Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:56:32.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Rights Obligations of the Territorial State in the Cyberspace of Areas Outside Its Effective Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2019

Antal Berkes
Antal Berkes*
Affiliation:
University of Pretoria, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the SARChI Professorship on International Constitutional Law (Professor Erika de Wet); Visiting scholar, Manchester International Law Centre, University of Manchester; [email protected] (comments welcome).
Get access

Abstract

The absence of control of a territorial state over part of its physical territory is closely associated with online human rights violations, on the one hand, and the state's restricted (but not necessarily absent) control over the cyberspace, on the other. Notwithstanding the lack of its effective territorial control, the territorial state continues to be entitled to exercise its sovereignty over both territory and cyberspace. The consequence of sovereignty in international human rights law is the territorial state's presumed jurisdiction over its entire national territory. The article claims that the territorial state, while lacking the effective means to control its cyberspace fully as it does in the government-controlled areas, has continuing jurisdiction, and consequently obligations, to protect human rights online from wrongful acts that originate, occur or have effect in the area outside its effective control. Treaty monitoring bodies have recommended various positive measures that any territorial state is required to take while seeking to restore its ‘internet sovereignty’ in the separatist region, depending on the means in its power that are feasible in the particular situation.

Keywords

international human rights lawdue diligencecyberspaceeffective controlIlaşcu case
Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , July 2019 , pp. 197 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I thank the anonymous reviewers and the editorial team of the Israel Law Review for their most helpful comments.

References

1 The article will not focus on other areas outside the effective control of the territorial state such as Northern Cyprus or Western Sahara, where there are no reported human rights violations in the cyberspace.

2 ECtHR, Assanidze v Georgia, App no 71503/01, 8 April 2004, para 139; Kreijen, Gérard, State Failure, Sovereignty and Effectiveness: Legal Lessons from the Decolonization of Sub-Saharan Africa (Martinus Nijhoff 2004) 204Google Scholar.

3 The major precedents are international territorial administrations and leases of territory: see Markus Benzing, ‘International Administration of Territories’ (2010) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law; Yaël Ronen, ‘Territory, Lease’ (2008) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Two precedents where international territorial administrations performed all state functions in a territory under their control are East Timor (governed by the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor, 1999–2002) and Kosovo (governed by the civilian mission, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo from 2008, significantly reduced following the declaration of independence by the Kosovo authorities). A contemporary precedent for leased territory is the Bay of Guantánamo under Cuban sovereignty but under US control: Agreement for the Lease to the United States of Lands in Cuba for Coaling and Naval Stations, signed at Havana, 16 February 1903, and at Washington, 23 February 1903, entered into force 23 February 1903, Charles I Bevans, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, Department of State, vol 6, 1113–15, art III.

4 Tsagourias, Nicholas, ‘Non-State Actors, Ungoverned Spaces and International Responsibility for Cyber Acts’ (2016) 21 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 455CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clunan, Anne L and Trinkunas, Harold A (eds), Ungoverned Spaces: Alternatives to State Authority in an Era of Softened Sovereignty (Stanford Security Studies 2010)Google Scholar; Boraz, Steven and others, Ungoverned Territories: Understanding and Reducing Terrorism Risks (NBN 2007)Google Scholar; Lamb, Robert D, Ungoverned Areas and Threats from Safe Havens: Final Report of the Ungoverned Areas Project (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD(P)) 2008)Google Scholar.

5 Schoiswohl, Michael, ‘De Facto Regimes and Human Rights Obligations: The Twilight Zone of Public International Law’ (2001) 6 Austrian Review of International and European Law 45, 78–79Google Scholar; Murray, Daragh, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups (Hart 2016) 126–28Google Scholar; Cullen, Anthony and Wheatley, Steven, ‘The Human Rights of Individuals in De Facto Regimes under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2013) 13 Human Rights Law Review 691, 717–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 According to this theory, any subject undertaking effective control over the area is bound by the international human rights obligations of the territorial sovereign. This theory is confirmed in Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 26: Continuity of Obligations (8 December 1997), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.8/Rev.1, para 4; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v Mucić, Judgment, IT-96-21-A, Appeals Chamber, 20 February 2001, para 111.

7 eg, Besson, Samantha, ‘Concurrent Responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights: The Concurrence of Human Rights Jurisdictions, Duties and Responsibilities’ in van Aaken, Anne and Motoc, Iulia (eds), The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law (Oxford University Press 2018)Google Scholar. See also the recommendations of some Charter-based human rights mechanisms: UNGA, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression: Mission to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (17 June 2012), UN Doc A/HRC/20/17/Add.2 (Human Rights Council, Mission to Israel), paras 9–13, 97–118 (concurrent obligations of various actors); UNGA, Human Rights Council, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 16 May–15 August 2017 (15 September 2017), UN Doc A/HRC/36/CRP.2 (Human Rights Council, Ukraine 2017), paras 182–84.

8 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (CoE PA), ‘Areas where the European Convention on Human Rights Cannot be Implemented’, Doc 9730, 11 March 2003, paras 1, 6.

9 The exception is the possibility of having international organisations as signatories: eg, Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (entered into force 1 August 2014) CETS 210, art 75(1); Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (entered into force 3 May 2008) 2515 UNTS 3, art 42.

10 CoE PA, Resolution 2141(2017), ‘Attacks against Journalists and Media Freedom in Europe’, 24 January 2017, para 12; CoE PA, ‘Attacks against Journalists and Media Freedom in Europe’, Doc 14229, 9 January 2017, Explanatory Memorandum, para 82; European Parliament, ‘Media Freedom Trends 2017: Eastern Partnership Countries, 3 May 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/603897/EPRS_BRI(2017)603897_EN.pdf; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Russian Federation (28 April 2015), UN Doc CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para 23(b); Human Rights Council, Situation of Human Rights in the Temporarily Occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine) (25 September 2017), UN Doc A/HRC/36/CRP.3, paras 154–61; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN OHCHR), Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 15 July 2014 (19 September 2014), UN Doc A/HRC/27/75, 161–62 para 152; Security Council, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (5 February 2015), UN Doc A/HRC/28/69, Annex II, paras 82, 259. References to media in the cited documents include a particular means of mass communication, that disseminated in cyberspace

11 Section 2 in this article.

12 Section 4 in this article.

13 Charter of the United Nations (entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI.

14 Sections 4 and 5 in this article.

15 In the same sense see Wu, Timothy S, ‘Cyberspace Sovereignty: The Internet and the International System Notes’ (1996) 10 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 647Google Scholar.

16 eg, Clapham, Andrew, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press 2006) 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fortin, Katharine, The Accountability of Armed Groups under Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press 2017) 240–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murray (n 5) 120–271.

