Principle of Distinction in Cyber Warfare

1 Buchan, R., in Tsagourias, N., 2022. ‚Ukrainian ‘IT Army‘: A Cyber Levée en Masse or Civilians Directly Participating in Hostilities?‘. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukranian-it-army-a-cyber-levee-en-masse-or-civilians-directly-participating-in-hostilities/ (26. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

2 Connell, M., in Vogler, S., 2016. Russia’s Approach to Cyber Warfare, CNA’s Occasional Paper series, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019062.pdf (28. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

3 Department of Defense, 2021. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2021/21A477/21A477-1.pdf (28. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

4 Dinstein, Y., in Willy, D. A., 2020. Oslo Manual on Select Topics of the Law of Armed Conflict: Rules and Commentary. Springer. Search in Google Scholar

5 Doffman, Z., 2019. Israel Responds to Cyber Attack with an Air Strike on Cyber Attackers in World First. Forbes, 6. maj, https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/06/israeli-military-strikes-and-destroys-hamas-cyber-hq-in-world-first/?sh=50d4edacafb5 (26. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

6 Döge, J., 2010. Cyber Warfare Challenges for the Applicability of the Traditional Laws of War Regime. Archiv des Völkerrechts, 48(4), str. 486–501. Search in Google Scholar

7 Droege, C., 2012. Get off my Cloud: cyber warfare, international humanitarian law, and the protection of civilians. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), str. 533–578. Search in Google Scholar

8 Geiß, R., in Lahmann, H., 2012. Cyber Warfare: Applying the Principle of Distinction in an Interconnected Space. Israel Law Review, 45(3), str. 381–399. Search in Google Scholar

9 Generalna skupščina Združenih narodov, (2015). The United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, Report 2015 (A/70/174). Z dne 22. julija 2015. Search in Google Scholar

10 Generalna skupščina Združenih narodov, (2021). OEWG Final Substantive Report (A/AC.290/2021/CRP.2). Z dne 10. marca 2021. Search in Google Scholar

11 Goodman, R., in Jinks, D. P., 2010. The ICRC Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction to the Forum, New York University International Law and Politics, 42, str. 637–640. Search in Google Scholar

12 Harrison Dinniss, H., 2013. Participants in Conflict: Cyber warriors, patriotic hackers and the laws of war. V: D. Saxon, ur. International Humanitarian Law and the Changing Technology of War, str. 251–278. Leiden: Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

13 Hathaway, O. idr., 2011. The Law of Cyber-Attack. California Law Review, 100, str. 817–886. Search in Google Scholar

14 Henckaerts, J., in Doswald-Beck, L., 2009. Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1 – Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

15 Human Rights Watch, 2003. International Humanitarian Law Issues in a Potential War in Iraq. Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper. Washington DC. Search in Google Scholar

16 ICRC, 2013. Cyberwarfare and international humanitarian law: the ICRC‘s position, https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/2013/130621-cyberwarfare-q-and-a-eng.pdf (28. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

17 ICRC, 2020. Avoiding Civilian Harm from Military Cyber Operations During Armed Conflicts: ICRC Expert Meeting, 21–22 January 2020, Geneva, https://shop.icrc.org/avoiding-civilian-harm-from-military-cyber-operations-during-armed-conflicts-icrc-expert--meeting-21-22-january-2020-geneva-pdf-en (27. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

18 ICRC, 2021. Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

19 ICRC, 2022. Digitalizing the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal Emblems: Benefits, Risks, and Possible Solutions. ICRC, Ženeva. Search in Google Scholar

20 ICRC, 2023. Preventing and minimizing digital threats to people affected by armed conflict, Draft Elements of Resolution, November 2023. ICRC, Ženeva. Search in Google Scholar

21 International Court of Justice (ICJ), 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion). I.C.J. Reports, 226. Search in Google Scholar

22 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 1995. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, IT-94-1-AR72 (Appeals Chamber, Decision). Search in Google Scholar

23 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2000. Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. International Legal Materials, 39(5), str. 1257–1283. Search in Google Scholar

