The “21st Bruges Colloquium on International Humanitarian Law: New Technologies on the

Battlefield: Friend or Foe?”

By: Ma. Krisna S. Guerrero

“Cybersecurity is not only a question of developing defensive technologies but offensive technologies,
as well.”- Donald Trump. Technology is a useful tool, a perfect and powerful weapon to get a job done.
It could benefit you but it could also bring harm. In the military perspective modern armies are deeply
reliant on digital infrastructure such as undersea fiber-optic cables, satellites, routers or nodes. While
the civilian logistical supply chains and essential civilian services use the same cyber infrastructure
through which some military communications pass. Technology carries great convenience but it also
carries risks of serious unintended harm in situations of armed conflict, including death and injury to
civilians, and damage to civilian objects protected under International Humanitarian Law. Such risk of
leakage, deleting, restricting, or tampering with essential civilian data can quickly bring government
services and private businesses to a complete standstill, sometimes with potential life or death
consequences.

Several questions and concerns are raised such as how can we apply international law. Some state had
ideas and express interest in the role international law can play in regulating state behavior in
cyberspace. Also, we cannot deny that some state lacks capacity in both technical and legally to respond
to cyber threats. There are even some states refrain from or being silent or even draws caution against,
taking such position. Though compare to the past years improvements and understandings are made on
how to apply international law with regards to prevention, defensive part, and limitations setting
required standards. What legal regimes to apply and how to attribute responsibility for internationally
wrongful behavior in cyberspace such as a cyber-attack.

What even constitutes an "attack"? International Humanitarian Law defines an attacks as "acts of
violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defense." Most State determines a cyber
operation “an attack” if it causes death, injury, or direct physical harm. Some opined that “attacks” could
result in functionality losses rather than death, injury or destruction of property. And some are
uncertain and open to any other interpretation. Lawrence Lessig once said “Law and technology
produce, together, a kind of regulation of creativity we've not seen before.” It is hard to determine
what legal regimes to apply because we don’t even have a stable understanding on what may constitute
an attack and how to apply the law. But one thing is sure we have to understand it so that will know
what to apply with rides to its creativity.

States have different understanding and views, but providing consultation with their allies. Expressing
their views on how International Humanitarian Law may be applies to cyberspace and what additional
norms they expect themselves and other states to follow. “Cybersecurity is a share responsibility, and it
boils down to this: In Cybersecurity, the more systems we secure, the more secure we all are.”-Jeh
Johnson. As every state, protecting the welfare of the state and its civilians against harmful cyber
operations remains the most important. New rules must be developed to protect civilians against the
effects of cyber operations, and that they should strengthen their existing legal framework. Assessing
the expected incidental civilian harm of any cyber operation is critical to ensuring that the harm to the
civilian population is avoided, or at least minimized.

And to always keep in mind that in every battlefield technology may be a friend or a foe….

#PIL2020

#UN

#UN2020