•  
  •  
 
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

First Page

359

Abstract

Although the ICC-or other similarly-situated international criminal tribunals-could soon see the first cyber war crime prosecution, two glaring issues persist. First, the universe of conduct that could give rise to such a prosecution is limited. Second, heavy reliance on the war crimes framework fails to provide a forum for redress of many harms caused by other unlawful cyber operations in armed conflict. The fragmented nature of international law and its enforcement mechanisms requires solutions that harness the full range of the integrated architecture of the international system. Cyber operations might soon feature at the ICC, but only a fraction of their harm may- or can-be redressed there. Unless current law governing cyber operations in armed conflict evolves dramatically, most remedies must be found elsewhere. Certainly, there are unlawful cyber operations that human rights bodies cannot reach. This Note does not argue that human rights bodies are a "silver bullet"-no such thing exists in international law. Yet, the success of the international system depends on multifaceted complementarity. Just as the ICC is founded on the principle that domestic and international criminal systems must work together to end impunity for the gravest of crimes,269 international criminal tribunals and human rights bodies must both be engaged to redress the full range of harms from unlawful cyber operations. Like the principles of war crimes law, the right to life is a constant and potent principle during armed conflict-an emerging understanding that has tilled the ground for this moment. When cyber operations in armed conflict threaten civilians' lives and physical security, human rights bodies should be a principal avenue of redress.

Download

Share

COinS