Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Perspectives of Various Stakeholders and Challenges for International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public International Law of Cyberspace

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 32))

  • 2692 Accesses

Abstract

The Internet, the main component of cyberspace, is one of the “dual use” technologies, which can be used for good and bad purposes depending on the intention of users. Currently, there are more than three billion Internet users around the world (or almost half of the world’s total population), the largest number of whom are in Asia, followed by Europe, Latin America, North America, Africa, and the Oceania. Nation States’ perspectives on the phenomenon of cyberspace naturally reflect their respective cyber capabilities, ideologies as well as strategic, economic, and political interests. States have been trying at various global and regional forums, including the United Nations, to deal with threats, opportunities, and other challenges arising in the cyber domain. However, due to their diverging positions on a new ideal international regulatory regime, relevant existing rules of public international law have to be resorted to, lest there be chaos in cyberspace. Public international law is the body of law governing international relations among States and/or international organizations, including their international legal obligations towards private natural persons or legal persons (or corporations). It derives essentially from international agreements and international custom and comprises international norms, rules, standards, and codes of conduct that can help prevent crises caused by misunderstanding, errors, or misattribution in cyberspace. This chapter explains the perspectives of cyberspace stakeholders and the operation and identification of public international law.

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

Access this chapter

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nils Melzer, Cyberwarfare and International Law (Geneva: UNIDIR Resources, 2011), 4. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) defines “cyberspace” simply as “a virtual space that provides worldwide interconnectivity” [ICRC, International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts (Geneva: ICRC, 2015), 39].

    For a concise analysis of the Internet, see, UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime (New York: United Nations, 2013), Annex Four.

  2. 2.

    “The truly personal computer”, Economist, 28 Feb. 2015, 17–20.

  3. 3.

    Alex Fitzpatrick, “Fire Starter: The app helping fuel protests around the globe,” Time, 27 Oct. 2014, 12. For the role of the Internet in social movements across the world, see, Manuel Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity, 2015).

  4. 4.

    Cf. George R.S. Weir and Stephen Mason, “The Sources of Digital Evidence,” in Electronic Evidence, 3rd ed., ed. Stephen Mason (London: Butterworth, 2012), 1 at 16–21.

  5. 5.

    Cf. the proposed definition of “the realm of computer networks (and the users behind them) in which information is stored, shared, and communicated online” in P.W. Singer and Allan Friedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs To Know (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 13; and the US Dept. of Defence’s definition in 2008, which is “the global domain within the information environment consisting of the Internet interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, including the internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers” (ibid.).

  6. 6.

    Chris Baraniuk, “The disastrous events that would break the internet”, BBC, 11 Mar. 2015. Cf. Edward G. Amoroso, Cyber Attacks: Protecting National Infrastructure (Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2011), 1–9; Rajbir Kaur, M.S. Kaur, Lalith Suresh and V. Laxmi, “DoS Attacks in MANETs: Detection and Countermeasures,” in Cyber Security, Cyber Crime and Cyber Forensics: Application and Perspectives, eds. Raghu Santanam, M. Sethumadhavan and Mohit Virendra (Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference, 2011), chap. 10.

  7. 7.

    Internet World Stats, available at http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. For a general introduction to the regulation of the Internet, see, Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Lee A. Bygrave and Jon Bing, eds., Internet Governance: Infrastructure and Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

  8. 8.

    The ITU’s Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) launched in April 2014 measures and ranks each State’s level of cybersecurity in 5 main areas, including “legal measures” (criminal legislation plus regulation & compliance) and “cooperation” (at the intra-State, intra-agency, and international levels as well as public-private partnerships).

  9. 9.

    Outcome Documents (Geneva 2003 – Tunis 2005) of the World Summit on Information Society.

  10. 10.

    Montreux Declaration on the Protection of Personal Data in a Globalized World: a Universal Right respecting Diversity (Sept. 2005); para. 51 of the Declaration of the Heads of Governments and States of Countries Which Share the French Language (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, Nov. 2004). See also, Alexander Rust, “Data Protection as a Fundamental Right,” in Exchange of Information and Bank Secrecy, eds. Alexander Rust and Eric Fort (Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, Law & Business, 2012), chap. 10.

  11. 11.

    International Strategy for Cyberspace: Prosperity, Security and Openness in a Networked World (May 2011), 10.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., 5.

  14. 14.

    For some debates on the concept of network neutrality, see, Haley Sweetland Edwards, “Whose Internet is It?”, Time, 13 Nov. 2014, 14; “Network neutrality: To be continued”, Economist, 31 Jan. 2015, 51; Jane Wakefield, “Net Neutrality set to be defended by US regulator”, BBC, 4 Feb. 2015.

  15. 15.

    Draft Preliminary Principles and Recommendations on Data Protection (the Protection of Personal Data), Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, OEA/Ser.G CP/CAJP-2921/10, 19 Nov. 2010.

  16. 16.

    Doc. CJI/RES. 186 (LXXX-O/12).

  17. 17.

    CJI/doc. 474/15 rev.2 (26 Mar. 2015).

  18. 18.

    Joel Macharia, “Africa Needs a Cyber Security Law But AU’s Proposal is Flawed, Advocates Say”, techPresident, 31 Jan. 2014, available at: http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24712/africa-union-cybersecurity-law-flawed.

  19. 19.

    Internet World Stats, available at http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.

  20. 20.

    J. Otieno, “Worries over New Revenues of Cybercrime”, East African, 22 Sept. 2014, cited in Iginio Gagliardone and Nanjira Sambuli, “Cyber Security and Cyber Resilience in East Africa”, Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series No. 15 (Waterloo/Canada and London: Centre for International Governance Innovation & Chatham House: May 2015), 1.

  21. 21.

    “Asia has become frontline for computer hackers”, China Post, 27 Nov. 2014, 15, reporting the findings of Microsoft Taiwan Corp.

  22. 22.

    Suchit Lessa-Nguansuk, “Thailand at high risk for cybersattack”, Bangkok Post, 4 Sept. 2015, B3, citing a survey by Kaspersky Lab, a Moscow-based security software supplier.

  23. 23.

    “Thailand ranked 5th for threats”, Bangkok Post, 29 Feb. 2016.

  24. 24.

    Leisha Chi, “Asian companies have world’s worst cybersecurity says study”, BBC, 25 Aug. 2016.

  25. 25.

    Internet World Stat, Usages and Population Statistics, available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/

    top20.htm.

  26. 26.

    “Xi Jinping calls for ‘cyber sovereignty’ at Beijing internet conference”, BBC, 16 Dec. 2015. The speech was delivered at the World Internet Conference held in Zhejiang province, China.

  27. 27.

    Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

  28. 28.

    ITU, ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2014, Percentage of Individuals Using the Internet, cited in The Internet Society, Unleashing the Potential of the Internet for ASEAN Economies (Washington, DC: Internet Society, 2015), 10.

  29. 29.

    Also, Hitoshi Nasu and Helen Trezise, “Cyber Security in the Asia-Pacific,” in Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace, eds. Nicholas Tsagourias and Russell Buchan (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2015), 446–464.

  30. 30.

    The ARF has 27 Members; namely, the 10 ASEAN Member States plus Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, European Union, India, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, and United States.

  31. 31.

    An American computer programmer and former CIA employee. He worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) through subcontractor Booz Allen in the NSA’s office in Hawaii. In May 2013, he leaked top secret information on the NSA’s surveillance activities and has been charged by US authorities under the Espionage Act.

  32. 32.

    UNGA Res. 68/167, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’, 18 Dec. 2013, at preamble (emphasis added).

  33. 33.

    The Conclusions of the European Council (24/25 Oct. 2013), EUCO 169/13, para. 8. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/139197.pdf.

    See also, Patrick Lane, “Data protectionism”, Economist (The World in 2014 edition), 18 Nov. 2013, 122 on reactions in Europe to the Snowden revelation; and Tim Lister, “Latest NSA leaks point finger at high-tech eavesdropping hub in UK”, CNN, 20 Dec. 2013, on alleged eavesdropping on an EU official.

