نوع مقاله: علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران

2 گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران، دانشیار دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

پیشرفت فناوری موجب مواجهۀ روزافزون دولت‌ها با حملات سایبری شده است. بیشترین حملات سایبری که دولت‌ها با آن مواجه‌اند، از نوع حملات سایبری نفی یا محروم‌سازی از سرویس توزیع‌شدۀ اینترنتی است. این‌گونه حملات آثار مخرب مستقیم و آنی ندارند، به همین دلیل ارزیابی آنها در قالب ممنوعیت توسل به زور و حملات مسلحانه قرار نمی‌گیرد و معمولاً دولت‌ها نیز با توجه به شدت کمتر آنها در برخی موارد حتی از پیگیری و شناسایی عاملان حملات صرف‌نظر می‌کنند. با اینکه قواعد مستقیم و صریحی در مورد حملات سایبری و نظم بخشیدن به آنها وجود ندارد، نظر به ‌تبعات چنین حملاتی حتی با شدت کم و اقتضای ارزیابی حقوقی این حملات، با بررسی مقررات فعلی حقوق بین‌الملل به این نتیجه می‌رسیم که بعضی از این‌گونه حملات غیرمخرب را می توان با اصل ممنوعیت مداخله به نظم درآورد و در صورت احراز عاملان و انتساب آن حملات به دولت، مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت­ها را در مراجع بین‌المللی مطرح کرد. به‌عبارت دیگر، در مقالۀ حاضر سعی بر آن است تا نشان داده شود که صرفاً حملات سایبری شدید ناقض مقررات حقوق بین‌الملل حاضر نیستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Cyber-attacks and the Violation of non-intervention Principle

نویسندگان [English]

  • Parastou Esmailzadeh Molabashi 1
  • Mohsen Abdollahi 2

1 Department of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

2 Department of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran, Associate Professor of Shahid Beheshti University

چکیده [English]

The technological progress has caused the states to deal with the ever-growing cyber-attacks. The most cyber-attacks that states usually face are Distributed Denial of Service Attacks. Since these attacks do not have any direct and immediate harms, they cannot be considered as use of force or armed attacks therefore states usually ignore to trace and identify the attackers. Since there are no explicit and direct rules for addressing cyber-attacks, in accordance with the regulations of current International Law, we come to the conclusion that some of these non-destructive cyber-attacks which are coercive can be counted as violation of the principle of non-intervention if those attacks are attributable to the states and consequently the international responsibility of those states can be brought up in competent international courts. In this essay the author endeavors to demonstrate not only the severe cyber-attacks violate the International Law obligations but also the non-destructive ones such as Distributed Denial of Service Attacks can breach International Law too.  

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cyber-attacks
  • Sovereignty
  • The Principle of non-intervention
  • International Responsibility of States
  • Violation of an Obligation

1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

1. تقی‌زاده انصاری، مصطفی (1394)، ترمینولوژی حقوق بین‌المللی، چ اول، تهران: خرسندی.

2. خلیل‌زاده، مونا (1393)، مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها در قبال حملات سایبری: تهران: مجمع علمی و فرهنگی مجد.

3. کازرونی، سید مصطفی (1393)، مسئولیت حمایت در حقوق بین‌الملل، چ اول، تهران: نگاه بینه.

 

ب) مقالات

4. اصلانی، جبار؛ رنجبریان، امیرحسین (1394)، «بررسی تطبیقی و تحلیل تعریف حملۀ سایبری از منظر دکترین، رویۀ کشورها و سازمان‌های بین‌المللی در حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامۀ تحقیقات حقوقی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ش 71، ص 278-257.

5. جاوید، محمدجواد؛ محمدی، عقیل (1392)، «نسبت اصل عدم مداخله در حقوق بین‌الملل معاصر و اصل حاکمیت از مستضعفین در حقوق اسلامی»، مجلۀ مطالعات حقوقی دانشگاه شیراز، دورۀ پنجم، ش 1، ص 88-49.

6. خلف رضایی، حسین (1392)، «حملات سایبری از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل (مطالعۀ موردی استاکس نت)»، فصلنامۀ مجلس و راهبرد، سال بیستم، ش 73، ص 153-125.

7. صادقی حقیقی، دیدخت (1390)، «تحول در مفهوم اصل عدم مداخله»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات روابط بین‌الملل، دورۀ 4، ش 16، ص 128-93.

8. کمالی‌نژاد، حسن (1391)، «بند 7 مادۀ 2 منشور ملل متحد: رویکردهای نوین مجمع عمومی ملل متحد»، مجموعه مقالات همایش نقش مجمع عمومی سازمان ملل متحد در تدوین و توسعۀ تدریجی حقوق بین‌الملل، انجمن ایرانی مطالعات سازمان ملل متحد، ص 282-244.

 

2. انگلیسی

A) Books

9. Oxford, Anne (2003), Reading Humanitarian Intervention, Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law, Cambridge University Press.

10. Simma, Bruno and Daniel Erasmus Khan and George Nolte and Andreas Paulus, (2012), The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, Third Edition, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press.

 

B) Articles

11. Buchan, Russell, (2012), “Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 211-227.

112. Choucri, Nazli & Clark, David, (2011), “Cyberspace and International Relations Towards an Integrated System”, Version 8-25 for internal ECIR review, Available at: http://web.mit.edu/chintanv/www/Publications/CESUN_2012_Cyber_International_Relations_as_an_Integrated_System_Vaishnav_Choucri_Clark.pdf , Visited on 10 September 2016, pp. 1-10

13. Gervais, Michael, (2012), “Cyber Attacks and the Laws of War”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 525-579.