17 eg, Benvenisti, Eyal, ‘The Applicability of Human Rights Conventions to Israel and to the Occupied Territories’ (1992) 26 Israel Law Review 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ben-Naftali, Orna and Shany, Yuval, ‘Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories’ (2004) 1 Israel Law Review 17Google Scholar; Cerone, John, ‘Human Dignity in the Line of Fire: The Application of International Human Rights Law during Armed Conflict, Occupation, and Peace Operations’ (2006) 39 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1447Google Scholar; Campanelli, Danio, ‘The Law of Military Occupation Put to the Test of Human Rights Law’ (2008) 90 International Review of the Red Cross 653CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lubell, Noam, ‘Human Rights Obligations in Military Occupation’ (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Bannelier-Christakis, Karine, ‘Cyber Diligence: A Low-Intensity Due Diligence Principle for Low-Intensity Cyber Operations’ (2014) 14 Baltic Yearbook of International Law 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buchan, Russell, ‘Cyberspace, Non-State Actors and the Obligation to Prevent Transboundary Harm’ (2016) 21 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 429CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rona, Gabor and Aarons, Lauren, ‘State Responsibility to Respect, Protect and Fulfill Human Rights Obligations in Cyberspace’ (2016) 8 Journal of National Security Law and Policy 503Google Scholar; Sklerov, Matthew J, ‘Solving the Dilemma of Sate Responses to Cyberattacks: A Justification for the Use of Active Defenses against States Who Neglect Their Duty to Prevent’ (2009) 201 Military Law Review 1Google Scholar.

19 Tsagourias (n 4).

20 Rona and Aarons (n 18) 506–09.

21 John P Barlow, ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 8 February 1996, https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence. Others attribute the phrase to Jon Carroll, columnist of the San Francisco Chronicle: see ‘The Geography of Cyberspace’, The Atlantic Online, 19 February 1998, http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/citation/wc980219.htm.

22 Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization (AALCO), ‘International Law in Cyberspace’, prepared by the AALCO Secretariat, 56th Annual Session of AALCO, Nairobi, 1–5 May 2017, Doc AALCO/56/NAIROBI/2017/SD/S17, para 1.

23 UNESCO, ‘Internet Governance Glossary’, https://en.unesco.org/glossaries/igg/groups/1.%20Internet%20governance%20general.

24 Tsagourias, Nicholas, ‘The Legal Status of Cyberspace’ in Tsagourias, Nicholas K and Buchan, Russell (eds), Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace (Edward Elgar 2015) 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; US Department of the Navy/US Department of the Air Force, Cyberspace Operations, Joint Publication 3-12 (R), 5 February 2013, I.2–I.3.

25 Franzese, Patrick W, ‘Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Can It Exist?’ (2009) 64 Air Force Law Review 1, 33Google Scholar.

26 See, mutatis mutandis, ‘The Definition of Cybercrime’, UNTERM (UN Terminology Database), https://unterm.un.org/UNTERM/portal/welcome.

27 Schmitt, Michael N (ed), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2017) 2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Law Commission (ILC), Second Report on the Protection of the Environment in relation to Armed Conflicts, submitted by Marie G Jacobsson, Special Rapporteur (28 May 2015), UN Doc A/CN.4/685, para 180.

28 Schmitt, ibid 187 para 1. See also UNGA, Human Rights Council, Res 38/7, The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet (17 July 2018), UN Doc A/HRC/RES/38/7, para 8 (emphasising ‘freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of association and privacy’).

29 eg, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), UNGA Res 217A(III), 10 December 1948, UN Doc A/810 (1948), art 19; European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (entered into force 3 September 1953) 213 UNTS 222 (ECHR), art 10(1); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR), art 19(2).

30 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (entered into force 4 January 1969) 660 UNTS 195 (CERD), art 5(d)(viii).

31 Council of Europe, Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (entered into force 1 June 2007) CETS 196, art 5. The UN Special Rapporteur, while countering terrorism, held that this provision represents best practice in defining the proscription of incitement to terrorism: UNGA, Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Australia: Study on Human Rights Compliance while Countering Terrorism (14 December 2006), UN Doc A/HRC/4/26/Add.3, para 26.

32 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (entered into force 18 January 2002) 2171 UNTS 227, arts 1–2(c).

33 See, eg, UN OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 15 June 2014 (19 September 2014), UN Doc A/HRC/27/75, 110–11 para 232; Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World 2012: Nagorno-Karabakh’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/nagorno-karabakh; Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World 2016: Nagorno-Karabakh’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/nagorno-karabakh; Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World 2018: Abkhazia’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/abkhazia; Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World 2017: South Ossetia’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/south-ossetia.

34 UN OHCHR, ibid 110–11 para 232 (the Donetsk region); UN OHCHR, Ukraine (15 July 2014) (n 10) 161–62 para 152 (the Donetsk region).

35 Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the Net 2016: Syria’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/syria.

36 ibid; UNGA, Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ (1 February 2018), UN Doc A/HRC/37/72, para 66. The Islamic State in Libya used the same technique: Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the Net 2016: Libya’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/libya.

37 Freedom House: Syria (n 35).

38 eg, ‘TV Says Ukraine Losing “Information War” in Donbass due to Underfunding’, BBC International Reports, 28 March 2018.

39 Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World 2016: Transnistria’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/transnistria.

40 Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World 2014: Transnistria’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/transnistria; Promo-LEX, ‘Freedom of Expression in the Transnistrian Region of the Republic of Moldova: 2016 Retrospective’, 2017, 15, https://promolex.md/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/eng-Raport-EXPRIMARE-web_2017.pdf; US State Department, ‘Moldova 2016 Human Rights Report’, 17–18, https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265662.pdf.

41 UN OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 16 May to 15 August 2015, para 70, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/11thOHCHRreportUkraine.pdf.

42 UN OHCHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Temporarily Occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, 13 September 2017 to 30 June 2018, para 47, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/CrimeaThematicReport10Sept2018_EN.pdf.

43 UN OHCHR, Ukraine (15 June 2014) (n 33) 122 para 300.

44 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Press Release, ‘OSCE Media Freedom Representative Says Journalists Need Free and Safe Access to Georgia's South Ossetia and Abkhazia Regions’, 22 September 2008, http://www.osce.org/fom/50101.

45 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Russian Federation (n 10) para 23(b).

46 While Ukrainian authorities asked the Ukrainian Internet Association for its assistance in limiting access in Ukraine to 24 internet resources registered outside Ukraine, the Association refused to block websites without a proper investigation and a court decision for each case: UN OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 17 August 2014 (19 September 2014), UN Doc A/HRC/27/75, 209. Similarly, the Syrian government in 2012 blocked around 240 websites, including email services, social media, and streaming video: Tkacheva, Olesya and others, Internet Freedom and Political Space (RAND Corporation 2013) 77–78Google Scholar.

47 ‘Iraq Telecom Ministry Orders ISPs: Kill the Internet in Five Provinces’, SMEX: Channeling Advocacy, 16 June 2014, https://smex.org/iraq-telecom-ministry-orders-isps-kill-the-internet-in-five-provinces.

48 ‘Syria “Cut off from the Internet”’, BBC News, 8 May 2013, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22446041.

49 UDHR (n 29) art 19; ECHR (n 29) art 10(1); ICCPR (n 29) art 19(2); Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (entered into force 1 July 2004) ETS 185, Preamble, para 9; UN World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles: Building the Information Society: A Global Challenge in the New Millennium’, 12 December 2003, Doc WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E, para 4; UNGA, Human Rights Council, The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet (29 June 2012), UN Doc A/HRC/RES/20/L.13, para 1.

50 eg, Council of Europe Treaty Office, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list: Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No 005 (ECHR): Declarations of Azerbaijan (Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 15 April 2002) and the Republic of Moldova (Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 12 September 1997); Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No 009 (Protocol to the ECHR): Declarations of Azerbaijan (Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 15 April 2002) and Georgia (Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 7 June 2002); Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No 187 (Protocol 13 to the ECHR): Declarations of Georgia (Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 22 May 2003) and the Republic of Moldova (Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 18 October 2006). For the legal effect of those treaty declarations, see below (Section 4).

51 See the Declaration of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine to the Budapest Convention: Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No 185 (Convention on Cybercrime), status as at 29 June 2018, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list.

52 ICT for Peace Foundation and UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (UNCTED), ‘Private Sector Engagement in Responding to the Use of the Internet and ICT for Terrorist Purposes: Strengthening Dialogue and Building Trust’, 5, https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Private-Sector-Engagement-in-Responding-to-the-Use-of-the-Internet-and-ICT-for-Terrorist-Purposes.pdf.

53 Margulies, Peter, ‘Surveillance by Algorithm: The NSA, Computerized Intelligence Collection, and Human Rights’ (2017) 68 Florida Law Review 1045, 1088Google Scholar; Kostyuk, Nadiya, ‘Ukraine: A Cyber Safe Haven?’ in Geers, Kenneth (ed), Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression against Ukraine (NATO CCD COE Publications 2015) 115Google Scholar.

54 Marie Baezner, ‘Cyber and Information Warfare in the Ukrainian Conflict’, Center for Security Studies (CSS) Cyber Defense Project, ETH Zürich, 2017, 10.

55 UNSC Res 2170 (15 August 2014), UN Doc S/RES/2170, preambular para 13; UNSC Res 2249 (20 November 2015), UN Doc S/RES/2249, preambular para 8.

56 UNSC Res 2170, ibid, preambular para 13; UNSC Res 2395 (21 December 2017), UN Doc S/RES/2395, preambular para 27.

57 UNSC Res 2199 (12 February 2015), UN Doc S/RES/2199, para 16.

58 Human Rights Council, ‘Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, “They Came to Destroy”: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis’ (15 June 2016), UN Doc A/HRC/32/CRP.2.

59 See the first pillar of the theory of ‘Responsibility to Protect’: UNGA Res 60/1(24 October 2005), UN Doc A/RES/60/1(2005), para 138, and the numerous resolutions of the Security Council confirming this obligation: eg, recently UNSC Res 2399 (30 January 2018), UN Doc S/RES/2399, preambular para 3; UNSC Res 2337 (19 January 2017), UN Doc S/RES/2337, preambular para 9. For a complete list see http://www.globalr2p.org/resources/335.

60 UNSC Res 2170 (n 56) preambular para 13; UNSC Res 2395 (n 56) preambular para 27.

61 UNSC Res 2139 (22 February 2014), UN Doc S/RES/2139, paras 9, 12; UNSC Res 2254 (18 December 2015), UN Doc S/RES/2254, preambular para 4; UNSC Res 2258 (22 December 2015), UN Doc S/RES/2258, preambular para 8 (‘the primary responsibility of the Syrian authorities to protect the population in Syria’).

62 Gross, Oren, ‘Cyber Responsibility to Protect: Legal Obligations of States Directly Affected by Cyber-Incidents’ (2015) 48 Cornell International Law Journal 481, 491–93Google Scholar. Within the ‘responsibility to protect’ one could think of the crime of ‘direct and public incitement to commit genocide’ committed online: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entered into force 12 January 1951) 78 UNTS 277, art III(c).

63 AALCO (n 22) para 4(1).

64 Similar difficulties arise in private international law: Inter-American Judicial Committee, Annual Report of the Inter-American Judicial Committee to the General Assembly, OEA/Ser.Q/VI.34, CJI/doc.145/03, 29 August 2003, 164.

65 Charter of the United Nations (n 13) art 2(1), 2(4).

66 Johnson, David R and Post, David G, ‘Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’ (1996) 48 Stanford Law Review 1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frank Easterbrook, ‘Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse’ (1996) University of Chicago Legal Forum 207; Segura-Serrano, Antonio, ‘Internet Regulation and the Role of International Law’ (2006) 10 Max Planck United Nations Yearbook of International Law 191, 193–97Google Scholar.

67 ILC, Report of the ILC on the Work of its 58th Session (1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006), UN Doc A/CN.4/SEA.A/2006/Add. 1 (Part 2), 2006(II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 218 para 5.

68 UN World Summit on Information Society (23 December 2003), UN Doc Wsis-03/GENEVA/DOC, para 49(a); AALCO, ‘International Law in Cyberspace 2016’, Doc AALCO/55/NEW DELHI/2016/SD/S17, paras 10 (People's Republic of China), 15 (Iran), 18 (South Africa), 20 (Pakistan), 21 (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Not surprisingly, the territorial states concerned also emphasise their sovereign right to use the telecommunications networks in their territory: International Telecommunications Union, Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference, Busan (South Korea), 2014, 522–23 (Declaration No 2, Georgia), 576–78 (Declaration No 76, Ukraine), http://search.itu.int/history/HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/4.294.43.en.100.pdf.

69 UNGA, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (24 June 2013), UN Doc A/68/98 (GGE Report 2013), para 20; UNGA, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (22 July 2015), UN Doc A/70/174 (GGE Report 2015), para 27.

70 It is the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49), signed in 2001, that was the first international treaty to regulate conduct in the cyberspace; Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed through Computer Systems (entered into force 1 March 2006) ETS 189; United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (entered into force 1 March 2013) 2898 UNTS 1; League of Arab States, Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences (entered into force February 2014), see the authentic Arab text and the ratification status at http://www.lasportal.org/ar/legalnetwork/Pages/agreements_details.aspx?RID=73 and the English translation at http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Arab_Convention_on_Combating_Information_Technology_Offences; African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (adopted 27 June 2014, not yet in force) (2017) 56 ILM 166.

71 International Radiotelegraph Convention (London, 5 July 1912), (1913) 10 Treaty Series 139–217, art 1; International Convention concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace (entered into force 2 April 1938) 186 LNTS 301, art 1; Resolution on Radio-Telegraphic Communications (1927) Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, session de Lausanne, 287 and 342–43, para 1.

72 Dyke, Vernon Van, ‘The Responsibility of States for International Propaganda’ (1940) 34 American Journal of International Law 58, 58–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lauterpacht, Hersch, ‘Revolutionary Propaganda by Governments’ (1927) 13 Transactions Grotius Society 143, 162Google Scholar; Friedmann, W, ‘The Growth of State Control over the Individual, and Its Effect upon the Rules of International State Responsibility’ (1938) 19 British Year Book of International Law 118, 146–47Google Scholar.

73 Schmitt (n 27) 26, 284–85, 312–35.

74 ibid 11 para 1.

75 ibid 60–71 (Rules 10–11).

76 Tsagourias (n 24) 21, 27.

77 Bernard H Oxman, ‘Jurisdiction of States’ (2007) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law para 1.

78 Schmitt (n 27) 51.

79 De Schutter, Olivier and others, ‘Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (2012) 34 Human Rights Quarterly 1084, 1102 para 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilde, Ralph, ‘The Extraterritorial Application of International Human Rights Law on Civil and Political Rights’ in Sheeran, Scott and Sir Rodley, Nigel (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law (Routledge 2013) 640Google Scholar.

80 This rule can be derived from the territorial integrity and independence of states, as enshrined in art 2(4) of the UN Charter (n 13); S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey), Judgment, (1927) PCIJ Rep (Ser A, No 10) 18–19; Island of Palmas Case (United States v The Netherlands) (1928) Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol II, 829, 839.

81 Ottoman Debt Arbitration, 18 April 1925, (1925) RIAA, Vol I, 555; Fubini, Decision No 201 of 12 December 1959, Italian-United States Conciliation Commission, (1959) RIAA, Vol. XIV, 429; State of the Netherlands v Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 201 F.2d 455 (2d Cir 1953), repr in (1953) 47(3) American Journal of International Law 498; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda, Judgment, [2005] ICJ Rep 306, Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, 320–21 [57]; Oppenheimer, FE, ‘Governments and Authorities in Exile’ (1942) 36 American Journal of International Law 568, 571CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Schmitt (n 27) 52.

83 Yannis, Alexandros, ‘The Concept of Suspended Sovereignty in International Law and Its Implications in International Politics’ (2002) 13 European Journal of International Law 1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ronen (n 3) (the territorial state is ‘divorced from jurisdiction’).

84 Jellinek, Georg, Die Lehre von Den Staatenverbindungen (Hölder 1882) 54, 116Google Scholar; Valentina Azarova, ‘Illegal Territoriality in International Law: The Interaction and Enforcement of the Law of Belligerant Occupation through Other Territorial Regimes’ (PhD thesis, National University of Ireland Galway 2015) 94.

85 On the state's lacking effectiveness in the territory, see in general Kelsen, Hans, General Theory of Law and State (Russell & Russell 1961) 217–18Google Scholar.

86 See the recognition of the jurisdiction of the ousted government in the law of belligerent occupation: ‘Extraterritorial Enforcement Granted to Legislation of a Government-in-Exile’ (1953) 53 Columbia Law Review 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dinstein, Yoram, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge University Press 2009) 108–09CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Schmitt (n 27) 55 (Rule 9).

88 ibid 2–3.

89 S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey) (n 80) 23 (‘in a place assimilated to Turkish territory in which the application of Turkish criminal law cannot be challenged, even in regard to offences committed there by foreigners’); Samantha Besson, ‘Sovereignty’ (2011) MPEPIL para 70.

90 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49), arts 18(1), 19(1), 19(2), 22(3); Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences (n 70) arts 25, 30(2); GGE Report 2013 (n 69) para 20; CoE PA, ‘Mass Surveillance’, Doc 13734, 18 March 2015, para 11.

91 UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (23 September 2014), UN Doc A/69/397, para 41.

92 S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey) (n 80) 23.

93 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49) art 22(1)(a); Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences (n 70) art 30(1)(a).

94 Schmitt (n 27) 57; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression 2013 (31 December 2013), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149, Doc 50, 496–97, para 66.

95 Schmitt (n 27) 56 para 5.

96 Inter-American Judicial Committee (n 64) 164.

97 Schmitt (n 27) 58.

98 LICRA and UEJF v Yahoo! Inc and Yahoo France, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 22 May 2000 and 22 November 2000, No RG:00/0538 (France); High Court of Australia, Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, paras 44, 184, 198–99; People v World Interactive Gaming Corp, 22 July 1999, 714 NYS 2d 844, 860, paras 9–10. See other cases cited by Uerpmann-Wittzack, Robert, ‘Principles of International Internet Law’ (2010) 11 German Law Journal 1245, 1254–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Schultz, Thomas, ‘Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 799, 811–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geist, Michael A, ‘Is There a There There – Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction’ (2001) 16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1345, 1349Google Scholar.

100 Kulesza, Joanna, International Internet Law (Routledge 2012) 14–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tsagourias (n 24) 20; Uerpmann-Wittzack (n 98) 1254–56; Schmitt (n 27) 58 para 13. The offline world is understood as activities not connected with cyberspace.

101 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49) art 15(1); ‘G8 Declaration Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy’, G8 Summit of Deauville, 26–27 May 2011, para II/10, https://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_05/20110926_110526-G8-Summit-Deauville.pdf; NETmundial, ‘Multistakeholder Statement’, Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, São Paulo, 24 April 2014, Part 1 – Internet Governance Principles: Human Rights and Shared Values, http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf; The White House, ‘International Strategy for Cyberspace, Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World’, May 2011, 5, https://info.publicintelligence.net/WH-InternationalCyberspace.pdf.

102 UNGA Res 68/167 (21 January 2014), UN Doc A/RES/68/167, para 3; UNGA, Human Rights Council, The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet (18 July 2016), UN Doc A/HRC/RES/32/13, para 1; UNGA, Human Rights Council, The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet (14 July 2014), UN Doc A/HRC/RES/26/13, para 1; GGE Report 2013 (n 69) para 21; GGE Report 2015 (n 69) para 26; CoE Committee of Ministers, Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)5[1] to Member States on Internet Freedom, 13 April 2016, para 1.

103 UN World Summit on the Information Society (n 49) para 1; UN World Summit on the Information Society, Tunis Commitment (18 November 2005), Doc WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/7–E, para 2; CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)6 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on a Guide to Human Rights for Internet Users, 16 April 2014, para 5.1.

104 De Schutter and others (n 79) 1102 para 3; Milanovic, Marko, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford University Press 2011) 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 179 [109]; ECtHR, Banković and Others v Belgium, App no 52207/99, Admissibility, 19 December 2001, paras 67–73; Inter-Am Ct HR, Case of Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina (Ecuador) v Colombia (Admissibility) (2010) Report no 112/10, Inter-state Petition IP-02 of 21 October 2010, (Ser.L) para 98; UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant [ICCPR] (26 May 2004), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para 10.

106 eg Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina (Ecuador), ibid paras 78–103; ECtHR, Mansur Pad and Others v Turkey, App no 60167/00, Admissibility, 28 June 2007, paras 52–55.

107 Wall (n 105) 179 [109]; Banković (n 105) para 59; ECtHR, Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom, App no 55721/07, 7 July 2011, para 131; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACommHPR), Mohamed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad v Republic of Djibouti, Case No 383/10, 12 May 2014, para 134; Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina (Ecuador) (n 105) paras 89–90.

