Self-defence: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
(first version; some editing is still needed) |
(added icon) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Self-defence]] |
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Self-defence]] |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|A State may respond with force to a cyber operation that qualifies as an “armed attack” pursuant to the customary right to self-defence, as codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Most commentators consider only grave uses of force – typically, those that kill or injure persons or damage or destroy property – to constitute armed attacks.<ref>''[https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)]'' (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 95.</ref> |
|[[File:Self-defence.svg|alt=|left|frameless|200x200px]]A State may respond with force to a cyber operation that qualifies as an “armed attack” pursuant to the customary right to self-defence, as codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Most commentators consider only grave uses of force – typically, those that kill or injure persons or damage or destroy property – to constitute armed attacks.<ref>''[https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)]'' (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 95.</ref> |
||
The United States, however, takes an outlier position, consistently arguing that any illegal use of force gives rise to the use of force in self-defence.<ref>US Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, Law of War Manual (June 2015), paras. 1.11.5.2, 16.3.3.1.</ref> |
The United States, however, takes an outlier position, consistently arguing that any illegal use of force gives rise to the use of force in self-defence.<ref>US Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, Law of War Manual (June 2015), paras. 1.11.5.2, 16.3.3.1.</ref> |
||
In Nicaragua, the ICJ identified “scale and effects” as criteria upon which to judge whether a use of force constitutes an armed attack. In the Court’s view, only “the most grave” uses of force do so.<ref>''[https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)]'' (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 191.</ref> Thus, only cyber operations that seriously injure or kill a number of persons or cause significant damage to, or destruction of, property would undoubtedly constitute armed attacks.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316822524 Tallinn Manual 2.0], commentary to rule 71, para 8.</ref> |
In Nicaragua, the ICJ identified “scale and effects” as criteria upon which to judge whether a use of force constitutes an armed attack. In the Court’s view, only “the most grave” uses of force do so.<ref>''[https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)]'' (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 191.</ref> Thus, only cyber operations that seriously injure or kill a number of persons or cause significant damage to, or destruction of, property would undoubtedly constitute armed attacks.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316822524 Tallinn Manual 2.0], commentary to rule 71, para 8.</ref> |
||
|}<section end=Definition /> |
|}<section end="Definition" /> |
||
== |
==Appendixes== |
||
=== |
===See also=== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
<references /> |
<references /> |
||
=== Bibliography and further reading |
=== Bibliography and further reading=== |
||
<!-- |
<!-- |
||
* MN Schmitt (ed), ''Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations'' (CUP 2017) |
* MN Schmitt (ed), ''Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations'' (CUP 2017) |
||
Revision as of 15:59, 27 April 2020
Definition
| Self-defence |
|---|
 The United States, however, takes an outlier position, consistently arguing that any illegal use of force gives rise to the use of force in self-defence.[2] In Nicaragua, the ICJ identified “scale and effects” as criteria upon which to judge whether a use of force constitutes an armed attack. In the Court’s view, only “the most grave” uses of force do so.[3] Thus, only cyber operations that seriously injure or kill a number of persons or cause significant damage to, or destruction of, property would undoubtedly constitute armed attacks.[4] |
Appendixes
See also
Notes and references
- ↑ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 95.
- ↑ US Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, Law of War Manual (June 2015), paras. 1.11.5.2, 16.3.3.1.
- ↑ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 191.
- ↑ Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to rule 71, para 8.