Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:28:18.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information Operations and the Question of Illegitimate Interference under International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2020

Henning Lahmann
Henning Lahmann*
Affiliation:
Senior Researcher, Digital Society Institute, ESMT Berlin; henning.lahmann@esmt.org.
Get access

Abstract

The article examines the legal qualification of state-led information operations that aim to undermine democratic decision-making processes in other states. After a survey of the legal attitudes of states towards such operations during the Cold War, the impact of the digital transformation on the frequency and quality of information operations is explained. The article assesses scholarly responses to the outlined paradigm shift regarding the prohibition of intervention, respect for sovereignty, and the principle of self-determination. The study then inquires whether it is possible to detect a change in how states qualify adversarial information operations by tracking recent state practice and official statements of opinio juris. The survey concludes that there is insufficient uniformity to allow for an inference that the content of the analysed rules of customary international law has already shifted towards more restrictive treatment of foreign interference. As a possible way forward, the article ends with a proposal to focus on deceptive and manipulative conduct of information operations as the most viable path to outlaw such state behaviour in the future. Instead of attempting to regulate the content of information, this approach is better suited to safeguard freedom of speech and other potentially affected civil rights.

Keywords

information operationselection interferenceprinciple of non-interventionsovereigntyself-determination
Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 189 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank the Israel Public Policy Institute and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung in Tel Aviv for funding the research as part of the ‘European-Israeli Dialog on Policies for the Post-Truth Era: Disinformation in the Digital Public Sphere’, and the research staff of the Lipkin-Shahak Program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, in particular, David Siman-Tov, Pnina Shuker and Itai Brun.

References

1 Herbert Lin and Jaclyn Kerr, ‘On Cyber-Enabled Information Warfare and Information Operations’, May 2019, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3015680.

2 Judit Bayer and others, ‘Disinformation and Propaganda: Impact on the Functioning of the Rule of Law in the EU and its Member States’, European Parliament, 28 February 2019, 52.

3 Peter Pomerantsev, ‘To Unreality – and Beyond’ 6 Journal of Design and Science, 23 October 2019, https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/ic90uta1?readingCollection=eb8e12ec.

4 Davey Alba and Adam Satariano, ‘At Least 70 Countries Have Had Disinformation Campaigns, Study Finds’, The New York Times, 26 September 2019.

5 Mike Isaac, ‘Facebook Finds New Disinformation Campaigns and Braces for 2020 Torment’, The New York Times, 21 October 2019; Donie O'Sullivan, ‘Facebook: Russian Trolls Are Back. And They're Here to Meddle with 2020’, CNN.com, 22 October 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/21/tech/russia-instagram-accounts-2020-election/index.html.

6 Mueller, Robert S, ‘Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election’, Volume I, March 2019, 1Google Scholar.

7 Ofrir Barel, ‘Why Are Israeli Elections Extremely Sensitive to Fake News?’, Council on Foreign Relations, 9 April 2019, https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-are-israeli-elections-extremely-sensitive-fake-news.

8 Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan, ‘Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making’, Council of Europe Report DGI(2017)09, 27 September 2017, 15.

9 ibid 15.

10 Caroline Jack, ‘Lexicon of Lies: Terms for Problematic Information’, Data & Society Research Institute, 2017, 2–3, https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_LexiconofLies.pdf.

11 European Commission, ‘A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Disinformation’, 30 April 2018, 10.

12 ibid.

13 Scott Shane, ‘The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election’, The New York Times, 7 September 2017.

14 Jack (n 10) 6–7.

15 ibid 7.

16 Bruce Schneier, ‘8 Ways to Stay Ahead of Influence Operations’, Foreign Policy, 12 August 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/12/8-ways-to-stay-ahead-of-influence-operations.

17 Jan Weedon, William Nuland and Alex Stamos, ‘Information Operations and Facebook’, 27 April 2017, 4, https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/facebook-and-information-operations-v1.pdf.

18 See Martin Russell, ‘Russia's Information War: Propaganda or Counter-Propaganda’, European Parliamentary Research Service, 3 October 2016, 2.

19 See Patrick J Cullen and Erik Reichborn-Kjennerud, ‘Understanding Hybrid Warfare’, January 2017, 8 (‘the synchronised use of multiple instruments of power tailored to specific vulnerabilities across the full spectrum of societal functions to achieve synergistic effects’), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647776/dar_mcdc_hybrid_warfare.pdf.

20 Annina Claesson, ‘Coming Together to Fight Fake News: Lessons from the European Approach to Disinformation’, New Perspectives on Foreign Policy, 8 April 2019, 13.

21 Samantha Bradshaw and Philip N Howard, ‘The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation’, Oxford Internet Institute, 2019, 9–10, https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/09/CyberTroop-Report19.pdf; McKay Coppins, ‘The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President’, The Atlantic, March 2020.

22 Steven J Barela, ‘Zero Shades of Grey: Russian-Ops Violate International Law’, Just Security, 29 March 2018, https://www.justsecurity.org/54340/shades-grey-russian-ops-violate-international-law.

