Difference between revisions of "Retorsion"

From International cyber law: interactive toolkit
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(updating the tags and titles of articles)
Line 10: Line 10:
==National positions==
==National positions==
===[[National position of Germany|Germany]]===
===[[National position of Germany (2021)|Germany (2021)]]===
{{#lst:National position of Germany|DE retorsion}}
{{#lst:National position of Germany (2021)|DE_2021 retorsion}}
===[[National position of New Zealand|New Zealand]]===
===[[National position of the Netherlands (2019)|Netherlands (2019)]]===
{{#lst:National position of New Zealand|NZ retorsion}}
{{#lst:National position of the Netherlands|NL_2019 retorsion}}
===[[National position of Norway: 2021|Norway: 2021]]===
===[[National position of New Zealand (2020)|New Zealand (2020)]]===
{{#lst:National position of Norway: 2021|NO_2021 retorsion}}
{{#lst:National position of New Zealand (2020)|NZ_2020 retorsion}}
===[[National position of Singapore: 2021|Singapore:2021]]===
===[[National position of Norway (2021)|Norway (2021)]]===
{{#lst:National position of Singapore: 2021|SG_2021 retorsion}}
{{#lst:National position of Norway (2021)|NO_2021 retorsion}}
===[[National position of Switzerland|Switzerland]]===
===[[National position of Singapore (2021)|Singapore (2021)]]===
{{#lst:National position of Switzerland|CH retorsion}}
{{#lst:National position of Singapore (2021)|SG_2021 retorsion}}
===[[National position of the Netherlands|The Netherlands]]===
===[[National position of Switzerland (2021)|Switzerland (2021)]]===
{{#lst:National position of the Netherlands|NL retorsion}}
{{#lst:National position of Switzerland (2021)|CH_2021 retorsion}}
===[[National position of the United States of America: 2016|United States of America: 2016]]===
===[[National position of the United States of America (2016)|United States (2016)]]===
{{#lst:National position of the United States of America: 2016|US_2016 retorsion}}
{{#lst:National position of the United States of America (2016)|US_2016 retorsion}}
== Appendixes ==
== Appendixes ==

Revision as of 20:20, 19 September 2021


An act of retorsion is “an unfriendly but nevertheless lawful act by the aggrieved party against the wrongdoer”.[1] Such acts may include the prohibition of or limitations upon normal diplomatic relations, the imposition of trade embargoes or the withdrawal of voluntary aid programmes.[2] Cyber-specific retorsions may include sending warnings to cyber operatives belonging to another State, observing the adversary’s cyber activities on one’s own network using tools such as “honeypots”, or slowing down malicious cyber operations conducted by other States.[3]

National positions

Germany (2021)

"A State may engage in measures of retorsion to counter a cyber operation carried out against it. Retorsions are unfriendly acts directed against the interests of another State without amounting to an infraction of obligations owed to that State under international law. Since retorsions are predominantly rooted in the political sphere, they are not subject to such stringent legal limitations as other types of response such as countermeasures.

Measures of retorsion may be adopted to counter (merely) unfriendly cyber operations perpetrated by another State. They may likewise be enacted in reaction to an unlawful cyber operation if more intensive types of response (countermeasures, self-defence) are unavailable for legal reasons (for example, in cases in which counter-measures would be disproportionate) or politically unfeasible. Moreover, they may be adopted as a reaction to an unlawful cyber operation in combination with other types of response, such as countermeasures, as part of a State’s comprehensive, multi-pronged response to malicious cyber activities directed against it."[4]

Netherlands (2019)

"Retorsion relates to acts that, while unfriendly, are not in violation of international law. This option is therefore always available to states that wish to respond to undesirable conduct by another state, because it is a lawful exercise of a state’s sovereign powers. States are free to take these kinds of measures as long they remain within the bounds of their obligations under international law.

A state may respond to a cyber operation by another state, for example, by declaring diplomats ‘persona non grata’, or by taking economic or other measures against individuals or entities involved in the operation. Another retorsion measure a state may consider is limiting or cutting off the other state’s access to servers or other digital infrastructure in its territory, provided the countries in question have not concluded a treaty on mutual access to digital infrastructure in each other’s territory."[5]

New Zealand (2020)

"Regardless of whether the activity amounts to an internationally wrongful act, a state may always attribute political responsibility for malicious state cyber activity and may always respond with retorsion (i.e. unfriendly acts not inconsistent with international law)."[6]

Norway (2021)

"A State may respond to any form of cyber operation by retorsion. Retorsion refers to the taking of measures that are lawful but unfriendly, directed against another State. Retorsion may therefore be used regardless of whether international law has been violated and regardless of whether State responsibility applies. Examples of acts of retorsion are breaking off or limiting diplomatic relations, for instance by declaring a diplomat persona non grata, or the imposition of sanctions. Publicly declaring that another State is responsible for a cyber operation is in itself an act of retorsion."[7]

Singapore (2021)

"Apart from counter-measures, a victim State that is subject to malicious cyber activity short of an internationally wrongful act may also respond with acts of retorsion."[8]

Switzerland (2021)

"Retorsion allows states to respond to such activities regardless of whether international law has been violated or not. It refers to unfriendly but lawful measures in response to unwelcome acts by another state. Typical examples of retorsion include refraining from signing a trade agreement that would benefit both parties, recalling an ambassador, or breaking off diplomatic relations as a last resort."[9]

United States (2016)

"[..]a State can always undertake unfriendly acts that are not inconsistent with any of its international obligations in order to influence the behavior of other States. Such acts—which are known as acts of retorsion—may include, for example, the imposition of sanctions or the declaration that a diplomat is persona non grata."[10]


See also

Notes and references

Bibliography and further reading