Law Commons^™

The Plea Of Necessity: An Oft Overlooked Response Option To Hostile Cyber Operations, Louise Arimatsu, Michael N. Schmitt

International Law Studies

States are increasingly focused on the measures—cyber or otherwise—that they can take in response to hostile cyber operations. Although cyber operations are usually responded to with acts of “retorsion” (acts that are lawful, although unfriendly), international law recognizes other self-help mechanisms that allow for more robust responses. In the cyber context, most attention has focused on countermeasures and self-defense. Yet, both are subject to various limitations that constrain their availability.

This article examines a further option, the so-called “plea of necessity.” It allows States to respond to a hostile cyber operation when the action taken would otherwise be unlawful but …

Israel’S Perspective On Key Legal And Practical Issues Concerning The Application Of International Law To Cyber Operations, Roy Schöndorf

International Law Studies

The speech given by the Israeli Deputy Attorney General (International Law) at the Naval War College’s event on “Disruptive Technologies and International Law” sets out, for the first time, Israel’s position on the application of international law to cyber operations. Consistent with the position taken by the vast majority of States thus far, Israel considers that international law applies to such operations. The speech stresses that questions pertaining to the identification and application of relevant legal rules remain, given the profound differences between the cyber domain and traditional domains of warfare—land, sea, and air. Therefore, in Israel’s view, a cautious …

Responding To Hostile Cyber Operations: The “In-Kind” Option, Michael N. Schmitt, Durward E. Johnson

International Law Studies

Facing hostile cyber operations, States are crafting responsive strategies, tactics and rules of engagement. One of the major challenges in doing so is that key aspects of the international law governing cyber responses are vague, unsettled or complex. Not surprisingly, therefore, international law is markedly absent from strategies and operational concepts. Rather, they tend to take on a practical “tit-for-tat” feel as policymakers logically view “in-kind” responses as “fair play.” For them, responding in-kind surely must be lawful notwithstanding any challenges in discerning the precise legal character of the initial hostile cyber operation.

Testing that sense, this article examines the …