108 Human Rights Committee, Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, Communication No R.12/52, views of 29 July 1981, UN Doc A/36/40, 182–83 paras 12.1–12.3; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 31 (n 105) para 10; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Victor Saldaño v Argentina (Admissibility), IACHR Report no 38/99, 11 March 1999, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc 6 rev, para 21; ECtHR, Ö calan v Turkey [GC], App no 46221/99, 12 May 2005, para 91; Al-Skeini, ibid paras 134–37.

109 The International Group of Experts was divided on the question whether only physical power over the person would lead to the personal model that cyber activities are unlikely to reach: Schmitt (n 27) 185 paras 8–9. Some experts claim that even cyber activities below this threshold lead to the imposition of negative obligations to respect: ibid 185–186 para 10; Marko Milanovic, ‘Foreign Surveillance and Human Rights, Part 4: Do Human Rights Treaties Apply to Extraterritorial Interferences with Privacy?’, EJIL Talk!, 28 November 2013, https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-rights-part-4-do-human-rights-treaties-apply-to-extraterritorial-interferences-with-privacy.

110 Wall (n 105) 179–81 [109]–[113]; DRC v Uganda (n 81) 231 [178].

111 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 31 (n 105) para 10; UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), General Recommendation No 30 on Women in Conflict Prevention, Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations (1 November 2013), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/30, paras 9–10; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), General Comment No 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties (24 January 2008), UN Doc CAT/C/GC/2, para 16.

112 ECtHR, Loizidou v Turkey, App no 15318/09, Merits, 18 December 1996, para 52; Cyprus v Turkey, App no 25781/94, 10 May 2001, paras 77–78; Al-Skeini (n 107) paras 138–40; Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina (Ecuador) (n 105) paras 101–02; Mohamed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad (n 107) para 134; ACommHPR, Democratic Republic of Congo/Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Case No 227/99, 29 May 2003, paras 64–65, 76–77.

113 Cyprus v Turkey, ibid para 77; Al-Skeini (n 107) para 138; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Israel (18 August 1998), UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.93, para 10; CERD, Concluding Observations: Israel (30 March 1998), UN Doc CERD/C/304/Add.45, para 4; CEDAW, General Recommendation No 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 CEDAW (16 December 2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28, para 39; CEDAW, General Recommendation No 30 (n 111) para 12(c).

114 Under a territorial lease agreement, the beneficiary state (the lessee) has the right to use and exercise control over the leased territory: Ronen (n 3) para 1.

115 ECtHR, Chiragov and Others v Armenia, App no 13216/05, Merits, 16 June 2015, para 96; Human Rights Council, ‘Situation of Human Rights in the Temporarily Occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine)’ (25 September 2017), UN Doc A/HRC/36/CRP.3, para 38, note 30; Dinstein, Yoram, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge University Press 2009) 40, 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milanovic (n 104) 142.

116 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser 3) 461 (entered into force 26 January 1910), art 42.

117 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Russian Federation (n 10) para. 23(b); Human Rights Council, Ukraine 2017 (n 7) para 184(b); Human Rights Council (n 115) paras 157, 226(n).

118 Murray (n 5) 120–71 (Ch 5–6); Fortin (n 16) 240–84 (Ch 9) and 323–56 (Ch 11).

119 UN monitoring bodies have recommended that de facto authorities respect and protect freedom of expression, including the work of journalists and bloggers: Human Rights Council, Ukraine 2017 (n 7) para 183(h); UN OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2015, 38 para (t), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/10thOHCHRreportUkraine.pdf; UN OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2016, para 210(b), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine15thReport.pdf; UN OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2016 to 15 February 2017, para 168(l), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/UAReport17th_EN.pdf; Human Rights Council, Mission to Israel (n 7) para 118.

120 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331, art 29. Commentators note that it is a minimum rule of customary character: see Gondek, Michal, ‘Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization?’ (2005) 52 Netherlands International Law Review 349, 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Assanidze (n 2) para 139.

122 ibid para 140.

123 ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004.

124 ibid para 312.

125 ibid para 313.

126 ibid para 333.

127 ibid paras 20–21; Assanidze (n 2) para 140; ECtHR, Sargsyan v Azerbaijan, App no 40167/06, Admissibility, 14 December 2011, paras 64–65.

128 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49).

129 Reservations and Declarations for Treaty (n 50).

130 ECHR (n 29) art 56.

131 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49) art 39.

132 ibid art 15(1).

133 Ilaşcu (n 123) para 334.

134 ibid para 333.

135 Ibid para 334.

136 ibid para 339; ECtHR. Catan v Moldova and Russia, App no 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 19 October 2012, para 145; ECtHR, Mozer v Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], App no 11138/10, 23 February 2016, para 151.

137 Catan, ibid para 145; Mozer, ibid para 151; Ilaşcu (n 123) para 340.

138 Ilaşcu (n 123) para 331.

139 Ilaşcu (n 123) partly dissenting opinion of Judge Sir Nicolas Bratza joined by Judge Rozakis, Judge Hedigan, Judge Thomassen and Judge Panţîru, paras 8–9, 26; partly dissenting opinion of Judge Loucaides.

140 Thomas D Grant, ‘Ukraine v. Russian Federation in Light of Ilaşcu: Two Short Points’, EJIL: Talk!, 22 May 2014, https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-v-russian-federation-in-light-of-ilascu-two-short-points.

141 eg Catan (n 136) dispositive part, para 3 (unanimous decision); Mozer (n 136) dispositive part, paras 6, 8, 11, 13; ECtHR, Braga v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App no 76957/01, 17 October 2017, dispositive part, paras 4, 6, 8 (unanimous decisions).

142 Ilaşcu (n 123) paras 345 (improvement of the everyday lives of the people of Transnistria by measures of cooperation), 347 (sending doctors and financial support to the applicants’ families, long negotiations with the authorities of the ‘MRT’ on the liberation of Mr Ilaşcu – see also para 274 and Annex, Mr Sturza, paras 310–12).

143 ECtHR, Ivanţoc and Others v Moldova and Russia, App no 23687/05, 15 November 2011, para 109; Mozer (n 136) para 153; ECtHR, Eriomenco v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App no 42224/11, 11 December 2017, para 60.

144 Ivanţoc, ibid para 19.

145 Catan (n 136) paras 153, 214–16; ECtHR, Turturica and Casian v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App nos 28648/06 and 18832/07, 30 August 2016, para 53; ECtHR, Paduret v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App no 26626/11, 9 May 2017, para 33.

146 Catan (n 136) para 147; ECtHR Vardanean v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App no 22200/10, 30 May 2017, para 42.

147 Ivanţoc (n 143) para 109; Vardanean, ibid para 42.

148 Island of Palmas Case (n 80) 839.

149 Trail Smelter Case (US, Canada) (1938, 1941) III UNRIAA 1965; in the same sense Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 22.

150 Corfu Channel case, ibid 18.

151 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Merits) [2010] ICJ Rep 14, 55–56 [101].

152 Corfu Channel Case (n 149) 22; Timo Koivurova, ‘Due Diligence’, (2010) MPEPIL, para 2.

153 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras (Merits) (1988) Inter-Am CtHR, Judgment of 29 July 1988, (Ser C) No 4, [172].

