Legal Issues Of Cyber War Are Big & Complex

state-responsibility-3-638.jpg?cb=1400013002

Much of the unchartered legal territory begins with questions of what it takes to trigger self-defense in cyberspace, and what does it mean for a nation-state to have 'effective control' of a hacker? 
    
Claims that technical experts have solved attribution ignore legal challenges that could slow or limit how states might lawfully respond to a major cyberattack. 

First, a country hit with a major cyberattack would face the novel challenge of persuading allies that the scale and effects of a cyberattack were grave enough to trigger a right to self-defense under the UN Charter. No simple task, given that the UN rules were drawn up seven decades ago by countries seeking to end the scourge of traditional, kinetic warfare. Jurists still debate how self-defense applies in cyberspace and US officials admit building a consensus could be a challenge.

If a victim state does corral a consensus that the right to use force in self-defense has been triggered, a second legal question could compound the attribution challenge even further.

Can the actions of a hacker be attributed to a nation-state as a matter of law? Answering this question presents a major legal hurdle if the attack is launched by an ostensibly non-state hacker with murky ties to an adversary government—a growing trend already seen in cyberattacks linked to Russia and Iran.

Legal precedents born out of traditional conflicts and proxy wars suggest the evidentiary burden to attribute the actions of non-state hackers to a state will be substantial. And experiences from recent incidents offer a discouraging preview. It took less than 24 hours for a prominent cybersecurity expert to cast doubt on claims by unnamed US officials that China was behind the breach of OPM’s networks. Official accounts of Pyongyang’s role in the Sony attack played out similarly, with news outlets featuring competing expert accounts of responsibility—a line-up of suspects that included North Koreans, Russians, hacktivists, cyber criminals, and disgruntled employees.

In 2013, some of the world’s major cyber powers reached a consensus that law applies in cyberspace, including principles of the law of state responsibility. Attributing conduct to a nation-state under this body of customary international law, however, requires extensive evidence of state control over a hacker—a significant ask of intelligence agencies already burdened with looking out for and mitigating the cyberattacks themselves.

Under the law of state responsibility, a state is accountable for the actions of individuals acting under its “effective control.” Legal scholars debate what “effective control” looks like in practice, but the International Court of Justice has ruled that violations of the law of armed conflict by private individuals can be attributed to a state only if it could be shown the state “directed or enforced” an operation. In a landmark 1986 case, evidence the United States financed, organized, trained, supplied, and equipped the Nicaraguan contras, as well as aided in the selection of targets and planning of contra operations, was not enough to show the United States exercised effective control over the contras. Contra war crimes, it followed, could not be attributed to the United States.

Extending the Nicaragua precedent to cyberspace, a victim of a cyberattack would likely have to prove more than an adversary supplied a cyber weapon to a non-state actor. A victim would instead have to show the state ordered or had “effective control” over all aspects of the cyberattack. Without such evidence, a victim’s lawful response options may be limited to actions against the non-state actors—cold comfort for a nation reeling from a cyberattack perpetrated by hackers financed, organized, trained, supplied, and equipped by a nation-state adversary. The victim state can of course decide for itself whether it has met the burden of proof in its attribution and unilaterally unleash an armed response—attribution, it has been said, is what states make of it—but a desire for international legitimacy could require meeting international law’s significant evidentiary burden before acting in self-defense.

Together, clearing these two legal thresholds will pose a significant challenge for countries seeking to respond to cyberattacks. Only after both are cleared is a victim endowed with a right to use force in self-defense against an attacker’s armed forces or other military objectives. This double burden could leave a victim state choosing between two bad outcomes: responding with force in a manner deemed illegitimate in the eyes of the international community; or responding with “non-forcible countermeasures” (criminal sanctions or diplomatic measures such as a demarche). Either outcome would lend support to the growing sense of cyberspace as a lawless frontier.

