===
===
Harold Koh on
International Law in Cyberspace
by Chris Borgen September 19th, 2012
Yesterday, Harold Koh,
the Legal Adviser of the U.S. State Department, spoke at the U.S. Cyber Command
Inter-Agency Legal Conference on the applicability of international law to
cyberspace and, particularly, cyberwar/ cyberconflict. For a couple of takes on
the speech, see the Washington Post here and Defense
News, here.
In our ongoing efforts
to make full-text presentations of international legal relevance more easily
accessible, we attach the text of Koh’s speech, as prepared for delivery.
- - - - -- - - - - - -
-
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN
CYBERSPACE
USCYBERCOM
Inter-Agency Legal Conference
Ft. Meade, MD
September 18, 2012
Harold Hongju Koh [Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of
State]
Thank you, Colonel
Brown, for your kind invitation to speak here today at this very important
conference on “the roles of cyber in national defense.” I have been an
international lawyer for more than thirty years, a government lawyer practicing
international law for more than a decade, and the State Department’s Legal
Adviser for nearly 3 ½ years. While my daily workload covers many of the bread
and butter issues of international law—diplomatic immunity, the law of the sea,
international humanitarian law, treaty interpretation—like many of you, I find
more and more of my time is spent grappling with the question of how
international law applies in cyberspace.
Everyone here knows
that cyberspace presents new opportunities and new challenges for the United
States in every foreign policy realm, including national defense. But for
international lawyers, it also presents cutting-edge issues of international
law, which go to a very fundamental question: how do we apply old laws of war
to new cyber-circumstances, staying faithful to enduring principles, while
accounting for changing times and technologies?
Many, many
international lawyers here in the U.S. Government and around the world have
struggled with this question, so today I’d like to present an overview of how
we in the U.S. Government have gone about meeting this challenge. At the
outset, let me highlight that the entire endeavor of applying established
international law to cyberspace is part of a broader international
conversation. We are not alone in thinking about these questions; we are
actively engaged with the rest of the international community, both bilaterally
and multilaterally, on the subject of applying international law in cyberspace.
With your permission,
I’d like to offer a series of questions and answers that illuminate where we
are right now – in a place where we’ve made remarkable headway in a relatively
short period of time, but are still finding new questions for each and every
one we answer. In fact, the U.S. Government has been regularly sharing these
thoughts with our international partners. Most of the points that follow we
have not just agreed upon internally, but made diplomatically, in our
submissions to the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that deals with
information technology issues.
I. International Law
in Cyberspace: What We Know
So let me start with
the most fundamental questions:
Question 1: Do
established principles of international law apply to cyberspace?
Answer 1: Yes,
international law principles do apply in cyberspace. Everyone here knows how cyberspace
opens up a host of novel and extremely difficult legal issues. But on this key
question, this answer has been apparent, at least as far as the U.S. Government
has been concerned.
Significantly, this
view has not necessarily been universal in the international community. At
least one country has questioned whether existing bodies of international law
apply to the cutting edge issues presented by the internet. Some have also said
that existing international law is not up to the task, and that we need
entirely new treaties to impose a unique set of rules on cyberspace. But the
United States has made clear our view that established principles of
international law do apply in cyberspace.
Question 2: Is
cyberspace a law-free zone, where anything goes?
Answer 2: Emphatically
no. Cyberspace is not a “law-free” zone where anyone can conduct hostile
activities without rules or restraint.
Think of it this way.
This is not the first time that technology has changed and that international
law has been asked to deal with those changes. In particular, because the tools
of conflict are constantly evolving, one relevant body of law – international
humanitarian law, or the law of armed conflict – affirmatively anticipates
technological innovation, and contemplates that its existing rules will apply
to such innovation. To be sure, new technologies raise new issues and thus, new
questions. Many of us in this room have struggled with such questions, and we
will continue to do so over many years. But to those who say that established
law is not up to the task, we must articulate and build consensus around how it
applies and reassess from there whether and what additional understandings are
needed.
Developing common
understandings about how these rules apply in the context of cyberactivities in
armed conflict will promote stability in this area.
