[1. Albright, David, Paul Brannan, and Christina Walrond. “Did Stuxnet Take Out 1,000 Centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant?” Institute for Science and International Security Report (December 22, 2010): 1–10 // http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/stuxnet_FEP_22Dec2010.pdf.10.1016/S1353-4858(10)70121-5]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Anderson, Michael. “Reconceptualizing Aggression.” Duke Law Journal 60 (2010): 411–456.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Antolin-Jenkins, Vida M. “Defining the Parameters of Cyber War Operations: Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places?” Naval Law. Rev. 51 (2005): 132–169.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Baker, Stewart, McAfee, Inc. “In the Crossfire: Critical Infrastructure in the Age of Cyber War” (2009) // http://newsroom.mcafee.com/images/10039/In%20the%20Crossfire_CIP%20report.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Barkham, Jason. “Information Warfare and International Law on the Use of Force.” N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 34 (2001): 57–114.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Billo, Charles G., and Welton Chang. Cyber Warfare: An Analysis of the Means and Motivations of Selected Nation States. Institute for Security Technology Studies, 2004.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Blank, Laurie R. “Taking Distinction to the Next Level: Accountability for Fighters’ Failure to Distinguish Themselves from Civilians.” Valparaiso University Law Review 46(3) (2012): 745–887.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Brenner, Susan W. “Is There Such a Thing as ‘Virtual Crime’?” Cal. Crim. L. Rev. 4 (2001): 1-18.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Brenner, Susan W. and Leo L. Clarke, “Civilians in Cyber Warfare: Conscripts,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 43 (2010): 1011-1076.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Brenner, Susan. “At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare.” J. Crim. Law & Criminology 97 (2007): 363–381.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Brown, Davis. “Use of Force Against Terrorism After September 11th: State Responsibility, Self-Defense and Other Responses.” Cardozo J. of Int'l & Comp. Law 11 (2003): 1-57.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Cannizzaro, Enzo. “Contextualizing Proportionality: Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in the Lebanese War.” Int’l Rev. Red Cross 88 (864), 779 (2006): 779–827.10.1017/S1816383107000896]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Carnahan, Burrus M. “Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity.” Am. J. Int’l L. 92 (1998): 213–248.10.2307/2998030]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[14. Carr, Jeffrey. Inside Cyber Warfare. CA: O’Reilly Media Inc., 2010.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Clarke, Richard A., and Robert K. Knake. Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to do About it. New York: Ecco, 2010.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Coleman, Kevin. “The Cyber Arms Race Has Begun.” CSO Online (January 28, 2008) // http://www.csoonline.com/article/print/216991.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Condron, Sean. “Getting It Right: Protecting American Critical Infrastructure in Cyberspace.” Harv. J.L. & Tech. 20 (2007): 403–422.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Creekman, Daniel M. “A Helpless America? An Examination of the Legal Options Available to the United States in Response to Various Cyber-attacks from China.” Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 17 (2002): 641–689.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Darcy, Shane. “Assistance, Direction and Control: Untangling International Judicial Opinion on Individual and State Responsibility for War Crimes by Non-state Actors.” International Review of the Red Cross 96(893) (2014): 259–261.10.1017/S1816383115000119]Search in Google Scholar
[20. DeLuca, Christopher D. “The Need for International Laws of War to Include Cyber Attacks Involving State and Non-State Actors.” Pace Int’l L. Rev. Online Companion 3 (2013): 278–329.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Dinstein, Yoram. “Computer Network Attacks and Self-Defense”: 99–120. In: Michael N. Schmitt and Brian T. O’Donnell, eds. Computer Network Attack and International Law. Naval War College, International Law Studies, vol.76, 2002.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (2001) // http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Dombrowski, Peter, and Chris C. Demchak. “Cyber War, Cybered Conflict, and the Maritime Domain.” Naval War College Review 67(2) (2014): 45–93.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Dormann, Knut. “Applicability of the Additional Protocols to Computer Network Attacks.” Int'l Committee of the Red Cross (November 19, 2004) // http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/applicabilityofihltocna.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Estreicher, Samuel. “Privileging Asymmetric Warfare (Part II)?: The ‘Proportionality’ Principle under International Humanitarian Law.” Chi. J. Int’l L. 12 (2011): 1–143.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Franzese, Patrick W. “Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Can It Exist?” A.F. L. REV. 64 (2009): 1–54.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Gercke, Marco. Understanding Cybercrime: Phenomena, Challenges and Legal Response. ITU: Telecommunication Development Bureau, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. German Federal Ministry of the Interior. Cyber Security Strategy for Germany. Berlin: Beauftragter der Bundesregierung für Informationstechnik, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Goodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks, “The ICRC Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction to the Forum.” NYU J Intl L Pol. 42 (2010): 637–640.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Gordon, Sarah, and Richard Ford. “On the Definition and Classification of Cybercrime.” J. Computer Virology 1 (2006): 1–17.10.1007/s11416-006-0015-z]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Graham, David E. “Cyber Threats and the Law of War.” Journal of National Security Law & Policy 4 (2010): 87–134.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Halberstam, Manny. “Hacking Back: Re-evaluating the Legality of Retaliatory Cyber-attacks.” The Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 46 (2013): 199–258.]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Hathaway, Melissa E., and Alexander Klimburg. “Preliminary Considerations: On National Cyber Security”: 1–43. In: Alexander Klimburg, ed. National Cyber Security Framework Manual. Tallinn: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, Estonia Publication, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Hathaway, Oona, Rebecca Crootof, Philip Levitz, Haley Nix, Aileen Nowlan, William Perdue, and Julia Spiegel. “The Law of Cyber-Attack.” Calif. L. Rev. 100 (2012): 817–886.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Heinsch, Robert. “The Crime of Aggression After Kampala: Success or Burden for the Future?” Goettingen Journal of International Law 2 (2010): 709–763.]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck. Customary International Humanitarian Law. ICRC, 2005.10.1017/CBO9780511804700]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Hildreth, Steven A. “Cyber Warfare.” Cong. Research Serv., CRS Report for Congress (2001): 1–29.]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Hoisington, Matthew. “Cyber Warfare and the Use of Force Giving Rise to the Right of Self-Defense.” B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 32 (2009): 439–481.10.2139/ssrn.1542223]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Hollis, Duncan B. “Why States Need an International Law for Information Operations.” Lewis & Clark Law. Review 11 (2007): 1023–1093.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Hurka, Thomas. “Proportionality in the Morality of War.” Philo & Pub Aff. 33 (2005): 34–72.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00024.x]Search in Google Scholar
[41. ICRC. “Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law.” Intl Rev Red Cross 90 (2008): 987–1026.10.1017/S1816383109000319]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Jensen, Eric. “Computer Attacks on Critical National Infrastructure: A Use of Force Invoking the Right of Self-Defense.” Stan. J. Int’l Law 38 (2002): 207–240.]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Jensen, Eric. “Unexpected Consequences from Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard for Computer Network Operations?” Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 18 (2003): 1168–1197.]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Kalpokienė, Julija, and Ignas Kalpokas. “Hostes Humani Generis: Cyberspace, the Sea, and Sovereign Control.” Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 5:2 (2012): 132–163.10.2478/v10076-012-0014-y]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Kastenberg, Joshua E. “Non-intervention and Neutrality in Cyberspace: An Emerging Principle in the National Practice of International Law.” A.F. L. Rev. 64 (2009): 1–68.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Kelsey, Jeffrey T.G. “Hacking into International Humanitarian Law: The Principles of Distinction and Neutrality in the Age of Cyber Warfare.” Mich. L. Rev. 106 (2008): 1431–1468.]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Kerschischnig, Georg. Cyber Threats and International Law. Eleven International Publishing, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Kingsbury, Alex. “Documents Reveal Al Qaeda Cyber-attacks.” U.S. News (April 14, 2010) // http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/04/14/documentsreveal-al-qaeda-cyberattacks.]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Landau, Susan. “National Security on the Line.” Journal of Telecomm. & High Tech. Law 4 (2006): 409–447.]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Libicki, Martin C. “What is Information Warfare?” Strategic Forum No. 28 (1995): 1–3.10.1016/B978-1-55558-131-2.50010-2]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Little, Debra, John Shinder, and Ed Tittel. Scene of the Cybercrime: Computer Forensics Handbook. (MA: Syngress Publishing, Inc. Rockland, 2002).]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Lülf, Charlotte. “Modern Technologies and Targeting under International Humanitarian Law.” IFHV Working Paper Vol. 3, No. 3 (December 2013): 39–45 // http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ifhv/documents/workingpapers/wp3_3.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Melzer, Nil. “Keeping the Balance between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities.” Int’l L. & Pol. 42 (2010): 831–877.]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Melzer, Nils. “Cyber Operations and Jus in Bello.” Disarmament Forum (2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Murphy, Matt, “War in the Fifth Domain: Are the Mouse and Keyboard the New Weapons of Conflict?” Economist (July 1, 2010).]Search in Google Scholar