24 Matheson, C., 2019. From Munitions to Malware: A Comparative Analysis of Civilian Targetability in Cyber Conflict. Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare, 7(2), str. 29–66. Search in Google Scholar

25 Mavropoulou, E., 2015. Targeting in the Cyber Domain: Legal Challenges Arising from the Application of the Principle of Distinction to Cyber Attacks. Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare, 4(2), str. 23–93. Search in Google Scholar

26 Melzer, N., 2009. Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Ženeva. Search in Google Scholar

27 Microsoft, 2022. Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2022. https://www.microsoft.com/en--us/security/business/microsoft-digital-defense-report-2022 (27. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

28 Nash, K. S., Castellanos, S., in Janofsky, A., 2018. One Year After NotPetya Cyberattack, Firms Wrestle with Recovery Costs. The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-year-after-notpetya-companies-still-wrestle-with-financial-impacts-1530095906 (27. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

29 Padmanabhan, V. M., 2013. Cyber Warriors in the Jus in Bello. International law studies, 288(89), str. 288–308. Search in Google Scholar

30 Pascucci, C., 2017. Distinction and Proportionality in Cyber War: Virtual Problems with a Real Solution. Minnesota Journal of International Law, 26(1), str. 419–460. Search in Google Scholar

31 Protokol o prepovedih ali omejitvah uporabe zažigalnih orožij, Uradni list Socialistične Federativne Republike Jugoslavije, Mednarodne pogodbe, št. 3/82. Search in Google Scholar

32 Sancin, V., Švarc, D., in Ambrož, M., 2009. Mednarodno pravo oboroženih spopadov. Ljubljana: Poveljstvo za doktrino, razvoj, izobraževanje in usposabljanje. Search in Google Scholar

33 Schmitt, M. N., 2015. The Law of Cyber Targeting. Naval War College Review, 68(2), Article 3, str. 1–20. Search in Google Scholar

34 Schmitt, M. N., 2017. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, 2. izd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

35 Second International Peace Conference, The Hague, 1907. Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. International Conferences (Haag), z dne 18. oktobra 1907. Search in Google Scholar

36 Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, 2009. Agreement on Cooperation in Ensuring International Information Security. Jekaterinburg, 16. junija. Search in Google Scholar

37 Šarf, P., 2017. Legality of Low-Intensity Cyber Operations Under International Law. Sodobni vojaški izzivi, 19(3), str. 81–93. Search in Google Scholar

38 Štrucl, D., 2022. Russian Aggression on Ukraine: Cyber Operations and the Influence of Cyberspace on Modern Warfare. Sodobni vojaški izzivi, 24(2), str. 103–123. Search in Google Scholar

39 Thurau, J., 2022. Germany‘s Critical Infrastructure Is Poorly Protected. DW, https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-critical-infrastructure-is-poorly-protected/a-63505983 (26. 2. 2024). Search in Google Scholar

40 Turns, D., 2012. Cyber Warfare and the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 17, str. 279–297. Search in Google Scholar

41 Ur. l. SFRJ, 1978. Dopolnilni protokol k ženevskim konvencijam z dne 12. avgusta 1949 o zaščiti žrtev mednarodnih oboroženih spopadov, z dne 8. junija 1977 (DP-I), mednarodne pogodbe, št. 16/78. Search in Google Scholar

42 van Benthem, T. J., 2023. Privatized Frontlines: Private-Sector Contributions in Armed Conflict. 15th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Meeting Reality (CyCon), Talin, Estonija, str 55–69. DOI: 10.23919/CyCon58705.2023.10182177. Search in Google Scholar

43 Wallace, D. A., in Reeves, S., 2013. The Law of Armed Conflict‘s ‚Wicked‘ Problem: Levée En Masse in Cyber Warfare. International Law Studies, 89, str. 646–668. Search in Google Scholar

44 Združeno kraljestvo, 2020. Response to Chair’s Initial ‘Pre-draft’ of the Report of the OEWG on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, April 2020. Search in Google Scholar

45 Ženevska konvencija o ravnanju z vojnimi ujetniki, z dne 12. avgusta 1949. (1950). Ur.l. Prezidijuma LS FLRJ, št. 6/50. Search in Google Scholar