Cyberwar as an Issue of International law

The document analyzes the intersection of international law and cyberwar, highlighting the tension between those who view cyber attacks as acts of war and those who see them as computer security problems. It critiques the 'cyber-doom' discourse used by 'cyberhawks' to justify increased military spending and the institutionalization of cyberwar units, such as the United States Cyber Command. The author argues that the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) only addresses a small portion of the challenge and suggests that policy makers should instead prioritize critical information infrastructure protection (CIIP) and a 'cyber peace' agenda to prevent the infringement of civil liberties and international instability.

• There is a significant push by military, political, and commercial actors to reframe cyber security issues as matters of warfare, which the author argues necessitates a 'cyber peace' agenda to counter this militarization.
• The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is insufficient on its own to address cyber security, as it only provides a framework for a small part of the overall challenge; more focus is needed on domestic legal coordination and critical information infrastructure protection (CIIP).
• Cyberwar discourse is divided into three main perspectives: 'cyberhawks' who promote 'cyber-doom scenarios' to secure contracts and government spending; those who view cyberwar as a computer security problem where laws of warfare do not apply; and pragmatists who focus on national security through resilience and the protection of critical information infrastructure.
• Under the jus ad bellum (law on the use of force), there is general agreement that cyber attacks can be a prohibited use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, but the specific thresholds for what constitutes an 'armed attack' and the requirements for attributing responsibility to a state remain contested.
• Regarding the jus in bello (law of war), scholars generally agree that norms from the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocol I apply to cyber attacks, though challenges remain in distinguishing between military and civilian spheres and the lack of technical expertise among lawyers.
• The institutionalization of cyberwar is evidenced by the creation of military units like the United States Cyber Command (established May 2010) and the growth of a cyber military-industrial complex involving firms such as Symantec, MacAfee, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and ManTech International.

APA

Sandvik, K. B. (2012). Cyberwar as an Issue of International law. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/fa417d59-9236-401c-857e-ea42accaf8a3/Sandvik-Cyberwar-PRIO-Policy-Brief-4-2012.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora. Cyberwar as an Issue of International law. Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2012. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/fa417d59-9236-401c-857e-ea42accaf8a3/Sandvik-Cyberwar-PRIO-Policy-Brief-4-2012.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Sandvik |first1=Kristin Bergtora |title=Cyberwar as an Issue of International law |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=2012 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/fa417d59-9236-401c-857e-ea42accaf8a3/Sandvik-Cyberwar-PRIO-Policy-Brief-4-2012.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{sandvik2012cyberwar, author = {Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora}, title = {{Cyberwar as an Issue of International law}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2012}, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/fa417d59-9236-401c-857e-ea42accaf8a3/Sandvik-Cyberwar-PRIO-Policy-Brief-4-2012.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }