The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

Living Edition
| Editors: Oliver Richmond (Editor-in-Chief), Gëzim Visoka (Editor-in-Chief)

Cyber Conflict

Living reference work entry



The development of cyber capabilities among state and non-state actors, as well as the increase of cyber dependency has made cyber conflict a plausible reality and no longer a hypothetical example. There is a general agreement among scholars and states that the traditional concept of conflict as set out in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol remains the same and is applicable to any new technological weapons and thus also applicable to cyberspace. However, the sophistication of cyber capabilities of states and the amplification of power of non-state actors in cyberspace have shifted the paradigms and blurred the lines of the clear delineation between international and non-international armed conflict and when the use of cyber capabilities triggers a conflict. As such the article will aim to provide some insight on when the use of cyber weapons by state...

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


  1. Antolin-Jenkins, V. M. (2005). Defining the parameters of cyberwar operations: Looking for law in all the wrong places? Naval Law Review Naval Law Review, 5, 132–166.Google Scholar
  2. Banks, W. (2013). The role of counter terrorism law in shaping ad bellum norms for cyber warfare. International Law Studies, 89, 157.Google Scholar
  3. Bethlehem, D. (2012) ‘Self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by non-state actors’, 106 Am. J. Int'l L. 770,Google Scholar
  4. Buchan, R. (2016). Cyberspace, non-state actors and the obligation to prevent transboundary harm. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 21(3), 429–453. At 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassese, A. (2001). Terrorism is also disrupting some crucial legal categories of international law. European Journal of International Law, 12(5), 993–1001, at 195–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Couzigou, I. (2018). Securing cyber space: The obligation of states to prevent harmful international cyber operations. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 32(1), 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dev, P. R. (2015). “Use of force” and “Armed attack” thresholds in cyber conflict: The looming definitional gaps and the growing need for formal U.N. response. Texas International Law Journal, 50(2), 379–399.Google Scholar
  8. Ducheine, P. (2015). The notion of cyber operations. In N. Tsagourias & R. Buchanan (Eds.), Research handbook on international law and cyberspace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Focarelli, C. (2015). Self-defense in cyberspace. In N. Tsagourias & R. Buchanan (Eds.), Research handbook on international law and cyberspace (p. 255). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Garamone, J. (2016). Official details DOD cybersecurity environment, AM. Forces Press Serv. (Oct. 20, 2010). Retrieved from: Accessed 10 Dec 2018. See DoD Strategy, supra note 17.
  11. Ginkel, B., et al. (Eds.). (2013). State or private protection against maritime piracy? A Dutch perspective. The Hague: Clingendael Centre for International Relations.Google Scholar
  12. Graham, M. (2011) ‘Time machines and virtual portals: The spatialities of the digital divide’, Progress in Development Studies 11(3):211–27  Google Scholar
  13. Hathaway, O. A., et al. (2012). The law of cyber-attack. California Law Review, 100(4), 817–885. Scholar
  14. Henriksen, A. (2015). Lawful state responses to low-level cyber-attacks. Nordic Journal of International Law, 84, 323, at 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ICRC. (2009). Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Retrieved from
  16. ICRC. (2015). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts (Report at 18–19; ICRC, (2016)). Commentary on the First Geneva Convention.Google Scholar
  17. ICRC (2019) International humanitarian law and cyber operations during armed conflicts.
  18. Kammerhofer, J. (2007). The armed activities case and non-state actors in self-defence law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 20, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koh, H. H. (2010). The Obama administration and international law. Address at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law.Google Scholar
  20. Kulesza, J. (2009). State responsibility for cyber-attacks on international peace and security. Polish Yearbook of International Law, 29, 139–152.Google Scholar
  21. Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory. Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 136.Google Scholar
  22. Lin, H. S. (2010). Offensive cyber operations and the use of force. Journal National Security Law & Policy, 4, 64.Google Scholar
