Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of Silence
This article explores the (in)activity of many States in contributing to the interpretative clarification of ‘how’ jus contra bellum applies in cyberspace, its negative repercussions for the work of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspa...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget)
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Oslo Law Review |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/olr.9.1.2 |
| _version_ | 1811261848778964992 |
|---|---|
| author | Johann Ruben Leiss |
| author_facet | Johann Ruben Leiss |
| author_sort | Johann Ruben Leiss |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article explores the (in)activity of many States in contributing to the interpretative clarification of ‘how’ jus contra bellum applies in cyberspace, its negative repercussions for the work of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security (UN GGE) and the United Nations Open-Ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security (UN OEWG), and the way forward. In its main part, the article analyses the (legal) consequences of interpretative silence and challenges its (presumably) underlying rationale – that is, a strategy of legal ambiguity based on the traditional ‘freedom of State’ paradigm. This article argues that it is only by actively contributing to the clarification of the law that States ensure their voice is heard and avoid the risk that their silence is interpreted as acquiescence. Moreover, contrary to what the freedom of State paradigm implies, the subjective interpretation of the parties is not the only ‘game in town’. If no interpretative agreement of States crystallises, the interpretation of jus contra bellum is determined by objective factors. The article concludes by arguing that from a rule of law perspective, States should be encouraged to express their views on ‘how’ jus contra bellum applies in cyberspace to ensure the efficiency and transparency of these rules, which constitute part of the backbone of a peaceful co-existence and cooperation between states. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T19:13:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1c3f533179bf4767b1bb32f5b2fea621 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2387-3299 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T19:13:13Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Oslo Law Review |
| spelling | doaj.art-1c3f533179bf4767b1bb32f5b2fea6212022-12-22T03:19:49ZengScandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget)Oslo Law Review2387-32992022-09-0191264910.18261/olr.9.1.2Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of SilenceJohann Ruben LeissThis article explores the (in)activity of many States in contributing to the interpretative clarification of ‘how’ jus contra bellum applies in cyberspace, its negative repercussions for the work of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security (UN GGE) and the United Nations Open-Ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security (UN OEWG), and the way forward. In its main part, the article analyses the (legal) consequences of interpretative silence and challenges its (presumably) underlying rationale – that is, a strategy of legal ambiguity based on the traditional ‘freedom of State’ paradigm. This article argues that it is only by actively contributing to the clarification of the law that States ensure their voice is heard and avoid the risk that their silence is interpreted as acquiescence. Moreover, contrary to what the freedom of State paradigm implies, the subjective interpretation of the parties is not the only ‘game in town’. If no interpretative agreement of States crystallises, the interpretation of jus contra bellum is determined by objective factors. The article concludes by arguing that from a rule of law perspective, States should be encouraged to express their views on ‘how’ jus contra bellum applies in cyberspace to ensure the efficiency and transparency of these rules, which constitute part of the backbone of a peaceful co-existence and cooperation between states.http://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/olr.9.1.2jus contra bellumcyberwarfaretreaty interpretationacquiescenceUN GGEUN OEWG |
| spellingShingle | Johann Ruben Leiss Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of Silence Oslo Law Review jus contra bellum cyberwarfare treaty interpretation acquiescence UN GGE UN OEWG |
| title | Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of Silence |
| title_full | Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of Silence |
| title_fullStr | Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of Silence |
| title_full_unstemmed | Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of Silence |
| title_short | Jus Contra Bellum in Cyberspace and the Sound of Silence |
| title_sort | jus contra bellum in cyberspace and the sound of silence |
| topic | jus contra bellum cyberwarfare treaty interpretation acquiescence UN GGE UN OEWG |
| url | http://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/olr.9.1.2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT johannrubenleiss juscontrabellumincyberspaceandthesoundofsilence |