Breach of an international obligation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Breach of an international obligation]] |
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Breach of an international obligation]] |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|The second element of an internationally wrongful act is conduct amounting to a breach of an international obligation owed by the relevant entity.<ref>Cf. Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2(b).</ref> In this regard, it is undisputed that a cyber-related action or omission by a State may constitute a breach of its international obligations.<ref>For a detailed discussion of a breach of an international obligation by a cyber-related act, see rule 14 of Tallinn Manual 2.0 and commentary 2–11 thereto.</ref> International obligations arise from primary rules of international law:<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, General commentary, para. 1.</ref> international treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law.<ref>Statute of the International Court of Justice, of 26 June 1945, annexed to the UN Charter, Art 38(1)(a)–(c). </ref> Fault, such as intent or negligence on part of the wrongdoing State, is not a necessary element of a breach of an international obligation, unless there exists such a requirement in the relevant primary rule.<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2, para. 10.</ref> Similarly, there is no general requirement for the injured party to have suffered any damage—again, unless such a requirement forms part of the primary obligation in question.<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2, para. 9.</ref> |
|[[File:Breach of an international obligation.svg|left|frameless|200x200px]]The second element of an internationally wrongful act is conduct amounting to a breach of an international obligation owed by the relevant entity.<ref>Cf. Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2(b).</ref> In this regard, it is undisputed that a cyber-related action or omission by a State may constitute a breach of its international obligations.<ref>For a detailed discussion of a breach of an international obligation by a cyber-related act, see rule 14 of Tallinn Manual 2.0 and commentary 2–11 thereto.</ref> International obligations arise from primary rules of international law:<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, General commentary, para. 1.</ref> international treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law.<ref>Statute of the International Court of Justice, of 26 June 1945, annexed to the UN Charter, Art 38(1)(a)–(c). </ref> Fault, such as intent or negligence on part of the wrongdoing State, is not a necessary element of a breach of an international obligation, unless there exists such a requirement in the relevant primary rule.<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2, para. 10.</ref> Similarly, there is no general requirement for the injured party to have suffered any damage—again, unless such a requirement forms part of the primary obligation in question.<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2, para. 9.</ref> |
||
It is impossible to provide a list of all international obligations that may be violated by resort to cyber means. However, certain rules appear with higher frequency than others. These include the [[Use of force|prohibition on the use of force]]; the [[Prohibition of intervention|prohibition of intervention]]; the obligation to respect the [[Sovereignty|sovereignty]] of other States; the obligation to respect the [[Human rights|right to privacy]]; the obligation of [[Due diligence|due diligence]]; and a few others (such as, for instance, the rule of distinction in the context of the law of armed conflict). |
It is impossible to provide a list of all international obligations that may be violated by resort to cyber means. However, certain rules appear with higher frequency than others. These include the [[Use of force|prohibition on the use of force]]; the [[Prohibition of intervention|prohibition of intervention]]; the obligation to respect the [[Sovereignty|sovereignty]] of other States; the obligation to respect the [[Human rights|right to privacy]]; the obligation of [[Due diligence|due diligence]]; and a few others (such as, for instance, the rule of distinction in the context of the law of armed conflict). |
||
Revision as of 11:38, 29 March 2019
Definition
| Breach of an international obligation |
|---|
 It is impossible to provide a list of all international obligations that may be violated by resort to cyber means. However, certain rules appear with higher frequency than others. These include the prohibition on the use of force; the prohibition of intervention; the obligation to respect the sovereignty of other States; the obligation to respect the right to privacy; the obligation of due diligence; and a few others (such as, for instance, the rule of distinction in the context of the law of armed conflict). |
Appendixes
See also
Notes and references
- ↑ Cf. Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2(b).
- ↑ For a detailed discussion of a breach of an international obligation by a cyber-related act, see rule 14 of Tallinn Manual 2.0 and commentary 2–11 thereto.
- ↑ Articles on State Responsibility, General commentary, para. 1.
- ↑ Statute of the International Court of Justice, of 26 June 1945, annexed to the UN Charter, Art 38(1)(a)–(c).
- ↑ Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2, para. 10.
- ↑ Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 2, para. 9.