  34. 34.

    A/HRC/28/L.27.

  35. 35.

    UNGA Doc. A/68/98 (24 Jun. 2013), Part III. The members of the Group came from Argentina, Australia (Chair), Belarus, Canada, China, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, UK, and US. See also the debate in Société française pour le droit international, Colloque de Rouen: Internet et le droit international (Paris: Editions A. Pedone, 2014), 11–35, 65–85, 115–132.

  36. 36.

    For examples of such self-regulation, see “Twitter Suspends Somali Militants’ Account, Cutting a Link to the Wider World”, New York Times, 6 Sept. 2013; “Internet security: Besieged”, Economist, 9 Nov. 2013, 81–82; Rob Lever, “Encrypted Blackphone battles snoopers”, China Post, 20 Jan. 2014, 6; “White hats to the rescue: Law-abiding hackers are helping businesses to fight off the bad guys”, Economist, 22 Feb. 2014, 56–57; Harry McCracken, “Mail-Safe: E-mail providers get serious about security”, Time, 4 Apr. 2014, 11.

  37. 37.

    UNGA Doc. A/70/174 (22 Jul. 2015). The 2nd report was issued by the GGEs comprising the representatives of Belarus, Brazil (Chair), China, Colombia, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Ghana, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Rep. of Korea, Russia, Spain, UK, and US.

    For further information on the work of the GGEs, see, Marina Kaljurand, “United Nations Group of Government Experts: The Estonian Perspectives,” in International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives, eds. Anna-Maria Osula and Henry Rõigas (Tallinn: NATO CCD COE, 2016), chap. 6.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., paras. 26–27.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., para. 28.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para. 29. The GGEs’ position on the relevance and adequacy of the existing international law may be contrary to the proposition for a completely novel international legal regime for cyberspace in Joanna Kulesza, International Internet Law (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), esp. xi–xv, 158–160.

  41. 41.

    UNGA Doc. A/66/359 (14 Sept. 2011).

  42. 42.

    See, e.g., Timothy Farnsworth, “China and Russia Submit Cyber Proposal”, Arms Control Association, Nov. 2011; “Russia & China propose UN General Assembly Resolution on ‘information security’”, Internet Governance Project, 20 Sept. 2011; Jeffrey Carr, “4 problems with China and Russia’s International Code of Conduct for Information Security”, Digital Dao, 22 Sept. 2011.

  43. 43.

    UNGA Doc. A/69/723.

  44. 44.

    Henry Rõigas, “An Updated Draft of the Code of Conduct Distributed in the United Nations – What’s New?”, Int’l Cyber Developments Rev., 10 Feb. 2015.

  45. 45.

    A/70/174, para. 12.

  46. 46.

    The meaning of “cyber operations” as opposed to “cyberattacks” will be explained in Chap. 4 below.

  47. 47.

    Singer and Friedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar, 42–143. See also, Greg Austin, “International Legal Norms in Cyberspace: Evolution of China’s National Security Motivations” in eds., Osula and Rõigas, International Cyber Norms, chap. 9; Igor Bernik, Cybercrime and Cyberwarfare (London: ISTE and John Wiley & Sons, 2014), 113–117.

  48. 48.

    Nikolas K. Gvosdev, “The Bear Goes Digital: Russia and Its Cyber Capabilities,” in Cyber Challenges and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World, ed., Derek S. Reveron (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2012), chap. 11, esp. at 175; Sam Jones, “Weaponised information”, Financial Times Weekend, 20–21 Aug. 2016, 7; Gordon Corera, “Why the US fears Russia is hacking its presidential election”, BBC, 11 Oct. 2016; cf. Bernik, Cybercrime, 117–120.

  49. 49.

    Initial Set of OSCE Confidence-Building Measures to Reduce the Risks of Conflict Stemming from the Use of Information and Communication Technologies, OSCE Permanent Council Decision No. 1106 (PC.DEC/ 1106).

  50. 50.

