On

The advent of the Internet, and interconnected computer networks more generally, has impacted society in innumerable ways. Yet this new form of interconnectivity is a double-edged sword, turning dependency into vulnerability. As recent cyber attacks in past years have shown, the ability to cause havoc with far-reaching ramifications is a valid concern commanding worldwide attention. Countries from all regions have responded with increased development of their cyber capabilities, opening up a new military domain alongside land, sea, air, and space. Cyber warfare is not a legal term based on authoritative sources. Rather the concept is used loosely to describe an array of harmful actions carried out by states in cyberspace, through government instrumentalities or groups whose conduct can be attributed to said states, targeting computer networks in the context of an armed conflict or during peacetime. The latter term has also been employed to describe attacks by nonstate actors without state involvement. Cyber warfare should be distinguished from germane phenomena, namely, cyber crime, which constitutes domestic legislation prohibiting private persons from engaging in certain conduct and international tools outlining judicial cooperation, and cyber espionage, which may be state-sponsored activity but is centered on the gathering of sensitive information. Understood in this broad sense, cyber warfare can conceivably fall within the purview of several areas of international law. Determining the international legal implications of a computer network operation fundamentally rests on two preconditions: the first is whether an international obligation has been breached, for instance, the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of states; the second is whether the attack can be attributed to a state, which is difficult to prove because of the technical design of the Internet. Certain egregious cyber attacks can trigger the application of the law governing the use of force and/or the law of armed conflict. With respect to both normative frameworks, a lively debate is ongoing as to the relevant thresholds of harm to life and property and how to ensure respect for cardinal principles, such as distinction and proportionality. Other branches of international law have also been singled out either because they concurrently apply to cyber operations (e.g., telecommunications and space law) or because they have potential relevance as models for future cyber security norms (e.g., law of the sea, international environmental law, and international criminal law). Faced with lacunae in contemporary international law or unsatisfactory outcomes, the international community and jurists have voiced many proposals for reform ranging from treaties to soft law guidelines.

This piece offers the Guest Editors’ Introduction to this Special Issue of The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law—dedicated to the South China Sea. It outlines the history of the 2015 Brussels Conference at which the papers in the Special Issue were first presented, notes the key presentations and introduces the authors. Four subject matters are addressed: fisheries, navigation, the regime of islands, and international dispute settlement.

No abstract

Erik Franckx and Marco Benatar consider the peculiar backlash in the form of states rejecting the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals (ICs). They discuss how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) rejected jurisdiction in the Philippines v PRC arbitration. The authors draw comparisons with how the Russian Federation rejected the jurisdiction of an arbitration panel in the Arctic Sunrise case. But both states participated in the peculiar form of forwarding ‘position papers’. This allows states new modes of influencing the bench without formally participating in the proceedings, argues Franckx and Benatar. This may tempt other states to apply a similar approach. For example, Croatia has presented its views to an arbitration panel in a dispute with Slovenia, despite its non-participation after irregularities by one of the arbitrators. The PRC and the Russian Federation have also issued a joint declaration encouraging non-participation in international legal proceedings.

This article makes the case for greater attention to be given to the role of national legal culture in the making and practice of international law. The merits of this contested notion as a tool for gaining new insights are discussed, as is the legal cultural approach embedded in the broader field of study known as "comparative international law". In an effort to demonstrate the utility of engaging with this concept, the focus turns to the inner legal culture of international law, which is composed of lawyers, judges and other professionals. It is argued that there are two factors of influence which allow for domestic elements to seep into international law. The first relates to individuals, via the inculcation of parochial values, whereas the second takes on a structural dimension, through inter alia the general principles of law and the "equitable geographical representation" requirement found in the statutes of many intergovernmental bodies. This theoretical framework is subsequently applied to the International Court of Justice, a suitable case study on account of it being a meeting place of various juridical traditions. At the individual level, judges and counsel appearing before the ICJ are considered. As regards the structural level, certain institutional features conducive to domestic influences are highlighted. Finally, the article identifies and briefly discusses three themes in the jurisprudence of the ICJ where national legal cultures have left their mark: analogies to municipal law, the manner and style in which the outcome of cases are justified and the debates surrounding the standard of proof.

No abstract

No abstract