5cjxburmr

Certain cyber operations may not have a clear kinetic parallel in terms of theircapabilities and the effects they create. 15 Such operations may have implications that are quitedifferent from those presented by attacks using traditional weapons, and those differentimplications may well yield different conclusions. 1616.3 CYBER OPERATIONS AND JUS AD BELLUMCyber operations may present issues under the law of war governing the resort to force(i.e., jus ad bellum). 1716.3.1 Prohibition on Cyber Operations That Constitute Illegal Uses of Force UnderArticle 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the UnitedNations states that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat oruse of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any othermanner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” 18Cyber operations may in certain circumstances constitute uses of force within themeaning of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and customary international law. 19For example, if cyber operations cause effects that, if caused by traditional physical means,would be regarded as a use of force under jus ad bellum, then such cyber operations would likelyalso be regarded as a use of force. Such operations may include cyber operations that: (1)trigger a nuclear plant meltdown; (2) open a dam above a populated area, causing destruction; or(3) disable air traffic control services, resulting in airplane crashes. 20 Similarly, cyber operations15 Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, International Law in Cyberspace: Remarks asPrepared for Delivery to the USCYBERCOM Inter-Agency Legal Conference (Sept. 18, 2012), reprinted in 54HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL ONLINE, 7 (Dec. 2012) (“I have also noted some clear-cut cases where thephysical effects of a hostile cyber action would be comparable to what a kinetic action could achieve: for example,a bomb might break a dam and flood a civilian population, but insertion of a line of malicious code from a distantcomputer might just as easily achieve that same result. As you all know, however, there are other types of cyberactions that do not have a clear kinetic parallel, which raise profound questions about exactly what we mean by‘force.’”).16 Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, An Assessment of International Legal Issues inInformation Operations (2nd ed., Nov. 1999), reprinted in 76 U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL LAWSTUDIES 459, 490 (2002) (“In the process of reasoning by analogy to the law applicable to traditional weapons, itmust always be kept in mind that computer network attacks are likely to present implications that are quite differentfrom the implications presented by attacks with traditional weapons. These different implications may well yielddifferent conclusions.”).17 Refer to § 1.11 (Jus ad Bellum).18 U.N. CHARTER art. 2(4).19 Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, International Law in Cyberspace: Remarks asPrepared for Delivery to the USCYBERCOM Inter-Agency Legal Conference (Sept. 18, 2012), reprinted in 54HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL ONLINE, 3 (Dec. 2012) (“Cyber activities may in certain circumstancesconstitute uses of force within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law.”).20 Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, International Law in Cyberspace: Remarks asPrepared for Delivery to the USCYBERCOM Inter-Agency Legal Conference (Sept. 18, 2012), reprinted in 54HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL ONLINE, 4 (Dec. 2012) (“Commonly cited examples of cyber activity that998