154 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (Merits) [2007] ICJ Rep 43, [430]–[431].

155 ibid [430].

156 ibid [431]; Corfu Channel Case (n 149) 22 (‘the laying of the minefield which caused the explosions on October 22nd, 1946, could not have been accomplished without the knowledge of the Albanian Government’).

157 Human Rights Council (n 115) para 41; Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ‘Mission to the Republic of Moldova’ (12 February 2009), UN Doc A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, para 6.

158 The Human Rights Committee has recently elaborated a general comment, providing that ‘a State party has an obligation to respect and to ensure the rights under article 6 of all persons who are within its territory and all persons subject to its jurisdiction’. This wording seems to accept the state's continued jurisdiction in its entire territory despite its lack of effective control over some areas: Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life (30 October 2018), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36, para 63. See the wording ‘[persons] within their territory or effective control’: CEDAW, General Recommendation No 28 (n 113) para 12; CEDAW, General Recommendation No 30 (n 111) para 5.

159 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Republic of Moldova (4 November 2009), UN Doc CCPR/C/MDA/CO/2, para 5; CAT, Concluding Observations: Republic of Moldova (29 March 2010), UN Doc CAT/C/MDA/CO/2, para 4; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Concluding Observations: Iraq (3 March 2015), UN Doc CRC/C/IRQ/CO/2-4, paras 45, 53(a); CRC, Concluding Observations: Iraq (5 March 2015), UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/IRQ/CO/1, paras 17(b), 19; CAT, Concluding Observations: Ukraine (12 December 2014), UN Doc CAT/C/UKR/CO/6, para 11(a); Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Iraq (27 October 2015), UN Doc E/C.12/IRQ/CO/4, para 5.

160 Sargsyan (n 127) paras 147–48 and concurring opinion of Judge Yudkivska; CoE PA (n 8) paras 11, 14.

161 Cyprus v Turkey (n 112) paras 78, 91; Mozer (n 136) para 136; ECtHR, Demopoulos and Others v Turkey, App nos 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04, 2010, para 96.

162 See nn 61–62.

163 a contrario, in this sense: CRC, Written Replies by the Government of Georgia to the List of Issues (20 May 2008), UN Doc CRC/C/GEO/Q/3/Add.1, para 41.

164 See nn 158–159.

165 Karine Bannelier and Theodore Christakis, ‘Cyber-Attacks – Prevention-Reactions: The Role of States and Private Actors’, Social Science Research Network 2017, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2941988 18, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2941988; Schmitt (n 27) 30–43.

166 Schmitt (n 27) 184–87, 198.

167 ibid 197–201.

168 ibid 179–80.

169 The White House (n 101) 9; AALCO (n 68) para 12 (Malaysia).

170 Mačák, Kubo, ‘From Cyber Norms to Cyber Rules: Re-Engaging States as Law-Makers’ (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 877, 886CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

171 UNGA, Human Rights Council, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (30 June 2014), UN Doc A/HRC/27/37, para 34; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34: Article19: Freedom of Opinions and Expression (12 September 2011), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34, para 39; UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur (n 91) para 41.

172 Ilaşcu (n 123) para 339; Catan (n 136) para 145; Mozer (n 136) para 151.

173 Cyber threats might cause mental suffering of such severity that would violate the prohibition of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment: ECtHR Gäfgen v Germany, App no 22978/05, 1 June 2010, para 108; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 20: Article 7 (27 May 2008), UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol I), 200–02 para 5.

174 CERD (n 30) art 4; ICCPR (n 29) art 20; CERD, General Recommendation No 35: Combating Racist Hate Speech (26 September 2013), UN Doc CERD/C/GC/35.

175 UNSC Res 2253 (17 December 2015), UN Doc S/RES/2253 (2015), para 22; UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (10 August 2011), UN Doc A/66/290, para 81.

176 eg, the Ukrainian presidential decree of 16 May 2017 targeted ‘legal entities of the Russian Federation, the activity of which threatens information and cyber security of Ukraine’: see Human Rights Committee (n 6) para 95, n 103.

177 ECHR (n 29) art 15(1); ICCPR (n 29) art 4(1); American Convention on Human Rights (entered into force 18 July 1978) 1144 UNTS 143 (ACHR), art 27(1); Arab Charter on Human Rights (entered into force 15 March 2008), (2005) 12 International Human Rights Reports 893, art 4(b).

178 ECHR (n 29) art 15(2); ICCPR (n 29) art 4(2) and Second Optional Protocol (entered into force 11 July 1991) 999 UNTS 414, art 6; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 29: States of Emergency (Article 4) (31 August 2001), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, paras 8, 13, 15; ACHR, ibid arts 4(c), 27(2).

179 ECHR (n 29) art 15(3); ECtHR, Brannigan and McBride v United Kingdom, App nos 14553/89 and 14554/89, 23 May 1993, para 54; ICCPR (n 29) art 4(3); ACHR (n 177) art 27(3); Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 29, ibid para 4.

180 ECHR (n 29) art 10(2); ICCPR (n 29) art 19(3)(b); ACHR (n 177) art 13(2)(b); a contrario, see, without any express limitation, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, art 9 (for the implied limitations, see below n 184).

181 ‘The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Symposium: Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Principles’ (1985) 7 Human Rights Quarterly 3, 6 para 29Google Scholar.

182 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34 (n 171) para 43.

183 ibid.

184 Human Rights Committee, Keun-Tae Kim v Republic of Korea, Communication No 574/1994, views of 4 January 1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/574/1994, paras 12.4–12.5; and Jong-Kyu Sohn v Republic of Korea, Communication No 518/1992, 3 August 1995, UN Doc CCPR/C/54/D/518/1992, para 10.4; ECtHR, Jankovskis v Lithuania, App no 21575/08, 17 January 2017, paras 61–63; ECtHR, Ahmet Yıldırım v Turkey, App no 3111/10, 18 December 2012, para 66 and concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque; AfrCtHPR, Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda, App no 003/2014, Judgment of 24 November 2017, [161]–[162].

185 OSCE, Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Responses to Conflict Situations (4 May 2015), UN/OSCE/OAS/ACHPR, para 2(c), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15921&LangID=E.

186 Ahmet Yıldırım v Turkey (n 184) paras 66–69; ECtHR, Szabó and Vissy v Hungary, App no 37138/14, 12 January 2016, paras 62–89; Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs [2011] ECR I-11959, [47]–[54]; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Islamic Republic of Iran (29 November 2011), UN Doc CCPR/C/IRN/CO/3, para 27; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Turkmenistan (19 April 2012), UN Doc CCPR/C/TKM/CO/1, para 18.

187 ECtHR, Delfi AS v Estonia [GC], App no 64569/09, 16 June 2015, paras 153, 159.

188 Ilaşcu (n 123) para 339.

189 ibid para 341.

190 Ganna Yudkivska, ‘Territorial Jurisdiction and Positive Obligations of an Occupied State: Some Reflections on Evolving Issues under Article 1 of the European Convention’ in Van Aaken and Motoc (n 7) 136, 143.