That
consensus-building work brings me to some questions and answers we have offered
to our international partners to explain how both the law of going to war
(jus ad bellum) and the laws that apply in conducting war (jus in
bello) apply to cyberaction:
Question 3: Do cyber
activities ever constitute a use of force?
Answer 3: Yes. Cyber
activities may in certain circumstances constitute uses of force within the
meaning of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law. In analyzing whether a cyber
operation would constitute a use of force, most commentators focus on whether
the direct physical injury and property damage resulting from the cyber event
looks like that which would be considered a use of force if produced by kinetic
weapons. Cyber activities that proximately result in death, injury, or
significant destruction would likely be viewed as a use of force. In
assessing whether an event constituted a use of force in or through cyberspace,
we must evaluate factors: including the context of the event, the actor
perpetrating the action (recognizing challenging issues of attribution in
cyberspace), the target and location, effects and intent, among other possible
issues.
Commonly cited
examples of cyber activity that would constitute a use of force include, for
example: (1) operations that trigger a nuclear plant meltdown; (2) operations
that open a dam above a populated area causing destruction; or (3) operations
that disable air traffic control resulting in airplane crashes. Only a moment’s
reflection makes you realize that this is common sense: if the physical
consequences of a cyber attack work the kind of physical damage that dropping a
bomb or firing a missile would, that cyber attack should equally be considered
a use of force.
Question 4: May a
State ever respond to a computer network attack by exercising a right of
national self-defense?
Answer 4: Yes. A
State’s national right of self-defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN
Charter, may be triggered by computer network activities that amount to an
armed attack or imminent threat thereof. As the United States affirmed in its 2011
International Strategy for Cyberspace, “when warranted, the United States will
respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our
country.”
Question 5: Do jus in
bello rules apply to computer network attacks?
Answer 5: Yes. In the
context of an armed conflict, the law of armed conflict applies to regulate the
use of cyber tools in hostilities, just as it does other tools. The principles
of necessity and proportionality limit uses of force in self-defense and would
regulate what may constitute a lawful response under the circumstances. There is no legal requirement that
the response to a cyber armed attack take the form of a cyber action, as long
as the response meets the requirements of necessity and proportionality.
Question 6: Must attacks
distinguish between military and nonmilitary objectives?
Answer 6: Yes. The jus
in bello principle of distinction applies to computer
network attacks undertaken in the context of an armed conflict. The principle of distinction applies
to cyber activities that amount to an “attack” – as that term is understood in
the law of war – in the context of an armed conflict. As in any form of armed
conflict, the principle of distinction requires that the intended effect of the
attack must be to harm a legitimate military target. We must
distinguish military objectives – that is, objects that make an effective
contribution to military action and whose destruction would offer a military
advantage — from civilian objects, which under international law are generally
protected from attack.
Question 7: Must
attacks adhere to the principle of proportionality?
Answer 7: Yes. The jus
in bello principle of proportionality applies to
computer network attacks undertaken in the context of an armed conflict. The principle of proportionality prohibits
attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss to civilian life, injury
to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation
to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Parties to an armed
conflict must assess what the expected harm to civilians is likely to be, and
weigh the risk of such collateral damage against the importance of the expected
military advantage to be gained. In the cyber context, this rule requires
parties to a conflict to assess: (1) the effects of cyber weapons on both
military and civilian infrastructure and users, including shared physical
infrastructure (such as a dam or a power grid) that would affect civilians; (2)
the potential physical damage that a cyber attack may cause, such as death or
injury that may result from effects on critical infrastructure; and (3) the
potential effects of a cyber attack on civilian objects that are not military
objectives, such as private, civilian computers that hold no military significance,
but may be networked to computers that are military objectives.
Question 8: How should
States assess their cyber weapons?
Answer 8: States
should undertake a legal review of weapons, including those that employ a cyber
capability. Such a review
should entail an analysis, for example, of whether a particular capability
would be inherently indiscriminate, i.e., that it could not be used
consistent with the principles of distinction and proportionality. The U.S.