14. Hathaway, Oona A., & Rebecca Crootof, (2012), “The Law of Cyber-Attack”, California Law Review, Vol. 100, pp. 817-886.

15. Heaton, Major J. Ricou, (2005), “Civilians at War: Reexamining the Status of Civilians Accompanying the Armed Forces”, The Air Force Law Review, Vol. 57, pp. 155-209.

16. Jamnejad, Maziar & Michael Wood, (2009), “The Principle of Non-intervention”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, Issue 2, pp. 345-381.

17. Kesan, Jay P. & Carol M. Hayes, (2012), “Mitigative Counterstriking: Self-Defense and Deterrence in Cyberspace”, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 25, NO. 2, pp. 429-543.

18. Kilovaty, Ido (2014), “Cyber Warfare and the Jus Ad Bellum Challenges: Evaluation in the Light of the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, American University National Security Law Brief, Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 91-124.

19. Kirsch, Cassandra M., (2012), “Science Fiction No More: Cyber Warfare and the United States”, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 40:4, pp. 620-647.

20. Kozlowski, Andrzej (2014), “Comparative Analysis of Cyberattacks on Estonia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan”, European Scientific Journal /SPECIAL/ edition,  Vol.3, pp. 237-245.

21. Lotrionte, Catherine (2015), “Countering State-Sponsored Cyber Economic Espionage under International Law”, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, Vol. XL, pp. 443-541.

22. Mattessich, William (2016), “Digital Destruction: Applying the Principle of Non-Intervention to Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Manifesting No Physical Damage”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 54, pp. 873-896.

23. Schmitt, Michael N., (2014), “Below the threshold” Cyber Operations: The Countermeasures Responses Option and International Law”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 54:3, pp. 697-732.

24. Stockburger, Peter Z., (2016), “Known Unknowns: State Cyber Operations, Cyber Warfare, and the Jus Ad Bellum”, American University International Law Review, Vol. 31, Issue 4, pp. 545-591.

25. Watts, Sean, (2014), “Low-intensity Cyber Operations and the Principle of Non-intervention”, Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online, Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2479609, Visited on 10 August 2016, pp. 137-161

 

C) Documents

26. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, A/RES/29/3281, 12 December 1974

27. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations among States in accordance with Charter of the United Nations, A/RES/25/2625, 24 October 1970

28.  Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, A/RES/36/103, 9 December 1981

29. Dogrul, Murat and Adil Aslan, Eyyup Celik, (2011), Developing an International Cooperation on Cyber Defense and Deterrence Against Cyber Terrorism, 2011, 3rd International Conference on Cyber Conflict C. Czosseck, E. Tyugu, T. Wingfield (Eds.) Tallinn, Estonia, 2011 © CCD COE Publications, p. 34, Available at: https://ccdcoe.org/ICCC/materials/proceedings/dogrul_aslan_celik.pdf

30. Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel von, (2012), Legal Implications of Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace, 2012 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, NATO Publications, Tallinn, pp. 7-19

31. Joubert, Vincent, (2012), Five Years after Estonia’s Cyber Attacks: Lessons Learned for NATO?, Research Paper, Research Division, NATO Defense College, Rome, No. 76, , Available at: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/143191/rp_76.pdf, Visited on 10 August 2016

32. Lipson, Howard F, (2002), Tracking and Tracing Cyber-Attacks: Technical Challenges and Global Policy Issues, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Special Report CMU/sei-2002-sr-009

33. Press Release, SG/SM/6613, Secretary-General Reflects on “Intervention” in Thirty-Fifth Annual Ditchley Foundation Lecture, 26 June 1998, Available at: http://www.un.org/press/en/1998/19980626.sgsm6613.html , Visited on August 2016

34. Roscini, Marco, (2014), State Responsibility for Cyber Operation: International Law Issues, Event Report, 9th October 2014, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Available at: http://www.biicl.org/documents/380_biicl_report_-_state_responsibility_for_cyber_operations_-_9_october_2014.pdf, Visited on 6 February 2016

35. Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, (2013), Prepared by International Group of Experts at the Invitation of NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (edited by M. N. Schmitt), Cambridge University Press

36. Targeted cyber-attacks, The dangers faced by your corporate network, GFI White Paper, Microsoft Gold Certificate Paper, p. 8, Available at: http://www.gfi.com/whitepapers/cyber-attacks.pdf, Visited on September 2016

37. Theohary, Catherin A. and John W. Rollins, (2015), Cyber warfare and Cyberterrorism: In Brief, Congressional Research Service, Available at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43955.pdf, Visited on 10 January 2016

38. Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (1969)

39. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations (1986)

40. Wood, Sir Michael, (2007), The Principle of Non-Intervention Contemporary International Law: Non-Interference in a State’s Internal Affairs Used to be a Rule of International Law: Is it still?, A summary of the Chatham House International Law discussion group meeting held on 28 February 2007, Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/International%20Law/il280207.pdf , Visited on August 2016

 

D) Cases

41. Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, (1986), Judgement of International Court of Justice

42. Separate Opinion of Judge Sette-Camara, pp. 199, 200, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)

 

E) Websites

43. http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd7a7.pdf?id=32608 , Visited on 15 September 2016

44. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hotline-established-between-washington-and-moscow , Visited on 15 January 2017

45. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-obama-said-putin-red-phone-about-election-hack-n697116 , Visited on 15 January 2017

46. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/julian-assange-russia-john-podesta-wikileaks-230676 , Visited on 12 January 2017

47. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-hack-russia-idUSKCN0Z02EK , Visited on 15 January 2017

48. https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html , Visited on 5 January 2017

49. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report. , Visited on 5 January 2017

50. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/16/qa-russian-hackers-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-us-presidential-election , Visited on 5 January 2017

51. https://www.us-cert.gov/about-us , Visited on 15 September 2016