[56. Owens, William A., Kenneth W. Dam, and Herbert S. Lin, eds. Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding US Acquisition and Use of Cyber-attack Capabilities. National Research Council Report, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Printer, Norman G., Jr. “The Use of Force against Non-State Actors under International Law: An Analysis of the U.S. Predator Strike in Yemen.” UCLA J. Int'l L. & Foreign Aff. 8 (2003): 331–392.]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Proulx, Vincent-Joel. “Babysitting Terrorists: Should States Be Strictly Liable for Failing to Prevent Transborder Attacks?” Berkeley J. Int’l L. 23 (2005): 616–667.]Search in Google Scholar
[59. Rollins, John W., and Catherine A. Theohary. Cyber warfare and Cyber terrorism: In Brief (Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report, R43955, March 27, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[60. Sandoz, Yves, Christophe Swinarski, and Bruno Zimmermann, eds. Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. ICRC, 1987.]Search in Google Scholar
[61. Schaap, Arie J. “Cyber Warfare Operations: Development and Use under International Law.” A.F. L. Rev. 64 (2009): 121–161.]Search in Google Scholar
[62. Schindler, Dietrich, and Jiri Toman, eds. The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents. 4th ed. (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004.10.1163/9789047405238]Search in Google Scholar
[63. Schmitt, Michael N. “‘Attack’ as a Term of Art in International Law: The Cyber Operations Context”: 283–293. In: Christian Czosseck, Rain Ottis, and Katharina Ziolkowski, eds. 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publications, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[64. Schmitt, Michael N. “Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance.” Virginia Journal of International Law 50(4) (2010): 761–799.]Search in Google Scholar
[65. Schmitt, Michael N. “Rewired Warfare: Rethinking the Law of Cyber Attack.” Int’l Rev. Red Cross 96(893) (2014): 182–205.10.1017/S1816383114000381]Search in Google Scholar
[66. Schmitt, Michael N. “The Impact of High Tech and Low Tech Warfare on Distinction”: 169–189. In: Roberta Arnold and Pierre-Antoine Hildbrand, eds. International Humanitarian Law and the 21st Century’s Conflicts: Changes and Challenge. Lausanne: Ed. Interuniversitaires Suisses-Edis, 2005.]Search in Google Scholar
[67. Schmitt, Michael N. “Wired Warfare: Computer Network Attack and Jus in Bello.” Int'l Rev. of the Red Cross 84 (2002): 365–399.10.1017/S1560775500097741]Search in Google Scholar
[68. Schmitt, Michael N., ed. Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.10.1017/CBO9781139169288]Search in Google Scholar
[69. Schmitt, Michael N., Harrison A. Dinniss, and Thomas C. Wingfield. “Computers and War: The Legal Battle Space.” Background Paper prepared for Informal High-Level Expert Meeting on Current Challenges to International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge (June 25–27, 2004).]Search in Google Scholar
[70. Schmitt, Michael. “Pre-emptive Strategies in International Law.” Mich. J. Int’l Law 24 (2003): 534–569.]Search in Google Scholar
[71. Shane, Harris, “The Cyber war Plan,” National Journal (November 14, 2009) // http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20091114_3145.php.]Search in Google Scholar
[72. Sharp, Walter Gary. Cyberspace and the Use of Force. Virginia, Falls Church: Aegis Research Corporation, 1999.]Search in Google Scholar
[73. Shimeall, Timothy, Phil Williams, and Casey Dunlevy. “Countering Cyber War.” NATO Rev. 49 (2001): 16–19.]Search in Google Scholar
[74. Sklerov, Matthew J. “Solving the Dilemma of State Responses to Cyber-attacks: A Justification for the Use of Active Defenses against States Which Neglect Their Duty to Prevent.” Mil. L. Rev. 201 (2009): 1–85.]Search in Google Scholar
[75. Smith, Gerry. “UK Authorities Brace for ‘Cyber Jihad’ By Al Qaeda after Bin Laden Death.” The Huffington Post (July 12, 2011) // http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/al-qaeda-cyberjihad_n_895579.html.]Search in Google Scholar
[76. Solce, Natasha. “The Battlefield of Cyber Space: The Inevitable New Military Branch – The Cyber Force.” Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 18 (2008): 292–336.]Search in Google Scholar
[77. Stevens, Sharon R. “Internet War Crimes Tribunals and Security in an Interconnected World.” Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 18 (2009): 657–676.]Search in Google Scholar
[78. Svarc, Dominika. “Redefining Imminence: The Use of Force Against Threats and Armed Attacks in the Twenty-First Century.” ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 13 (2006): 171–219.]Search in Google Scholar