23 Scott Shane, ‘Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too’, The New York Times, 17 February 2018.

24 Joseph Nye, ‘Protecting Democracy in an Era of Cyber Information War’, Governance in an Emerging New World, 13 November 2018, https://www.hoover.org/research/protecting-democracy-era-cyber-information-war.

25 Levin, Dov H, ‘When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results’ (2016) 60 International Studies Quarterly 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Ishaan Tharoor, ‘The Long History of the U.S. Interfering with Elections Elsewhere’, The Washington Post, 13 October 2016.

27 Schmitt, Michael N, ‘“Virtual” Disenfranchisement: Cyber Election Meddling in the Grey Zones of International Law’ (2018) 19 Chicago Journal of International Law 30, 38Google Scholar.

28 Shane (n 23).

29 Sabrina Tavernise, Mark Landler and Helene Cooper, ‘With New Afghan Vote, Path to Stability Is Unclear’, The New York Times, 20 October 2009.

30 Shane (n 23).

31 Thomas Kent, ‘Radio Free Europe's Mission’, The New York Times, 20 October 2017.

32 Kenneth Osgood, ‘The C.I.A.'s Fake News Campaign’, The New York Times, 13 October 2017.

33 Dov H Levin, ‘Sure, the U.S. and Russia Often Meddle in Foreign Elections. Does It Matter?’, The Washington Post, 7 September 2016.

34 Lucan A Way and Adam Casey, ‘Russia Has Been Meddling in Foreign Elections for Decades. Has It Made a Difference?’, The Washington Post, 8 January 2018.

35 ibid.

36 Levin (n 25) 190.

37 ibid 193.

38 ibid 200.

39 Jamnejad, Maziar and Wood, Michael, ‘The Principle of Non-Intervention’ (2009) 22 Leiden Journal of International Law 345, 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 UNGA Res 2625(XXV) (24 October 1970), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN Doc A/Res/2625(XXV), Annex, (1) para 26.

41 ibid, Annex, para 10.

42 UNGA Res 31/91 (14 December 1976), Non-Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, UN Doc A/Res/31/91, preambular para 6.

43 UNGA Res 36/103 (9 December 1981), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of State, UN Doc A/Res/36/103, Annex, para II(j).

44 ibid para III(d).

45 Jamnejad and Wood (n 39) 355.

46 Simma, Bruno, ‘Grenzüberschreitender Informationsfluß und domaine réservé der Staaten‘ (1979) 19 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 39, 63Google Scholar.

47 International Convention concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace (entered into force 2 April 1938) 186 LNTS 301, 197 LNTS 394, 200 LNTS 557.

48 Baade, Björnstjern, ‘Fake News and International Law’ (2019) 29 European Journal of International Law 1357, 1366–68Google Scholar.

49 Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Final Act (1 August 1975) (1975) 14 International Legal Materials 1292, s VI.

50 Denitsa Raynova, ‘Post Workshop Report: Towards a Common Understanding of the Non-Intervention Principle’, European Leadership Network, October 2017, 2, https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/170929-ELN-Workshop-Report-Non-Intervention.pdf.

51 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US) Merits, Judgment [1986] ICJ Rep 14, [205] (Nicaragua).

52 Shane (n 23).

53 Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey and Ellen Nakashima, ‘Trump Told Russian Officials in 2017 He Wasn't Concerned about Moscow's Interference in U.S. Election’, The Washington Post, 27 September 2019.

54 Nye (n 24).

55 Michael Meyer-Resende, ‘A New Frontier: Social Media/Networks, Disinformation and Public International Law in the Context of Election Observation’, Democracy Reporting International, 2018, 5, https://democracy-reporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/A-new-frontier_social-media_election-observation_Briefing-Paper-by-Michael-Meyer-Resende.pdf.

56 Bayer and others (n 2) 51.

57 Nye (n 24).

58 Bayer and others (n 2) 54.

59 ibid 51.

60 Weedon, Nuland and Stamos (n 17) 4.

61 Bayer and others (n 2) 52.

62 Nicholas Tsagourias, ‘Electoral Cyber Interference, Self-Determination and the Principle of Non-Intervention in Cyberspace’, EJIL: Talk, 26 August 2019, https://www.ejiltalk.org/electoral-cyber-interference-self-determination-and-the-principle-of-non-intervention-in-cyberspace.

63 Meyer-Resende (n 55) 14.

64 Bayer and others (n 2) 59.

65 Lin and Kerr (n 1).

66 Nye (n 24).

67 Michael Cole, ‘The Impact of China's Disinformation Operations Against Taiwan’, The Prospect Foundation Newsletter, November 2018, http://bit.ly/341XHCq.

68 Lin and Kerr (n 1).

69 Bayer and others (n 2) 57 et seq.

70 See Mostafa El-Bermawy, ‘Your Filter Bubble Is Destroying Democracy’, Wired, 18 November 2016, https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy; Coppins (n 21).

71 Bayer and others (n 2) 58.

72 Nye (n 24).

73 Samantha Bradshaw, Lisa-Maria Neudert and Philip N Howard, ‘Government Responses to Malicious Use of Social Media’, NATO Stratcom COE, November 2018, 3, https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/01/Nato-Report.pdf.

