SİBER UZAY ÜZERİNDEKİ HAKİMİYET: SINIRSIZ BİR EGEMENLİK Mİ?

Abstract

Egemenlik, tanım gereği, devletin üstün gücünün sınır ötesi durumlarda, kendi toprakları içinde ve dışında kullanılmasıdır. Egemenlik kelimesi, Orta Çağ'dan beri her şeyin üzerinde olan hükümdarın - kral, prens veya imparator- gücüne atıfta bulunmak için kullanılmıştır. Ancak 1950'ler ile 1980'ler arasında siber uzay olarak adlandırılan yeni bir tür alan ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu sanal alan, diğer tüm alanlardan daha fazla karakteristik özelliğe sahipti. Zamanla, devletlerin ortaya çıkan bu yeni alanı kontrolleri altına almaları ise zorunlu hale gelmiştir. Politik anlamda, sahip olduğu olanaklar göz önüne alındığında bu sanal egemenliğin ele geçirilmesi doğru bir harekettir. Hukuki açıdan bakıldığında, insanların toplumdaki yaşamlarını düzenleyen kuralların işleyişlerini ve içeriğini inceleyen sosyal bir bilim olan hukuk, toplumdaki herbirbireyi birbirine bağlayan ve onlara gerçek bir evrensel topluluk hüviyeti kazandıran bu “ağlar ağına” kayıtsız kalamayacaktır. Birleşmiş Milletler Şartı'nda yer alan egemen eşitlik ilkesi, modern uluslararası ilişkileri düzenleyen temel bir kuraldır ve devletlerarası münasebetlerin tüm alanlarında geçerlidir. Bu ilkenin, temel ilke olarak siber uzaya da uygulanması gerekmektedir çünkü siber uzay artık bu tür ilişkiler için pratik bir yerdir. Ancak, bu tür bir uygulanabilirliğin sağlanması için siber uzay, henüz sahip olmadığı net bir uluslararası hukuk konusu niteliğine sahip olmalıdır. Siber uzayda zaman ve mesafe gibi belirleyici faktörlerin olmaması, çoklu siber saldırı vakalarını ve siber savaş ihtimalini güçlendirmektedir. Bu alanın müphem karakteri, kabul edilebilir eşikleri geleneksel askeri operasyonlardan daha düşük olan doğrudan eylem biçimlerinden dönüşe izin vermektedir. Muhtelif aktörler arasındaki güç farklılıklarını azaltarak hatta klasik eylemlere ek olarak, asimetrik veya hibrit saldırıdan masrafsız bir dönüşe imkan verirken, failinin siber isnatlardan kaçınmak için kimliklerini gizlemesine izin verir. Bir devlet siber bölgesini ne kadar koruyabilir? Bu alan üzerinde devletin yetkisinin kapsamına ilişkin herhangi bir sınırlama var mıdır? Bu çalışmada, sanal egemenliğe karşı klasik yaklaşımdaki egemenliği, bu tür egemenliklere ilişkin bilimsel tartışmaları ve uluslararası hukukun mevcut kurallarının siber uzaya kıyasen uygulanabilmesinin yanında bu tür egemenliklere ilişkin bilimsel tartışmalar ışığında sanal egemenlik ve klasik yaklaşımdaki egemenlik kavramlarının karşılaştırılması yapılacaktır.

Keywords

• Siber Uzay
• Siber Saldırı
• Egemenliğin Sınırlandırılması
• Klasik Egemenlik
• Sanal Egemenlik

CONQUEST OVER CYBERSPACE: AN UNLIMITED SOVEREIGNTY?

Abstract

Sovereignty, by definition, is the exercise of the supreme power of the state inside and outside its territory, in case of extraterritoriality. The word 'sovereignty’ since the Middle Ages, was used to refer to the power of the sovereign, who was overall; the king, prince, or emperor. However, between the 1950s and 1980s, a new kind of space dubbed cyberspace emerged. This virtual territory engaged more personalities than any other space. Over time, it became imperative for States to include this newly gained space under their control. Conquering this virtual sovereignty given its potentials, politically speaking, equals the right move. From a legal perspective, Law as a social science that studies the mechanisms and contents of the rules through which humans regulate their lives in a community, cannot be alien to this 'network of networks' that connects each sub-community and brings them together in a genuine universal community. The sovereign equality as a principle under the Charter of the United Nations is an ultimate rule governing modern international relations and valid in all spaces of interstate exchanges. It is imperative for this principle and its essence to be applied to cyberspace because cyberspace is now the right place for diplomacies. However, to achieve this kind of applicability, cyberspace needs to have a clear international law position, which it does not have by the time. The absence of determining factors such as time and distance within cyberspace strengthens the multiple occurrences of cyber-attacks and the possibility of cyber warfare. Its opacity allows the return of direct modes of action whose acceptance thresholds are lower than conventional military operations. It allows an inexpensive return of the asymmetric or hybrid offensive, by reducing the power differences between different players, or even in addition to conventional military actions, while allowing its author to hide their identities to avoid cyber attributions. How far would states go to protect their cyber territory? Are there any limitations to this conquest? In this paper, a comparison between sovereignty in the traditional approach and virtual sovereignty, scholarly discussions on these types of sovereignties, as well as the analogy to apply existing rules of international law to cyberspace, will be established.

Keywords

• Cyberspace
• Cyber-attack
• Limitation of Sovereignty
• Classic Sovereignty
• Virtual Sovereignty

References

1. ABI-SAAB (G.), La souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles, in Droit international, Bilan et perspectives, M. Bedjaoui (Ed.), t. II, Pedone, 1991, pp. 639-661. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (the Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 59 section 148. Online: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/116/116-20051219-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf accessed 6 September 2020.
2. BAL, Lider, Le mythe de la souveraineté en droit international : la souveraineté des Etats à l’épreuve des mutations de l’ordre juridique international, Droit, Université de Strasbourg, 2012. Available online at: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00721073/document accessed 4 October 2020.
3. BEAUD, Olivier, La puissance de l’État, PUF, Coll. Leviathan, 1994
4. BENATAR, Marco, "Use of cyber force: the need for legal justification?", Goettingen Journal of International Law, 1, 3, 2009, pp: 379-395.
5. BLAKE V. GUATEMALA, 1999 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., (ser C.) No. 48., p.5 (Jan. 22, 1999)
6. BLOOMENTHAL, Andrew World's Top 10 Internet Companies, 18 September 2020, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030415/worlds-top-10-internet-companies.asp accessed 5 October 2020.
7. CHEVALLIER, Jacques, Souveraineté Et Droit, In : D. M. Desgrées du Loû, Les évolutions de la souveraineté, Montchrestien, Coll. Grands Colloques, 2006, pp. 203-219. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01728232/document accessed 5 October 2020
8. COX, Rory, “Historical Just War Theory up to Thomas Aquinas”, Saint Andrew, 2015, pp. 1-26. Available:https://researchrepository.standrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/11776/Ch05_Cox_Historical_Just_War_Theory_up_to_Aquinas.pdf?sequence=1 accessed 7 October 2020.

9. CSIS, Significant Cyber Incidents Since 2006, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) | Washington, D.C. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/201002_Significant_Cyber_Events_List.pdf retrieved 7 October 2020
10. DAILLIER, Patrick ; FORTEAU, Mathias and PELLET, Allain, Droit international public, LGDJ, 8th Ed., 2009.
11. DOUZET, Frédérick, « Souveraineté et jurisdiction dans le cyberespace », Hérodote, n° 152-153, La Découverte, 2014. https://www.cairn.info/revue-herodote-2014-1-page-174.htm accessed 4 October 2020.
12. DUGUIT, Léon, Traité de droit constitutionnel, 3rd Ed., vol.5, Fontemoing, 1927-1930.
13. FRANCESCHET, Antonio, “Sovereignty and Freedom: Immanuel Kant's Liberal Internationalist ‘Legacy.’” Review of International Studies 27, no. 2 (2001): 209–28.
14. HAKYEMEZ, Yusuf Şevki, Mutlak Monarşilerden Günümüze Egemenlik Kavramı: doğuşu, gelişimi kavramsal çevresi ve dönüşümü, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2004
15. HASSAN, Daud, “The Rise of the Territorial State and The Treaty of Westphalia”, Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence Vol. 9, pp. 62-70, 2006. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/3289/1/2006006060.pdf accessed 7 September 2020.
16. HOLLIS, B. Duncan, “why States need an informational law for information operations”, Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 11, 2007, pp.1-39. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9551-lcb114art7hollis.pdf accessed 6 October 2020.
17. International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries 2001, session (A/56/10), https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf accessed 4 October 2020
18. KEDMEY, Dan, Report: NSA Authorized to Spy on 193 Countries, 1 July 2014. https://time.com/2945037/nsa-surveillance-193-countries/ accessed 6 October 2020.
19. KELSEN, Hans, The Pure Theory of Law and Analytical Jurisprudence, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Nov. 1941), pp:44-70. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1334739 accessed 5 October 2020.
20. KURUBAŞ, Erol, “Uluslararası İlişkiler Düşüncesi ve Dünya Politikasında Değişimi Anlamak”, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 2 Sayı 1 (Ocak 2012), pp: 9-34
21. MAURER, Tim, Cyber Proxies, and the Crisis in Ukraine, New America, 2018. https://www.ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/Ch09_CyberWarinPerspective_Maurer.pdf accessed 18 September 2020
22. MELZER, Nils, “Cyberwarfare and international Law”, UNIDIR, 2011.
23. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. the United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 92. Section 193. Online: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf accessed 6 September 2020
24. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253., online: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/58/058-19741220-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf 6 September 2020
25. Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1973 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20) online: http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1974.12.20_nuclear_tests2.htm 6 September 2020
26. OTTIS, Rain, Analysis of the 2007 Cyber Attacks Against Estonia from the Information Warfare Perspective, Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, Tallinn, Estonia, https://www.ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/Ottis2008_AnalysisOf2007FromTheInformationWarfarePerspective.pdf 18 September 2020
27. REISMAN, Michael. W., Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law, American Journal of International Law 84, no. 4 (1990): 866–76.
28. REUTERS STAFF, New Zealand bourse resumes trade after cyber-attacks, government activates security systems, Technology News, 28 August 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nzx-cyber/new-zealand-bourse-crashes-for-fourth-day-after-cyberattacks-idUSKBN25O03Q accessed 10 September 2020.
29. ROBERT, Jones, Marxist—Leninist Doctrine and The Soviet Theory of Sovereignty. In: The Soviet Concept of Limited Sovereignty from Lenin to Gorbachev, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1990.
30. S.S. “WIMBLEDON” Judgment of 17 August 1923 (Series A, No. 1), First Annual Report of the Permanent Court of International Justice (1 January 1922 – 15 June 1925), Series E, No. 1, pp. 163-168. Available at https://legal.un.org/PCIJsummaries/documents/english/5_e.pdf accessed 5 October 2020.
31. SAAKASHVILI, Eduard, “The global rise of Internet sovereignty”, Authoritarian Tech, 21 March 2019. Available https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/global-rise-internet-sovereignty/ accessed 6 October 2020.
32. SCHMITT, Michael N (ed.), Tallinn Manual 2.0 On the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, 2017
33. SCHMITT, Michael N., “Computer network attacks and the use of force in international law: Thoughts on a normative framework”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 37, 1999. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a471993.pdf accessed 7 October 2020.
34. SCOTT, J. Brown, The Spanish origin of international law: Francisco de Vitoria and his law of nations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934.
35. SELLERS, Mortimer, N.S., Intervention under International Law, 29 Md. J. Int'l L.1., 2014, pp:1-11. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol29/iss1/3 accessed 7 October 2020.
36. STEINBERGER, Helmut, Sovereignty, in Encyclopaedia of Public International Law by R. Bernhardt, Elsevier, vol. 4, 2000
37. Summaries of EU Legislation, Precedence of European Law, 1 January 2010. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l14548 5 October 2020.
38. The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions Internet Policy and Governance Europe's Role in Shaping the Future of Internet Governance (Text with EEA Relevance) /* COM/2014/072 Final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072&from=DA accessed 9 December 2020.
39. TRUYOL and SERRA, Sovereignty, in Fundamental Legal Vocabulary of Law, APD, t. 35, 1990
40. UN GGE Report 2013 (A/68/98*), §19 (adopted by the GA: UN Resolution A/RES/68/243 on the UN GGE Report 2013)
41. UNGA RESOLUTION: 2660 (XXV) of 7 December 1970
42. UNGA RESOLUTION: 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974
43. UNGA RESOLUTION: A / RES / 42/22 of 18 November 1987.
44. UNGA RESOLUTION: 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970
45. UNGA RESOLUTION: A / RES / 31/9 of 8 November 1976
46. UNGA RESOLUTION: A / RES / 33/72 of 14 December 1978
47. UNGA RESOLUTION: A/RES/58/32 of 8 December 2003
48. UYGUN, Oktay, Devlet Teorisi, On Iki Levha Yayincilik, İstanbul, 2017
49. WEST's Encyclopedia of American Law, the definition of "Force" https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Force accessed 7 October 2020.