Government undertakes at least two stages of legal review of the use of weapons
in the context of armed conflict – first, an evaluation of new weapons to
determine whether their use would be per se prohibited by the
law of war; and second, specific operations employing weapons are always reviewed
to ensure that each particular operation is also compliant with the law of war.
Question 9: In this
analysis, what role does State sovereignty play?
Answer 9: States
conducting activities in cyberspace must take into account the sovereignty of
other States, including outside the context of armed conflict. The physical infrastructure that supports
the internet and cyber activities is generally located in sovereign territory
and subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial State. Because of the interconnected,
interoperable nature of cyberspace, operations targeting networked information
infrastructures in one country may create effects in another country. Whenever
a State contemplates conducting activities in cyberspace, the sovereignty of
other States needs to be considered.
Question 10: Are
States responsible when cyber acts are undertaken through proxies?
Answer 10: Yes. States
are legally responsible for activities undertaken through “proxy actors,” who
act on the State’s instructions or under its direction or control. The ability to mask one’s identity
and geography in cyberspace and the resulting difficulties of timely,
high-confidence attribution can create significant challenges for States in
identifying, evaluating, and accurately responding to threats. But putting
attribution problems aside for a moment, established international law does
address the question of proxy actors. States are legally responsible for
activities undertaken through putatively private actors, who act on the State’s
instructions or under its direction or control. If a State exercises a
sufficient degree of control over an ostensibly private person or group of
persons committing an internationally wrongful act, the State assumes
responsibility for the act, just as if official agents of the State itself had
committed it. These rules are designed to ensure that States cannot hide behind
putatively private actors to engage in conduct that is internationally
wrongful.
II. International Law
in Cyberspace: Challenges and Uncertainties
These ten answers
should give you a sense of how far we have come in doing what any good
international lawyer does: applying established law to new facts, and
explaining our positions to other interested lawyers. At the same time, there
are obviously many more issues where the questions remain under discussion. Let
me identify three particularly difficult questions that I don’t intend to
answer here today. Instead, my hope is to shed some light on some of the
cutting-edge legal issues that we’ll all be facing together over the next few
years:
Unresolved Question 1:
How can a use of force regime take into account all of the novel kinds of effects that
States can produce through the click of a button? As I said above, the United States has
affirmed that established jus ad bellum rules do apply to uses
of force in cyberspace. I have also noted some clear-cut cases where the
physical 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 distant
computer might just as easily achieve that same result. As you all know,
however, there are other types of cyber actions that do not have a clear
kinetic parallel, which raise profound questions about exactly what we mean by
“force.” At the same time, the difficulty of reaching a definitive legal
conclusion or consensus among States on when and under what circumstances a
hostile cyber action would constitute an armed attack does not automatically
suggest that we need an entirely new legal framework specific to cyberspace.
Outside of the cyber-context, such ambiguities and differences of view have
long existed among States.
To cite just one
example of this, the United States has for a long time taken the position that
the inherent right of self-defense potentially applies against any illegal
use of force. In our view, there is no threshold for a use of deadly force to
qualify as an “armed attack” that may warrant a forcible response. But that is
not to say that any illegal use of force triggers the right to use any and all force
in response – such responses must still be necessary and of
course proportionate. We recognize, on the other hand, that some
other countries and commentators have drawn a distinction between the “use of
force” and an “armed attack,” and view “armed attack” – triggering the right to
self-defense – as a subset of uses of force, which passes a higher threshold of
gravity. My point here is not to rehash old debates, but to illustrate that
States have long had to sort through complicated jus ad bellum questions.
In this respect, the existence of complicated cyber questions relating to jus
ad bellum is not in itself a new development; it is just applying old
questions to the latest developments in technology.
Unresolved Question 2:
What do we do about “dual-use infrastructure” in cyberspace?
As you all know,
information and communications infrastructure is often shared between State
militaries and private, civilian communities. The law of war requires that
civilian infrastructure not be used to seek to immunize military objectives
from attack, including in the cyber realm. But how, exactly, are the jus
in bello rules to be implemented in cyberspace? Parties to an armed
conflict will need to assess the potential effects of a cyber attack on
computers that are not military objectives, such as private,
civilian computers that hold no military significance, but may be networked to
computers that are valid military objectives. Parties will also need to
consider the harm to the civilian uses of such infrastructure in performing the
necessary proportionality review. Any number of factual scenarios could arise,
however, which will require a careful, fact-intensive legal analysis in each
situation.