[79. Swanson, Lesley. “The Era of Cyber Warfare: Applying International Humanitarian Law to the 2008 Russian-Georgian Cyber Conflict.” L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 32 (2010): 303–353.]Search in Google Scholar
[80. Teo, Cheng Hang. “The Acme of Skill: Non-Kinetic Warfare.” Air Command & Staff Coll., Wright Flyer Paper No. 30 (2008) // http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA485268&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[81. Turns, David. “Cyber Warfare and the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities.” Journal of Conflict & Security Law (2012): 279–297.10.1093/jcsl/krs021]Search in Google Scholar
[82. U.K. Cabinet Office. The UK Cyber Security Strategy: Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World (November 2011) // https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60961/uk-cyber-security-strategy-final.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[83. U.K. Ministry of Defence. The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict. 3. Wiltshire: The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, UK, 2004.]Search in Google Scholar
[84. U.K. Secretary of State for the Home Dep’t. Contest: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism. Her majesty’s Stationary Office (July 2011) // https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97995/strategy-contest.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[85. US Army Training & Doctrine Command, DCSINT Handbook No. 1.02, Critical Infrastructure Threats and Terrorism: Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook. 2005.]Search in Google Scholar
[86. US Department of Defense (DOD). “Memorandum for Chiefs of the Military Services, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, Dirs. of the Joint Staff Directories – Joint Terminology for Cyberspace Operations” (November 2011): 1-16 // http://www.nsci-va.org/CyberReferenceLib/2010-11-joint%20Terminology%20for%20Cyberspace%20Operations.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[87. US Department of Defense (DOD). “Quadrennial Defense Review” (2010).10.21236/ADA513713]Search in Google Scholar
[88. US Department of Defense (DOD). “Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace” (July 2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[89. US White House. The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace (2003) // http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/National_Cyberspace_Strategy.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[90. Vatis, Michael A. “Cyber Attacks during the War on Terrorism: A Predictive Analysis.” Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth College, Report OMB No. 074-0188 (September 2001).10.21236/ADA386280]Search in Google Scholar
[91. Waxman, Matthew C. “Cyber-Attacks and the Use of Force: Back to the Future of Article 2(4).” Yale Journal of International Law 36 (2011): 411–452.10.2139/ssrn.1674565]Search in Google Scholar
[92. Wedgwood, Ruth. “Proportionality, Cyber war and the Law of War”: 219–254. In: Michael N. Schmitt and Brian T. O’Donnell, eds. Computer Network Attack and International Law. Naval War College, International Law Studies, vol.76, 2002.]Search in Google Scholar
[93. Wheeler, David, and Gregory Larsen. “Techniques for Cyber Attack Attribution.” Inst. Def. Analysis (October 2003): 23–25 //http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468859&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.10.21236/ADA468859]Search in Google Scholar
[94. Wingfield, Thomas. The Law of Information Conflict: National Security Law in Cyberspace. Texas: Aegis Research Corp, 2000.]Search in Google Scholar
[1. Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. 1996 I.C.J. para. 79 (July 8).]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Combating the Criminal Misuse of Information Technologies. G.A. Res. 55/63, paras.1,3 U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/63 (Jan. 22, 2001).10.1007/978-3-540-45359-8_7]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Convention on Cybercrime. Council of Europe, Nov. 23, 2001, 41 I.L.M. 282, 2296 U.N.T.S. 167.10.1017/S0020782900009918]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Eighth United Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. G.A. Res. 45/121, para.3, U.N. Doc. A/RES/45/121 (Dec. 14, 1990).]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Hague Convention (IV) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 187 Consol. T.S. 429.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Lieber Code, U.S. War Dep’t, General Orders No. 100: Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (April 24, 1863).]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.). 1984 I.C.J. Rep. 392.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Prosecutor v. Tadić. Case No. IT-94-1-A, I.C.T.Y. App. Ch., at 49 (July 15, 1999).]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Kampala, Uganda, May 31-Jun. 11, 2010, U.N. Doc. R/Con./Res.6, Annex I.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. July 17, 1998, 37 I.L.M. 1002.10.1017/S0020782900012420]Search in Google Scholar
[14. UN General Assembly, ‘Definition of Aggression’. G.A. Res. 3314, U.N. GAOR, 29th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (Dec. 14, 1974).]Search in Google Scholar
[15. US Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2001. 42 U.S.C.S. §5195c(e) (2006).]Search in Google Scholar