191 Milanovic, Marko and Papić, Tatjana, ‘The Applicability of the ECHR in Contested Territories’ (2018) 67 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 779, 796CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

192 Negrete case, cited in John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law (Goverment Printing Office 1906) 962.

193 DRC v Uganda (n 81) [300], and Declaration of Judge Tomka, [2]–[3].

194 Ilaşcu (n 123) paras 341–45.

195 UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur (n 175) paras 61, 88; Human Rights Council (n 49) paras 2, 3, 5; OSCE (n 185) paras 4, 6(a).

196 For some good practices of Ukrainian relocated courts see OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, ‘Access to Justice and the Conflict in Ukraine’, December 2015, 18–19, https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/212311.

197 ‘Declaration of the Ministry of Information Policy of Ukraine’, in World Summit on Information Society Forum 2018: High-Level Track Outcomes and Executive Brief, 287–90; International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and ACTF, ‘Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Busan, 2014): Decisions and Resolutions’, 2016, Declarations no 2 (Georgia) and 76 (Ukraine).

198 For the principle under the ECHR: Ilaşcu (n 123) para 343. See the similar declaration of Ukraine to the Budapest Convention (‘until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine’): Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No 185 (n 50).

199 Decizia protocolară cu privire la organizarea interacțiunii în domeniul telecomunicațiilor [Protocol Decision on Measures to Organize Interaction in the Field of Telecommunications], 25 November 2017, https://gov.md/sites/default/files/2017_11_25_protokolnoe_reshenie_o_vzaimodeystvii_v_oblasti_telekommunikaciy_2.pdf [in Russian]; Protocol of the Official Meeting of the Permanent Conference for Political Questions in the Framework of the Negotiating Process on the Transdniestrian Settlement, 29–30 May 2018, para 6, https://www.osce.org/chairmanship/382885?download=true.

200 UN OHCHR, Ukraine 16 November 2016 to 15 February 2017 (n 119) para 94.

201 ‘Iraq Telecom Ministry Orders ISPs: Kill The Internet in Five Provinces’ (n 47).

202 Ilaşcu (n 123) para 331. The ICJ has recognised, interpreting the obligation of due diligence to prevent genocide, that ‘it is clear that every State may only act within the limits permitted by international law’: Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro (n 154) 221 [430].

203 CERD, Concluding Observations: Germany (30 June 2015), UN Doc CERD/C/DEU/CO/19–22, para 9(c).

204 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34 (n 171) para 43; Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’ (30 March 2017), UN Doc A/HRC/35/22, paras 8–16; OSCE, Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet, 1 June 2011, para 6(b), http://www.osce.org/fom/78309.

205 Iginio Gagliardone and others, Countering Online Hate Speech (UNESCO 2015) 5; ECtHR, KU v Finland, App no 2872/02, 2 December 2008, para 49 (recognising freedom of expression and confidentiality of communications for users of telecommunications and internet services as ‘primary considerations’ on the one hand, and the state's positive obligations to reconcile the various human rights which compete for protection in the cyberspace on the other).

206 eg, ECtHR, KU v Finland, ibid paras 46–49; ECtHR, Féret v Belgium, App no 15615/07, 16 July 2009, paras 72–73, 78; ECtHR, Delfi AS v Estonia [GC], App no 64569/09, 16 June 2015, para 159; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34 (n 171) para 15.

207 Ilaşcu (n 123) para 340; Catan (n 136) paras 109–110; Mozer (n 136) paras 99–100.

208 Mozer (n 136) para 216.

209 ibid para 214.

210 For some good practices of Ukrainian relocated courts see OSCE (n 196); Mozer (n 136) para 214.

211 CRC, Concluding Observations: Georgia (9 March 2017), UN Doc CRC/C/GEO/CO/4, para 24(e); CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Azerbaijan (12 March 2015), UN Doc CEDAW/C/AZE/CO/5, para 23(d).

212 Mozer (n 136) para 215.

213 ibid.

214 In the same sense see certain NGOs: Promo-LEX, ‘Resolution on Ensuring and Guaranteeing Free and Secure Internet Access to all Citizens of the Republic of Moldova, including the Transnistrian Region’, 2016, https://promolex.md/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Resolution.pdf.

215 eg, Mozer (n 136) paras 215–16; ECtHR, Draci v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App no 5349/02, 17 October 2017, para 61; ECtHR, Stomatii v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App no 69528/10, 18 September 2018, paras 71–72.

216 In their non-binding concluding observations, the treaty bodies have interpreted the duty to investigate violations of physical integrity (torture, enforced disappearance) in this sense: eg, CAT, Concluding Observations: Ukraine (n 159) para 11(a); CAT, Concluding Observations: Iraq (7 September 2015), UN Doc CAT/C/IRQ/CO/1, para 12(b) (victims of inhuman treatment); Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Concluding Observations: Iraq (13 October 2015), UN Doc CED/C/IRQ/CO/1, para 23.

217 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49) art 32(a); Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences (n 70) art 40(1).

218 eg, Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49) arts 29(1), 31(1), 33(1); Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences (n 70) arts 37, 39, 41. Statistics on the frequency of mutual assistance to access stored computer data are available from some state parties to the Budapest Convention: see CoE, Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY), ‘T-CY Assessment Report: The Mutual Legal Assistance Provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime’, T-CY(2013)17 rev, 3 December 2014, 6, https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802e726c.

219 Fidler, David P, ‘Cyberspace, Terrorism and International Law’ (2016) 21 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 475, 489–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

220 Human Rights Council, Resolution 31/7, Rights of the Child: Information and Communications Technologies and Child Sexual Exploitation (20 April 2016), UN Doc A/HRC/RES/31/7, paras 10–11.

221 CRC, Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (8 July 2014), UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/GBR/CO/1, para 42.

222 Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, ‘Mission to the United States of America’ (7 February 2011), UN Doc A/HRC/16/57/Add.5, para 115; CRC, Concluding Observations: United States of America (12 July 2017), UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/USA/CO/3-4, para 42.

223 In particular, torture, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation online and violations of the right to life.

224 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49) art 32(b); Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences (n 70) art 40(2).

225 CoE, Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY), ‘T-CY Guidance Note 3: Transborder Access to Data (Article 32)’, T-CY (2013)7 E, 3 December 2014, 8, https://rm.coe.int/16802e726a; Ian Brown and Douwe Korff, ‘Foreign Surveillance: Law and Practice in a Global Digital Environment’ (2014) European Human Rights Law Review 243, 249–50.

226 While the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (n 49) has 60, the Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences (n 70) has 8 state parties, as at June 2018.

227 Vardanean (n 146) para 42; ECtHR, Turturica and Casian v Republic of Moldova and Russia, App no 28648/06 and 18832/07, 30 August 2016, para 53; ECtHR, Khlebik v Ukraine, App no 2945/16, para 80 (referring to the International Committee of the Red Cross); CRC, Concluding Observations: Iraq (4 February 2015), UN Doc CRC/C/OPAC/IRQ/CO/1, para 26(c).