Unresolved Question 3:
How do we address the problem of attribution in cyberspace?
As I mentioned
earlier, cyberspace significantly increases an actor’s ability to engage in
attacks with “plausible deniability,” by acting through proxies. I noted that
legal tools exist to ensure that States are held accountable for those acts.
What I want to highlight here is that many of these challenges — in particular,
those concerning attribution — are as much questions of technical and policy
nature rather than exclusively or even predominantly questions of law.
Cyberspace remains a new and dynamic operating environment, and we cannot
expect that all answers to the new and confounding questions we face will be legal ones.
These questions about
effects, dual use and attribution are difficult legal and policy questions that
existed long before the development of cyber tools, and that will continue to
be a topic of discussion among our allies and partners as cyber tools develop.
Of course, there remain many other difficult and important questions about the
application of international law to activities in cyberspace – for example,
about the implications of sovereignty and neutrality law, enforcement
mechanisms, and the obligations of States concerning “hacktivists” operating
from within their territory. While these are not questions that I can address
in this brief speech, they are critically important questions on which
international lawyers will focus intensely in the years to come.
And just as cyberspace
presents challenging new issues for lawyers, it presents challenging new
technical and policy issues. Not all of the issues I’ve mentioned are
susceptible to clear legal answers derived from existing precedents – in many
cases, quite the contrary. Answering these tough questions within the framework
of existing law, consistent with our values and accounting for the legitimate
needs of national security, will require a constant dialogue between lawyers,
operators, and policymakers. All that we as lawyers can do is to apply in the
cyber context the same rigorous approach to these hard questions that arise in
the future, as we apply every day to what might be considered more traditional
forms of conflict.
III. The Role of
International Law in a “Smart Power” Approach to Cyberspace
This, in a nutshell,
is where we are with regard to cyberconflict: We have begun work to build
consensus on a number of answers, but questions continue to arise that must be
answered in the months and years ahead. Beyond these questions and answers and
unresolved questions, though, lies a much bigger picture, one that we are very
focused on at the State Department. Which brings me to my final two questions:
Final Question 1: Is
international humanitarian law the only body of international law that applies
in cyberspace?
Final Answer 1: No. As
important as international humanitarian law is, it is not the only
international law that applies in cyberspace.
Obviously, cyberspace
has become pervasive in our lives, not just in the national defense arena, but
also through social media, publishing and broadcasting, expressions of human
rights, and expansion of international commerce, both through online markets
and online commercial techniques. Many other bodies of international and
national law address those activities, and how those different bodies of law
overlap and apply with the laws of cyber conflict is something we will all have
to work out over time.
Take human rights. At
the same time that cyber activity can pose a threat, we all understand that
cyber-communication is increasingly becoming a dominant mode of expression in
the 21st century. More and more people express their views not by speaking on a
soap box at Speakers’ Corner, but by blogging, tweeting, commenting, or posting
videos and commentaries. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR)—adopted more than 70 years ago– was remarkably forward-looking in
anticipating these trends. It says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers.” (emphasis added) In short, all
human beings are entitled to certain rights, whether they choose to exercise
them in a city square or an internet chat room. This principle is an important
part of our global diplomacy, and is encapsulated in the Internet Freedom
agenda about which my boss, Secretary Clinton, has spoken so passionately.
You all know of this
Administration’s efforts not just in the areas of cyberconflict, but also in
many other cyber areas: cybersecurity, cybercommerce, fighting child
pornography and other forms of cybercrime. stopping intellectual property
piracy, as well as promoting free expression and human rights. So the
cyberconflict issues with which this group grapples do not constitute the whole
of our approach to cyberspace; they are an important part – but only a part —
of this Administration’s broader “smart power” approach to cyberspace.
