Talk:Scenario 03: Cyber operation against the power grid: Difference between revisions

From International cyber law: interactive toolkit
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Kubomacak moved page Talk:Scenario 03: Cyber attack against the power grid to Talk:Scenario 03: Cyber operation against the power grid: peer review comments: Considering the particular legal meaning the term ‘attack’ has, I would suggest using a more neutral, less legal term where appropriate (such as operation, incident etc.))
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This is a sample comment. [[User:Kubomacak|Kubomacak]] ([[User talk:Kubomacak|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 
This is a sample comment. [[User:Kubomacak|Kubomacak]] ([[User talk:Kubomacak|talk]]) 18:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  +
  +
=====
  +
Glossary needs to contain the definition of critical infrastructures. We think it would be useful to include the general definition contained in TM 2.0 p. 564.
  +
  +
[[User:Reviewer793|Reviewer793]] ([[User talk:Reviewer793|talk]]) 13:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Added. [[User:Kubomacak|Kubomacak]] ([[User talk:Kubomacak|talk]]) 11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
Factual narrative does not contain information on motivation of State B. It would be useful to have clarification, because it helps to properly classify the international law governing this issue. There is something in some parts of legal analysis, but it should be made clear in facts - even in form of several options.
  +
[[User:Reviewer793|Reviewer793]] ([[User talk:Reviewer793|talk]]) 13:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
It would be good to have some information provided on possible remedies hat can be used by State A. This applies to prohibition of intervention (if it is intervention, state A can do ...) and sovereignty (if it is violation of sovereignty, state A can do ...). One or two sentences would be enough, as this would be useful to legal advisers.[[User:Reviewer793|Reviewer793]] ([[User talk:Reviewer793|talk]]) 13:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
Alternative scenarios for the same factual narrative but different details (e.g. loss of life ) [[User:Reviewer793|Reviewer793]] ([[User talk:Reviewer793|talk]]) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Proposals reviewed; new scenario will be considered; remedies for now outside of the scope, but may be added in a further phase of the project. [[User:Kubomacak|Kubomacak]] ([[User talk:Kubomacak|talk]]) 11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:43, 11 March 2019

This is a sample comment. Kubomacak (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=[edit source]

Glossary needs to contain the definition of critical infrastructures. We think it would be useful to include the general definition contained in TM 2.0 p. 564.

Reviewer793 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Added. Kubomacak (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Factual narrative does not contain information on motivation of State B. It would be useful to have clarification, because it helps to properly classify the international law governing this issue. There is something in some parts of legal analysis, but it should be made clear in facts - even in form of several options. Reviewer793 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to have some information provided on possible remedies hat can be used by State A. This applies to prohibition of intervention (if it is intervention, state A can do ...) and sovereignty (if it is violation of sovereignty, state A can do ...). One or two sentences would be enough, as this would be useful to legal advisers.Reviewer793 (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternative scenarios for the same factual narrative but different details (e.g. loss of life ) Reviewer793 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposals reviewed; new scenario will be considered; remedies for now outside of the scope, but may be added in a further phase of the project. Kubomacak (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)