228 INTERPOL, ‘Supporting Digital Crime Investigations’, March 2017, http://www.interpol.int.

229 EUROPOL, ‘European Cybercrime Centre (EC3)’, https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-europol/european-cybercrime-centre-ec3.

230 ITU, ‘ITU Global Cybersecurity Agenda’, https://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=09&ipage=18&ext=html.

231 This consists of law enforcement agencies and partners, which include INTERPOL, EUROPOL and a number of private sector partners: Virtual Global Taskforce, https://virtualglobaltaskforce.com/about/what-is-the-vgt.

232 ECtHR, Güzelyurtlu and Others v Cyprus and Turkey [Chamber], App no 36925/07, 4 April 2017, paras 291, 293–96; ECtHR, Güzelyurtlu and Others v Cyprus and Turkey [GC], App no 36925/07, 29 January 2019, paras 237–38, 241–57. The difference between the rulings of the Chamber and the Grand Chamber is the extent to which the state is expected to take reasonable steps to cooperate. Contrary to the Chamber, the Grand Chamber held that supplying the whole investigation file to the de facto authorities would be unreasonable, as it ‘would amount in substance to a transfer of the criminal case by Cyprus to the “TRNC” courts, and Cyprus would thereby be waiving its criminal jurisdiction’ over the crime: ibid para 253; a contrario, considering the majority judgment as the rejection of the territorial state's procedural obligation to cooperate with the TRNC, see the partly dissenting opinion of Judges Karakaş and Pejchal, para 11.

233 Güzelyurtlu [Chamber], ibid para 238 (Republic of Cyprus) and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Serghides, para 47(h), (o); Güzelyurtlu [GC], ibid paras 207–08 (Republic of Cyprus).

234 CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Georgia (24 July 2014), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GEO/CO/4-5, para 13; Olga Demian, ‘Strengthening the Respect for Human Rights in the Implementation of the Republic of Moldova's Digital Agenda, Report on Human Rights Protection on the Internet’, CoE Consultant, December 2015, para 7.1.12, https://rm.coe.int/1680630e59, 67.

235 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v USA), Merits, Judgment, [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 85 [157]; Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro (n 154) 221 [430].

236 CERD, Concluding Observations: Ukraine (4 October 2016), UN Doc CERD/C/UKR/CO/22-23, para 12.

237 CRC, Concluding Observations: Iraq (n 159) para 19(b); on online slave auctions by ISIL, see Human Rights Council (n 58) paras 57, 118.

238 In favour of such an existing customary norm, Sklerov (n 18) 71; in favour of an ‘emerging norm’, Jensen, Erik Talbot, ‘Cyber Sovereignty: The Way Ahead’ (2015) 50 Texas International Law Journal 275, 299Google Scholar; Bannelier-Christakis (n 18) 32–36.

239 Schmitt (n 27) 44–45 paras 8–9; Schmitt, Michael N, ‘In Defense of Due Diligence in Cyberspace’ (2015) 125 Yale Law Journal Forum 68, 75–76Google Scholar; Jensen, Eric Talbot and Watts, Sean, ‘A Cyber Duty of Due Diligence: Gentle Civilizer or Crude Destabilizer?’ (2017) 95 Texas Law Review 1555, 1573Google Scholar. However, it is not disputed that once the harmful cyber conduct has materialised, and the state knew or ought to have known that the harmful conduct was emanating from its territory, it has a duty to take all reasonable measures to terminate that conduct and mitigate its harmful effects: see, eg, Buchan (n 18) 431–32.

240 Schmitt (n 27) 198–99 para 8.

241 CRC, Concluding Observations: United Kingdom (12 July 2016), UN Doc CRC/C/GBR/CO/5, paras 49(a)–(b); CRC, Concluding Observations: Bulgaria (21 November 2016), UN Doc CRC/C/BGR/CO/3-5, para 28(f).

242 CRC, Concluding Observations: Belarus (8 April 2011), UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/BLR/CO/1, para 27; CRC, Concluding Observations: Montenegro (1 November 2010), UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/MNE/CO/1, paras 26(c), (e); CRC, Concluding Observations: Bosnia and Herzegovina (25 October 2010), UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/BIH/CO/1, para 45.

243 CRC, General Comment No 13 (18 April 2011), UN Doc CRC/C/GC/13, para 43(a)(viii).

244 Human Rights Committee, Framework Principles for Securing the Human Rights of Victims of Terrorism (4 June 2012), UN Doc A/HRC/20/14, para 21; UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur (n 91) para 33.

245 eg, online harassment and psychological violence: CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Iceland (10 March 2016), UN Doc CEDAW/C/ISL/CO/7-8, para 20(d).

246 CAT, Concluding Observations: Iraq (n 216) para 28.

247 Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol 1: Rules (International Committee of the Red Cross and Cambridge University Press 2005, revised 2009) 485–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

248 CRC, Concluding Observations: Belarus (n 242) para 27; in the same sense, CRC, Concluding Observations: Montenegro (n 242) para 26(c); CRC, Concluding Observations: Bosnia and Herzegovina (n 242) para 45.

249 Shane Harris, ‘Iraqi Government Takes Its Fight with ISIS Online’, Foreign Policy, 17 June 2014, https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/17/iraqi-government-takes-its-fight-with-isis-online.

250 ECtHR, Soyma v Republic of Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, App no 1203/05, paras 38–39; Draci (n 215) para 61.

251 With regard to online racial discrimination against the Crimean Tatar media, for instance, NGOs recommended that the Ukrainian government seize both the UN CERD and the ICJ: Burmahyn, Oleksandr and others, Hate Speech in the Media Landscape of Crimea: An Information and Analytical Report on the Spread of Hate Speech on the Territory of the Crimean Peninsula (March 2014 – July 2017) (Crimean Human Rights Group 2018) 37Google Scholar.

252 Chair of the Security Council Committee pursuant to Resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) (19 May 2015), UN Doc S/2015/358, para 76(g).

253 Ilaşcu (n 123) para 334.

254 ECtHR, Apcov v Moldova and Russia, App no 13463/07, 30 May 2017, para 46; Soyma (n 250) paras 38–39.

255 Schmitt (n 27) 47 para 16; in general international law, see the same factors reiterated in Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro (n 154) [430]; US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment [1980] ICJ Rep 3, 31–33 [63]–[68]; DRC v Uganda (n 81) 268 [301].

256 Watt, Eliza, ‘The Role of International Human Rights Law in the Protection of Online Privacy in the Age of Surveillance’ in Rõigas, H and others (eds), 2017 9th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Defending the Core (NATO CCD COE Publication 2017) 102Google Scholar.

257 ibid 103. The notion was first used by Margulies, who defines it as an attribution test, the provision of ‘financial or other assistance to private groups’ by a state: Margulies, Peter, ‘Sovereignty and Cyber Attacks: Technology's Challenge to the Law of State Responsibility’ (2013) 14 Melbourne Journal of International Law 496, 514–15Google Scholar.

258 Schmitt (n 27) 182–84 (rule 34 – Applicability).

259 ibid 197–201.