What I have outlined
today are a series of answers to cyberspace questions that the United States is
on the record as supporting. I have also suggested a few of the challenging
questions that remain before us, and developments over the next decade will
surely produce new questions. But you should not think of these questions and
answers as just a box to check before deciding whether a particular proposed
operation is lawful or not. Rather, these questions and answers are part of a
much broader foreign policy agenda, which transpires in a broader framework of
respect for international law.
That leads to my Final
Question for this group: Why should U.S Government lawyers care about
international law in cyberspace at all?
The Answer: Because
compliance with international law frees us to do more, and do more
legitimately, in cyberspace, in a way that more fully promotes our national
interests. Compliance with international law in cyberspace is part and parcel
of our broader “smart power” approach to international law as part of U.S.
foreign policy.
It is worth noting is
a fundamental difference in philosophy about international law. One way to
think about law, whether domestic or international, is as a straitjacket, a
pure constraint. This approach posits that nations have serious, legitimate
interests, and legal regimes restrict their ability to carry them out. One
consequence of this view is that, since law is just something that constrains,
it should be resisted whenever possible. Resisting so-called “extensions” of
the law to new areas often seems attractive: because, after all, the old laws
weren’t built for these new challenges anyway, some say, so we should tackle
those challenges without the legal straitjacket, while leaving the old laws
behind.
But that is not the
United States Government’s view of the law, domestic or international. We see
law not as a straitjacket, but as one great university calls it when it confers
its diplomas, a body of “wise restraints that make us free.” International law
is not purely constraint, it frees us and empowers us to do things we could
never do without law’s legitimacy. If we succeed in promoting a culture of
compliance, we will reap the benefits. And if we earn a reputation for
compliance, the actions we do take will earn enhanced
legitimacy worldwide for their adherence to the rule of law.
These are not new
themes, but I raise them here because of they resonate squarely with the
strategy we have been pursuing in cyberspace over the past few years. Of
course, the United States has impressive cyber-capabilities; it should be clear
from the bulk of my discussion that adherence to established principles of law
does not prevent us from using those capabilities to achieve important ends.
But we also know that we will be safer, the more that we can rally other States
to the view that these established principles do impose
meaningful constraints, and that there is already an existing set of laws that
protect our security in cyberspace. And the more widespread the understanding
that cyberspace follows established rules – and that we live by them – the
stronger we can be in pushing back against those who would seek to introduce
brand new rules that may be contrary to our interests.
That is why, in our
diplomacy, we do not whisper about these issues. We talk about them openly
and bilaterally with other countries about the application of
established international law to cyberspace. We talk about them multilaterally,
at the UN Group of Governmental Experts and at other fora, in promoting this
vision of compliance with international law in cyberspace. We talk about them regionally,
as when we recently co-sponsored an ASEAN Regional Forum event to focus the
international community’s attention on the problem of proxy actors engaging in
unlawful conduct in cyberspace. Preventing proxy attacks on us is an important
interest, and as part of our discussions we have outlined the ways that
existing international law addresses this problem.
The diplomacy I have
described is not limited to the legal issues this group of lawyers is used to
facing in the operational context. These issues are interconnected with
countless other cyber issues that we face daily in our foreign policy, such as
cybersecurity, cyber-commerce, human rights in cyberspace, and public diplomacy
through cybertools. In all of these areas, let me repeat again,compliance
with international law in cyberspace is part and parcel of our broader smart
power approach to international law as part of U.S. foreign policy.
Compliance with international law – and thinking actively together about how
best to promote that compliance – can only free us to do more, and to do more
legitimately, in the emerging frontiers of cyberspace, in a way that more fully
promotes our U.S. national interests.
Thank you very much.
= = = == =
U.S.: Laws Of War
Apply To Cyber Attacks
Sep. 18, 2012 -
08:01PM | By ARAM ROSTON
The United States is one of
the few governments believed to have engaged in cyberwarfare, in particular the
Stuxnet attack against Iran’s nuclear centrifuge infrastructure. Koh’s
announcement of a legal doctrine on cyberwar comes just months after new
reports surfaced about the Obama administration’s alleged central role in
deploying the Stuxnet worm.
