Cyber Attacks as "Force" under UN Charter Article 2(4)
I a 2010 article in Foreign Affairs, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn revealed that in 2008 the Department of Defense suffered “the most significant breach of U.S. military computers ever” when a flash drive inserted into a US military laptop surreptitiously introduced malicious software into US Central Command’s classified and unclassified computer systems.1 Lynn explains that the US government is developing defensive systems to protect military and civilian electronic infrastructure from intrusions and, potentially worse, disruptions and destruction, and it is developing its own cyber-strategy “to defend the United States in the digital age.”2 To what extent is existing international law, including the UN Charter, adequate to regulate cyber attacks and related offensive and defensive activities today and in the future? By “cyber attacks” I mean efforts to alter, disrupt, degrade or destroy computer systems or networks or the information or programs on them.3 This article examines one slice of that legal puzzle: the UN Charter’s prohibitions of the threat or use of “force” contained in Article 2(4).4 Other writings in this volume deal with questions such as Article 51’s self-defense provisions and questions of State responsibility, and there are other international legal prohibitions and regulations that are relevant as well. But Article 2(4) is a good place to start
Political and Economic Coercion in Contemporary International Law
tional law. The opinions of the Court in general compare favorably in clarity, logic and scholarly depth with recent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The World Court's opinions are the more remarkable because of the vastly different legal systems represented by the judges. On balance, it would be more in the interest of the United States to improve the World Court than to abandon it. The way to deal with a possible loss in a given case is to initiate many cases; the public hardly notices when the U.S. Government loses a case in the Supreme Court. Senator Moynihan summed it up well when he advocated respecting the World Court's procedures at the time Nicaragua filed its suit against the United States: "We are—when we have our wits about us—a lawabiding nation. It is in our interest that others should be. If, for example, the Soviets are not, then that is their problem. If, because the Soviets are not, we cease to be, then that is their victory."
2000 Review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, final document
4. The Conference notes that the non-nuclearweapon States Parties to the Treaty reaffirmed their commitment not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly, not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. 2000 REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FINAL DOCUMENT