  23. Messerschmidt, J. E. (2013). Hackback: Permitting retaliatory hacking by non-state actors as proportionate countermeasures to transboundary. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 52, 275–324.Google Scholar
  24. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.Google Scholar
  25. Moir, L. (2010). Reappraising the resort to force: International law, jus ad bellum and the war on terror (pp. 25–31). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. NATO. Statement by the North Atlantic Council (12 September 2001). Retrieved from Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  27. Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996) Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Advisory Opinion, 1. C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.Google Scholar
  28. Oppenheim, L. (1906). II international law: A treatise 56.Google Scholar
  29. Pri Metrica. The submarine cable map. Retrieved from Accessed 4 Dec 2018.
  30. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (Appeal Judgement). IT-94-1-A. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 15 July 1999.Google Scholar
  31. Prosecutor v. Limaj et al. (Trial Judgment), IT-03-66-T. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 30 November 2005.Google Scholar
  32. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 Arts 48 and 52(2).Google Scholar
  33. Roberts, S. (2014). Cyber wars: Applying conventional laws to war to cyber warfare and non-state actors. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 41(3), 535–572. Scholar
  34. Roscini, M. (2010). Worldwide warfare: Jus ad bellum and the use of cyber force. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 14, 85–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roscini, M. (2015). Cyber operations as a use of force. In N. Tsagourias & R. Buchanan (Eds.), Research handbook on international law and cyberspace (pp. 233–255). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruys, T., & Verhoeven, S. (2005). Attacks by private actors and the right of self-defense. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 289, 292–296.Google Scholar
  37. Schaap, A. J. (2009). Cyber warfare operations: Development and use under international law. Air Force Law Review, 64, 121–134.Google Scholar
  38. Schmitt, M. N. (2013). Classification of cyber conflict. International Law Studies Series. US Naval War College, 89, 233–251. 237.Google Scholar
  39. Schmitt, M. N. (2014a). ‘Below the threshold’ cyber operations: The countermeasures response option and international law. Virginia Journal of International Law, 54, 697.Google Scholar
  40. Schmitt, M. N. (2014b). The law of cyber warfare: Quo Vadis. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 25, 269.Google Scholar
  41. Schmitt, M. N. (2017). Peacetime cyber responses and wartime cyber operations under international law: An analytical Vade Mecum. Harvard National Security Journal, 8, 242.Google Scholar
  42. Schreier, F. (2015). On cyberwarfare (pp. 10–14). Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces. Retrieved from Accessed 19 Dec 2018.
  43. Simma, B., et al. (Eds.). (2013). The charter of the United Nations: A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tallinn Manual 2.0 (2017) On the International law applicable to cyber operations. Second edition. Prepared by the international group of experts at the invitation of the NATO cooperative cyber defence centre of excellence. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Tikk E. et al. (2010) International Cyber Incidents: Legal Considerations, Tallin: NATO CCD COE. pp. 66–89.
  46. Trapp, K. N. (2015). Can non-state actors mount an armed attack. In M. Weller (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. U.S. Armed Force. (2010). Cyberspace operations: Air force doctrine document 3–12. Retrieved from
  48. US Department of Defense (US DoD) (2015). Office of the General Counsel, Law of War Manual [DoD manual], para. 16.3.3. Last updated Dec 2016. Retrieved from
  49. UK Ministry of Defence. (2010). The manual of law of armed conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. UN SC Res 1368, Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. UN Doc. S/RES/1368 (12 September 2001).Google Scholar
  51. UN SC Res. 1373, UN Doc. S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001).Google Scholar
  52. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945. 1 UNTS XVI. Retrieved from Accessed: 20 Dec 2018.
  53. United States Congress, Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.115 STAT. 224 PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001.Google Scholar
  54. US Department of Defense (US DoD). (2010) Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1-02, Dictionary of Military & Associated Terms 64 (Nov. 8, 2010). Retrieved from

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loyola Law SchoolLMULos AngelesUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sandra Pogodda

There are no affiliations available