    Samuel P. Liles III, “Cyber Warfare as a Form of Conflict: Evaluation of Models of Cyber Conflict as a Prototype to Conceptual Analysis”, Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, 2012, 30–39; Michael N. Schmitt, “Wired warfare: Computer network attack and jus in bello”, International Rev. Red Cross 84 (2002), 365–366.

  51. 51.

    Memorandum for Chiefs of the Military Services, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, and Directors of the Joint Staff Directorate, available at: http://www.nsci-va.org/CyberReferenceLib/2010-11-joint%20Terminology%20for%20Cyberspace%20Operations.pdf.

  52. 52.

    Liles III, “Cyber Warfare”, 42. See, however, Chap. 4 below.

  53. 53.

    Martin C. Libicki, Crisis and Escalation in Cyberspace (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2012), xiii and chap. 2.

  54. 54.

    Andreas Zimmermann, “International Law and ‘Cyber Space’”, European Soc. International Law Reflections 3 (2014), at Part III.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Michael Doyle, “A Global Constitution?: The Struggle over the UN Charter” (paper presented at the NYU Symposium, 22 Sept. 2010); Bardo Fassbender, The United Nations Charter as the Constitution of the International Community (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, 2009).

  56. 56.

    Art. 34(1), ICJ Statute.

  57. 57.

    Art. 36, ICJ Statute.

  58. 58.

    However, the ICJ “may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the UN Charter of the United Nations to make such a request” (Art. 65(1), ICJ Statute). Pursuant to Art. 96(1) of the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council may request the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on any legal question. Under Art. 65(2) of the UN Charter, other organs of the UN and UN specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the UN General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

  59. 59.

    Art. 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., Art. 26.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., Arts. 27 and 46.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., Art. 31.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., Art. 32.

  64. 64.

    Text of the draft conclusions provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee, Doc. A/CN.4/L.869 (14 Jul. 2015), which was adopted by the ILC in August 2016 and appears in Chapter V of the ILC Report for the 68th Session, submitted to the UN General Assembly later that year.

  65. 65.

    The author is grateful to Giorgio Gaja, “General Principles of Law,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) and the cases and sources cited therein which are also cited in the next seven footnotes of this book.

  66. 66.

    It means a final judgment on the merits of the case which is subject to no appeal and is binding upon the parties to the dispute; thus, each of the parties is precluded from pursuing litigation on a case on same issues between same parties. See, Case concerning the Loan Agreement between Italy and Costa Rica (R.I.A.A. vol. XXV, pp. 21–82, para. 14); and also the drafting history of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice: Advisory Committee of Jurists Procès-verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, 16 June−24 July 1920, with Annexes, at 335 (per Lord Phillimore).

  67. 67.

    Boundary Dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the Frontier Line between Boundary Post 62 and Mount Fitzroy (R.I.A.A. vol. XXII, pp. 3–149), para. 68.

  68. 68.

    The Latin terminologies mean direct loss and the interests or damages for the loss of reasonably expected profits or for loss of use of property, respectively. See, Amco Asia Co v. Rep. of Indonesia [Award of 20 November 1984], ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, FA, para. 267.

  69. 69.

    The boundaries between colonies should be preserved after they become independent sovereign States. See, Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), ICJ Rep. 1986, p. 554, paras. 20, 24.

  70. 70.

    Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), ICJ Rep. 1949, p. 4, at p. 22.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear(Cambodia v Thailand) (Merits), ICJ Rep. 1962, p. 6, para. 26.

  73. 73.

    Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentary, ILC Rep. 1966, 246, 247.

  74. 74.

    Grant Lamond, “Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Ed.), ed. Edward N. Zalta, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/legal-reas-prec/.

  75. 75.

    Dissenting Opinion of Judge Lachs in North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Fed. Rep. Germany/Netherlands; Fed. Rep. Germany/Denmark), ICJ Rep. 1969, p. 3 at p. 230.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Thai Embassy, Moscow, Russia

    Kriangsak Kittichaisaree

Authors
  1. Kriangsak Kittichaisaree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kittichaisaree, K. (2017). Introduction: Perspectives of Various Stakeholders and Challenges for International Law. In: Public International Law of Cyberspace. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54657-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54657-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54656-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54657-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation