. In: Hoeren, T., Sieber, U. Handbuch Multimedia Recht. Rechtsfragen des elektronischen Geschäftsverkehrs. Loose leaf. Beck: München, pp. 1–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U., Nolde, M. (2008). Sperrverfügungen im Internet. Nationale Rechtsdurchsetzung im globalen Cyberspace. Duncker & Humblot: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2009), Legitimation und Grenzen von Gefährdungsdelikten im Vorfeld von terroristischer Gewalt - Eine Analyse der Vorfeldtatbestände im “Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten”. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht. Vol. 29 (2009), pp. 353–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, G. (2002). The Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention - A Civil Liberties Perspective. http://www.crime-research.org/library/CoE_Cybercrime.html [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  • Thomas, T. L. (2003). Cyberplanning, Al Qaeda and the Internet: The Danger of “Cyberplanning”. Parameters. Volume 33, No. 1, pp. 112–123. Also online available at http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/cyberplanning/al-qaeda.htm [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  • Tomuschat, C. (2005). Council of Europe Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER), Strasbourg. on the Possible “Added Value” of a Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism. Human Rights Law Journal. Volume 26, pp. 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (2006). Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism. DCSINT Handbook No. 1.02. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terrorism/sup2.pdf [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  • Weimann, G. (2004a). www.terror.net. How Modern Terrorism Uses the Internet. United States Institute of Peace. Special Report No. 116. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr116.pdf [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  • Weimann, G. (2004b). Terrorists and Their Tools – Part II. Using the Internet to Recruit, Raise Funds, and Plan Attacks. YaleGlobal Online. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/article.print?id=3768 [last visited: 25 February 2009].

  • Weimann, G. (2005). Cyberterrorism: The Sum of All Fears? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. Volume 28, pp. 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whine, M. (1999). Cyberspace – A New Medium for Communication, Command, and Control by Extremists. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. Volume 22, pp. 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. (2003). Computer Attack and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (RL32114). Updated 1 April 2005, http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/crs/45184.pdf [last visited: 25 February 2009].

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Director at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany

    Ulrich Sieber

Authors
  1. Ulrich Sieber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Sieber .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Internationales Strafrecht, MPI für Ausländisches und, Günterstalstr. 73, Freiburg, 79100, Germany

    Marianne Wade

  2. Fac. Criminal Justice Sciences, University of Sarajevo, Zmaja od Bosne 8, Sarajevo, 71000, Bosnia-Herzegovina

    Almir Maljevic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sieber, U. (2010). Instruments of International Law: Against Terrorist Use of the Internet. In: Wade, M., Maljevic, A. (eds) A War on Terror?. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89291-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation