War Crimes and Individual Criminal Responsibility Arising out of Cyber Operations

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2, 1063 - 1078, 30.12.2020

Yunus Emre Gül

https://doi.org/10.33433/maruhad.798304

Cited By: 1

Öz

The types of individual criminal responsibilities are listed in the Rome Statute Article 25(3). Individuals or organized groups who conduct cyber operations during armed conflicts have an individual criminal responsibility derived from their acts. They may commit war crimes by conducting cyber operations that reach a certain level of violence, however, even if the operation does not constitute a war crime per se, perpetrators might still be responsible for their actions. In line with this, how an individual criminal responsibility occurs arising out of those operations is examined in this article.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Individual criminal responsibility, Rome Statute, cyber operations, violence, war crimes

Savaş Suçları ve Siber Operasyonlardan Doğan Bireysel Cezai Sorumluluk

Öz

Bireysel cezai sorumluluk türleri Roma Statüsü Madde 25(3)’te listelenmiştir. Silahlı çatışmalar sırasında siber operasyonlar gerçekleştiren bireyler veya organize gruplar, eylemlerinden doğan bireysel cezai sorumluluğa sahiptirler. Bu kişiler belirli bir şiddet eşiğine ulaşan siber operasyonlar düzenleyerek savaş suçları işleyebilirler; ancak bu operasyon bizatihi savaş suçu teşkil etmese dahi, failler eylemlerinden sorumlu olabilirler. Bu doğrultuda, söz konusu operasyonlardan doğan bireysel cezai sorumluluğun nasıl ortaya çıktığı bu makalede incelenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bireysel cezai sorumluluk, Roma Statüsü, siber operasyonlar, şiddet, savaş suçları

Kaynakça

• Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3.
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entered into force 1 July 2002) 37 ILM 1002 (1998); 2187 UNTS 90
• Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 392
• Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija (Trial Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 December 1998)
• Prosecutor v Callixte Mbarushimana (Decision on the confirmation of charges)
• Prosecutor v Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez (Appeal Judgement) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 December 2004)
• Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY-94-1 (2 October 1995)
• Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Trial Judgment) ICTY-94-1-T (7 May 1997)
• Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Appeal Judgement) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999)
• Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (Decision on the confirmation of charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (30 September 2008)
• Prosecutor v Germain Katanga (Judgement pursuant to article 74 of the Statute) ICC- 01/04-01/07 (7 March 2014)
• Prosecutor v. Georges Ruggiu (Trial Judgment) ICTR-97-32-1 (1 June 2000)
• Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu (Trial Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 September 1998)
• Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/05-01/08 (21 March 2016)
• Prosecutor v Laurent Semanza (Appeal Judgment) ICTR-97-20-A (20 May 2005)
• Prosecutor v Mitar Vasiljevic (Appeal Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 February 2004)
• Prosecutor v Radoslav Brđanin (Appeal Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007)
• Prosecutor v Siméon Nchamihigo (Appeal Judgement) ICTR-2001-63-A (18 March 2010)
• Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaskic (Appeal Judgement) ICTY-95-14-A (29 July 2004)
• Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Decision on the confirmation of charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 January 2007)
• Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Appeal Judgement) ICC-01/04-01/06 A 5 (1 December 2014)
• Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landžo (Appeal Judgement) ICTY-96-21-A (20 February 2001)
• Chaumette AL, ‘International Criminal Responsibility of Individuals in Case of Cyberattacks’ (2018) 18 International Criminal Law Review 1
• Cryer R and others, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (Cambridge University Press 2010)
• Dinniss HH, Cyberwarfare and the Laws of War (Cambridge University Press 2014)
• Dormann K, ‘War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, with a Special Focus on the Negotiations on the Elements of Crimes’ in von Bogdandy A and Wolfrum R (eds) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Volume 7 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2003)
• Eser A, ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility Mental Elements —Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law’ in Cassese A and others (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary Volume I (Oxford University Press 2002)
• Pictet JS (ed), Commentary I Geneva Convention For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (ICRC 1952)
• Sandoz Y and others (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (ICRC 1987)
• Schmitt M (ed), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press 2017)
• Triffterer O and Ambos K (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court A Commentary (Third Edition, Beck/Hart 2016)
• Vagias M, ‘The Territorial Jurisdiction of the ICC for Core Crimes Committed Through the Internet’ (2016) 21 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 523
• von Clausewitz C, On War (Howard M and Paret P trs, Oxford University Press 2007)
• Werle G, ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 953
• Bamford J, ‘NSA Snooping Was Only the Beginning. Meet the Spy Chief Leading Us Into Cyberwar’ (Wired, 2013) < https://www.wired.com/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/> accessed 3 January 2020
• von Heinegg WH, ‘Proportionality and Collateral Damage’ (OPIL, October 2015) <https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e2166> accessed 17 December 2019