SİBER ÇATIŞMADA SİVİL VERİLERİN ROMA STATÜSÜ AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2024, Volume: 28 Issue: 1, 393 - 434, 06.02.2024

Berkant Akkuş

https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1327670

Abstract

Saldırı ve savunma amaçlı siber yeteneklerin gelişmesiyle birlikte siber operasyonlar artan bir şekilde savaş araç ve yöntemi olarak kullanılmaya başlamıştır. Bu gerekçeyle sivillerin, sivil altyapının, sivil verilerin oluşacak siber zararlardan korunması zaruridir. Bu makalenin ana araştırma sorusu silahlı çatışma esnasında verilere yönelik gerçekleştirilen siber operasyonların Roma Stütüsü doğrultusundan savaş suçu olarak kabulünün mümkün olup olmadığını tespit edebilmektir. Bilgisayar verilerinin statüsü tartışmalıdır. Siber çatışmalarda verilere yönelik gerçekleştirilen saldırılar somut nesneleri de etkilemektedir. Bu makalede Roma Statüsü kapsamında bilgisayar verileri nesne veyahut mal olarak kabul edilebilir mi sorusunu netleştirmek amacıyla doktrindeki tartışmalara odaklanılacaktır. Aynı zamanda mahkeme kararları incelenecektir. Suçta ve cezada kanunilik ilkesi doğrultusunda Roma Statüsü’nün yeniden yorumlanması gerekmektedir. Günümüzde teknolojide yaşanan gelişmeler yeni savaş metodlarını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu nedenle Roma Statüsü’nün bu değişime uygun bir yanıt sağlayıp sağlamadığı değerlendirilecektir.

Keywords

Siber Saldırı, Sivil Veri, Roma Statüsü, Savaş Suçları, Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku

THE EVALUATION OF CIVILIAN DATA IN CYBER CONFLICT IN TERMS OF THE ROMA STATUTE

Abstract

With the development of offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, cyber operations are increasingly being used as a means and method of warfare. For this reason, it is crucial to protect civilians, civilian infrastructure, and civilian data from cyber damage. The main research question of this article is to determine whether cyber operations against data during armed conflict can be considered as war crimes in line with the Rome Statute. The status of computer data is controversial. Attacks on data in cyber conflicts also affect tangible objects. This article will focus on the debates in the doctrine in order to clarify the question of whether computer data can be considered as object or property under the Rome Statute. At the same time, court decisions will be analyzed. The Rome Statute needs to be reinterpreted in line with the principle of legality in crime and punishment. Today, developments in technology have led to new methods of warfare. Therefore, it will be evaluated whether the Rome Statute provides an appropriate response to this change.

Keywords

Cyber Attack, Civil Data, Rome Statute, War Crimes, International Criminal Law

References

• Article 53(1) Report, Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia, ICC Office of the Prosecutor, 6 November 2014.
• Avrupa Komisyonu, “What is Personal Data?”, <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/what-personal-data_en> Erişim Tarihi 12 Temmuz 2023.
• Avrupa Konseyi Siber Suç Sözleşmesi (23 Kasım 2001, ETS No 185).
• Avrupa Konseyi, “Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime”, European Treaty Series - No. 185, 2001, <https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b>, Erişim Tarihi 12 Temmuz 2023.
• Banks W, “Cyber Attribution and State Responsibility”, International Law Studies, 97(1), 2021, s. 1039-1072.
• Bartram P/Knudsen J, Military Manual on International Law Relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations, Danish Ministry of Defence, 2016.
• Chen S, “Conventional Retaliation and Cyber Attacks”, The Cyber Defense Review, 8(1), 2023, s. 67-86.
• Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s International Cyber Engagement Strategy, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2017.
• Dalar M, “Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi'ne Yönelik Eleştirilerin Değerlendirilmesi”, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(2), 2017, s.153-165.
• Daskal J, “The Un-Territoriality of Data”, Yale Law Journal, 125(2), 2015, s. 326-398.
• Decision on Confirmation of Charges, Katanga and Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07-717), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 September 2008.
• Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article 58, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICC-01/04-520-Anx2), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 10 February 2006.
• Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, Situation in the Republic of Kenya (ICC-01/09-19-Corr), Pre-Trial Chamber II, 31 March 2010.
• Denlay v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2011) 193 FCR 412.
• Diamond E, “Applying International Humanitarian Law to Cyber Warfare”, Law and National Security, 67(1), 2014, s. 67-84.
• Dinniss H, “The Nature of Objects: Targeting Networks and the Challenge of Defining Cyber Military Objectives”, Israel Law Review, 48(1), 2015, s. 39-54.
• Dinstein Y, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 3. Bası, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
• Dixon v The Queen [2015] NZSC 147.
• Dorrmann K, “Article 8 Para 2: Meaning of War Crimes”, Kai Ambos (Ed.), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Nomos, 2016, s. 296-580.
• Drian J, Stratégie Internationale de la France Pour le Numérique, Ministre de l’Europe et des Affaires Etrangères, 2017.
• Droege C, “Get off My Cloud: Cyber Warfare, International Humanitarian Law, and the Protection of Civilians”, International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 2012, s. 533-578.
• Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Letter for the Parliament on the International Legal Order in Cyberspace — Appendix: International Law in Cyberspace, Minister of Foreign Affairs to the President of the House of Representatives on the International Legal Order in Cyberspace, 2019.
• Egan B, “International Law, and Stability in Cyberspace”, The Berkeley Journal of International Law, 35(1), 2017, s. 168-180.
• Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., 2016 WL 4033276 at § 27 (W.D. Wisc. July 26, 2016).
• Gisel L/Rodenhauser T, “Cyber Operations and International Humanitarian Law: Five Key Points”, 2019, Humanitarian Law & Policy, <https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2019/11/28/cyber-operations-ihl-five-key-points/>, Erişim Tarihi 12 Temmuz 2023.
• Gisel L/Rodenhauser T/Dorrmann K, “Twenty Years on: International Humanitarian Law and the Protection of Civilians against the Effects of Cyber Operations during Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, 102(913), 2020, s. 287-334.
• Green S/Randall J, The Tort of Conversion, Hart Publishing, 2009.
• Grover L, Interpreting Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press, 2015.
• Gül Y, “War Crimes and Individual Criminal Responsibility Arising out of Cyber Operations”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(2), 2020, s. 1063-1078.
• Haataja S, “Cyber Operations against Critical Infrastructure under Norms of Responsible State Behaviour and International Law”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 30(4), 2022, s. 423–443.
• Haataja S, Cyber Attacks and International Law on the Use of Force The Turn to Information Ethics, Routledge, 2018.
• Hakim N, “How Social Media Companies Could Be Complicit in Incitement to Genocide”, Chicago Journal of International Law, 21(1), 2020, s. 81-117.
• Henckaerts J/Beck L, Customary International Humanitarian Law Vol I, Cambridge University Press, 2005. Horowitz J, “Cyber Operations under International Humanitarian Law: Perspectives from the ICRC”, ASIL Insights, 24(11), 2020, s. 1-5.
• Integrated Direct Marketing, LLC v. May, 495 S.W.3d 73, 2016 Ark. 281 (2016).
• International Committee of the Red Cross, “International Humanitarian Law and Cyber Operations during Armed Conflicts: ICRC Position Paper”, International Review of the Red Cross, 102(913), 2020, s. 481-492.
• International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century, “The Conduct of Hostilities and International Humanitarian Law: Challenges of 21st Century Warfare”, International Law Studies, 93(1), 2017, s. 323-388.
• Kadlcak R, “Statement by Richard Kadlcak at the 2nd Substantive Session of the Open-ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security of the First Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations”, 2020, <https://www.nukib.cz/download/publications_en/CZ%20Statement%20-%20OEWG%20-%20International%20Law%2011.02.2020.pdf>, Erişim Tarihi 12 Temmuz 2023.
• Kaljulaid K, President of the Republic at the Opening of CyCon 2019, Estonian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2019. Katz E/Sterio M/Worboys J, “Attacks against Hospitals and Cultural Property: Broad in Time, Broad in Substance”, Articles of War, 2020, <https://lieber.westpoint.edu/attacks-against-hospitals-cultural-property-broad/>, Erişim Tarihi 09 Temmuz 2023.
• Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.2003).
• Kubo Macak, “Military Objectives 2.0: The Case for Interpreting Computer Data as Objects under International Humanitarian Law”, Israel Law Review, 48(1), 2015, s. 55-80.
• Lancelot J, “Cyber-diplomacy: Cyberwarfare and the Rules of Engagement”, Journal of Cyber Security Technology, 4(4), 2020, s. 240-254.
• Lehto M, International Law and Cyberspace: Finland’s National Positions, Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2020.
• Lemley M, “Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding”, Texas Law Review, 83(4), 2005, s. 1031-1076.
• Liivoja R/McCormack T, “Law in the Virtual Battlespace: The Tallinn Manual and the Jus in Bello”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 15(1), 2012, s. 45-58.
• Marinotti J, “Tangibility as Technology”, Georgia State University Law Review, 37(1), 2021, s. 2-68.
• McCormack T, “International Humanitarian Law and the Targeting of Data”, International Law Studies, 94(1), 2018, s. 221-240.
• McKenzie S, Disputed Territories and International Criminal Law: Israeli Settlements and the International Criminal Court, Routledge, 2019.
• National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175.
• New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, The Application of International Law to State Activity in Cyberspace, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020.
• Newton M, “A Radical Reimagining of the Concept of Attack”, Articles of War, 2020, <https://lieber.westpoint.edu/radicalreimagining-attack-ntaganda/>, Erişim Tarihi 09 Temmuz 2023. Norwegian Chief of Defence, Manual on the Law of Armed Conflict, Department of Security Policy at The Norwegian Ministry of Defence, 2013.
• Organisation of American States, Improving Transparency: International Law and State Cyber Operations, Fifth Report, Presented by Professor Duncan B. Hollis (‘Hollis Report’), OEA/Ser.Q, CJI/doc. 615/20 rev.1, 7 Ağustos 2020.
• Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2019.
• Peat D, Comparative Reasoning in International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic aka "Pavo", Hazim Delic, Esad Landzo aka "Zenga", Zejnil Delalic (Trial Judgement), IT-96-21-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 16 November 1998.
• Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v Australia) (Provisional Measures), ICJ Reports (2014).
• R v Cox (2004) 21 CRNZ 1.
• Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)
• Ritter J/Mayer A, “Regulating Data as Property: A New Construct for Moving Forward”, Duke Law and Technology Review, 16(1), 2017, s. 220-277.
• Robles F, “Hackers Target Florida’s Town Water Supply, Raising Level of Harmful Chemical”, The New York Times, 2021, <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/us/oldsmar-florida-water-supply-hack.html>, Erişim Tarihi 09 Temmuz 2023.
• Ruscoe v Cryptopia Limited (in liquidation) [2020] NZHC 728.
• Sadat L/Jolly J, “Seven Canons of ICC Treaty Interpretation: Making Sense of Article 25’s Rorschach Blot”, Leiden Journal of International Law, 27(3), 2014, s. 755-788.
• Sandoz Y/Swinarski C/Zimmerman B, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross, 1987.
• Schmitt M, “The Notion of Objects during Cyber Operations: A Riposte in Defence of Interpretive and Applicative Precision”, Israel Law Review, 48(1), 2015, s. 81-109.
• Schmitt M, “Wired Warfare 3.0: Protecting the Civilian Population during Cyber Operations”, International Review of the Red Cross, 101(910), 2019, s. 333-355.
• Schmitt M, Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, 2. Bası, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
• Schondorf R, “Israel’s Perspective on Key Legal and Practical Issues Concerning the Application of International Law to Cyber Operations”, International Law Studies, 97(1), 2021, s. 396-406.
• Şen E, “Hırsızlık Suçları”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 3(1), 2012, s. 321-357.
• The General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, “Declaration of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran Regarding International Law Applicable to the Cyberspace”, 2020, <https://nournews.ir/En/News/53144/General-Staff-of-Iranian-Armed-Forces-Warns-of-Tough-Reaction-to-Any-Cyber-Threat>, Erişim Tarihi 10 Temmuz 2023.
• The IG Farben and Krupp Trials, United States Military Tribunal, 14 August 1947–29 July 1948 and 17 November 1947–30 June 1948, in Law Reports of the Trials of War Criminals, Vol. X (1949).
• Thyroff v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co 8 NY 3d 283, at 292.
• Türk Dil Kurumu, “Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükleri”, <https://sozluk.gov.tr/>, Erişim Tarihi 12 Temmuz 2023.
• Wright J, Cyber and International Law in the 21st Century, Attorney General’s Office, 2018.