Expert contributors to the Tallinn Manual, an influential treatise on how international law applies to cyber warfare, are attempting to develop a consensus around how the law of state responsibility applies to the use of proxies in cyber operations. But until a shared understanding of state responsibility in cyberspace emerges, governments must themselves push for and enforce—as publicly as possible to ensure their behavior sets responsible precedents—a standard that punishes the use of proxies for cyberattacks and holds countries accountable for the consequences of those attacks. Public attributions, declassification of relevant intelligence, and the responsible use of countermeasures will do far more than tribunals and legal scholars can to shape how we deal with attribution and responsibility in cyberspace.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of State or the US government.
DefenseOne: http://bit.ly/1gLlH42

 

 

 

 

 

 

« Bitdefender Suffers Data Breach, Customer Records Stolen
Japan: Court Rules Against Bitcoin Compensation »

Infosecurity Europe
CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

TÜV SÜD Academy UK

TÜV SÜD Academy UK

TÜV SÜD offers expert-led cybersecurity training to help organisations safeguard their operations and data.

MIRACL

MIRACL

MIRACL provides the world’s only single step Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) which can replace passwords on 100% of mobiles, desktops or even Smart TVs.

NordLayer

NordLayer

NordLayer is an adaptive network access security solution for modern businesses — from the world’s most trusted cybersecurity brand, Nord Security. 

CSI Consulting Services

CSI Consulting Services

Get Advice From The Experts: * Training * Penetration Testing * Data Governance * GDPR Compliance. Connecting you to the best in the business.

North Infosec Testing (North IT)

North Infosec Testing (North IT)

North IT (North Infosec Testing) are an award-winning provider of web, software, and application penetration testing.

Charlton Networks

Charlton Networks

Charlton Networks provide a complete range of IT infrastructure, network and security solutions aimed at SME companies.

British Insurance Brokers’ Association (BIBA)

British Insurance Brokers’ Association (BIBA)

BIBA is the UK’s leading general insurance intermediary organisation. Use the ‘Find Insurance‘ section of the BIBA website to find providers of cyber risk insurance in the UK.

SecureWorks

SecureWorks

SecureWorks provides intelligence-driven security solutions for organizations to prevent, detect, rapidly respond and predict cyberattacks.

Integrity360

Integrity360

Integrity360 provide fully managed IT security services as well as security testing, integration, GRC and incident handling services.

BankVault

BankVault

BankVault is a new type of cyber technology (called remote isolation) which sidesteps your local machine and any possible malware.

CYE

CYE

Utilizing data, numbers, and facts, CYE helps security leaders know what business assets are at risk and execute cost-effective remediation projects for optimal risk prevention.

Touchstone Security

Touchstone Security

Touchstone Security is a company with a passion for technology, a hyper-focus on cybersecurity, and a special affinity for cloud technology.

Constella Intelligence

Constella Intelligence

Constella Intelligence provides digital risk protection services to quickly and efficiently disrupt cyber attacks and data breaches before they occur.

Aristi Technologies

Aristi Technologies

Aristi provides cybersecurity risk and compliance services to help manage your unique cyber risks, safeguarding your systems and data and complying with government and industry standards.

Certo Software

Certo Software

Certo are trusted experts in mobile security. At Certo, mobile security is not an afterthought, it’s what we do.

Rocky Mountain Cybersecurity

Rocky Mountain Cybersecurity

Rocky Mountain Cybersecurity's mission is to provide value by dramatically improving the cybersecurity posture of our clients and business partners.

Ruptura InfoSecurity

Ruptura InfoSecurity

Ruptura InfoSecurity provide CREST Accredited Penetration Testing & Offensive Security Services. We secure your critical assets through targeted and research driven penetration testing.

NormCyber

NormCyber

NormCyber provide award-winning cyber security and data protection as a service for midsize organisations.

Defendis

Defendis

Defendis develops AI-powered cybersecurity solutions for Government Agencies, Banks, and Businesses, designed to helps them contain data leaks, minimise damage, and proactively hunt for new threats.

Hunt & Hackett

Hunt & Hackett

Hunt & Hackett helps European companies prevent, detect and respond to today’s most advanced adversaries, safeguarding them against cyberthreats and espionage.

RedArx Cyber Group

RedArx Cyber Group

At RedArx Cyber Group, our vision is to empower businesses with cutting-edge, proactive security solutions that safeguard their digital landscapes.