A specific cyber-relation action or omission will only constitute an internationally wrongful act in the absence of circumstances precluding its wrongfulness.[1]
The wrongfulness of specific conduct is precluded if one of the following conditions is met:
the State affected by that conduct gives its valid consent to the commission of the relevant act, as long as the act remains within the limits of that consent;[2]
the conduct of the acting State qualifies as a lawful measure of self-defence taken in conformity with the UN Charter;[3]
the conduct of the acting State constitutes a lawful countermeasure taken against another State;[4]
the conduct of the acting State is justified by the existence of a situation of force majeure;[5]
owing to a situation of distress, the acting person has no other reasonable way of saving their own life or the lives of other persons entrusted to their care;[6]
the conduct of the acting State is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril (also referred to as acting under the “plea of necessity”).[7]
Appendixes
See also
Notes and references
↑Cf. Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to Part One, chapter V, para. 1 (“The existence in a given case of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness ... provides a shield against an otherwise well-founded claim for the breach of an international obligation”).