74 See, in particular, Lori Fisler Damrosch, ‘Politics Across Borders: Nonintervention and Nonforcible Influence over Domestic Affairs’ (1989) 83 American Journal of International Law 1.

75 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, Oppenheim's International Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2008) 428.

76 Jamnejad and Wood (n 39) 348.

77 Sean Watts, ‘International Law and Proposed U.S. Responses to the D.N.C. Hack’, Just Security, 14 October 2016, https://www.justsecurity.org/33558/international-law-proposed-u-s-responses-d-n-c-hack; Jamnejad and Wood (n 39) 367.

78 Tsagourias (n 62).

79 Schmitt (n 27) 51.

80 Steven J Barela, ‘Cross-Border Cyber Ops to Erode Legitimacy: An Act of Coercion’, Just Security, 12 January 2017, https://www.justsecurity.org/36212/cross-border-cyber-ops-erode-legitimacy-act-coercion.

81 ibid.

82 Barela (n 22).

83 See Raynova (n 50) 6.

84 Nicaragua (n 51) 205.

85 Baade (n 48) 1363.

86 ibid 1364.

87 Nye (n 24).

88 ibid.

89 Baade (n 48) 1364.

90 Dominik Steiger, ‘International Law and New Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Age: Big Data, Privacy and Interferences with the Political Process’ in Norman Witzleb, Janice Richardson and Moira Peterson (eds), Big Data, Political Campaigning and the Law: Privacy and Democracy in the Age of Micro-Targeting (2019) 22, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430035.

91 Schmitt (n 27) 51.

92 Tsagourias, Nicholas, ‘Electoral Cyber Interference, Self-Determination and the Principle of Non-Intervention in Cyberspace’ in Broeders, Dennis and van den Berg, Bibi (eds), Governing Cyberspace: Behaviour, Power and Diplomacy (Rowman & Littlefield 2020 forthcoming) 14Google Scholar, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438567; see also Harriet Moynihan, ‘The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks: Sovereignty and Non-Intervention’, Chatham House Research Paper, December 2019, 41–42.

93 Jens D Ohlin, ‘Election Interference: The Real Harm and the Only Solution’, Cornell Law School Research Paper 18–50, 2018, 7.

94 Tsagourias (n 62).

95 Island of Palmas (Netherlands v US) 2 RIAA 829, 838 (1928).

96 Schmitt (n 27) 40.

97 For a good overview see Moynihan (n 92) 9.

98 Schmitt, Michael N (ed), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press 2017) rr 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 UN General Assembly, Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (22 July 2015), UN Doc A/70/174, para 15.

100 Schmitt, Michael N and Vihul, Liis, ‘Respect for Sovereignty in Cyberspace’ (2017) 95 Texas Law Review 1639Google Scholar (in favour of respect for sovereignty as a primary rule); Corn, Gary P and Taylor, Robert, ‘Sovereignty in the Age of Cyber’ (2017) 111 AJIL Unbound 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar (against).

101 Jeremy Wright, ‘Cyber and International Law in the 21st Century’, 23 May 2018, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/cyber-and-international-law-in-the-21st-century.

102 Ministère des Armées de la République Française, ‘Droit International Appliqué aux Opérations dans le Cyberspace’, 2019, 6–7.

103 Schmitt (n 27) 45; see also Moynihan (n 92) 42–43.

104 Schmitt (n 27) 46–47.

105 Tsagourias (n 62); Ohlin, Jens D, ‘Did Russian Cyber-Interference in the 2016 Election Violate International Law?’ (2017) 95 Texas Law Review 1579Google Scholar; Ohlin (n 93).

106 Klabbers, Jan, ‘The Right To Be Taken Seriously: Self-Determination in International Law’ (2006) 28 Human Rights Quarterly 186, 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 12, Article 1 (21st Session, 1984), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations; adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies (1994), UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, para 12.

108 See Thürer, Daniel and Burri, Thomas, ‘Self-Determination’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2012) 1Google Scholar.

109 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.

110 Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action (Beacon Press 1981).

111 Bayer and others (n 2) 61–62.

112 Tsagourias (n 62).

113 ibid.

114 Ohlin (n 93) 10.

115 ibid 12–13.

116 ibid 11.

117 ibid 12.

118 David Tewksbury and Jason Rittenberg, News on the Internet: Information and Citizenship in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press 2012) 119–43.

119 Michael Schudson, ‘The Fall, Rise, and Fall of Media Trust’, Columbia Journalism Review, Winter 2019, https://www.cjr.org/special_report/the-fall-rise-and-fall-of-media-trust.php.

120 Steven Erlanger, ‘Russia's RT Network: Is It More BBC or K.G.B.?’, The New York Times, 8 March 2017; Robert Elliot, ‘How Russia Spreads Disinformation via RT Is More Nuanced Than We Realise’, The Guardian, 26 July 2019.

121 Schmitt (n 27) 55–57; similarly Steiger (n 90).

122 Thürer and Burri (n 108) 22.

123 See Fan, Hua, ‘The Missing Link between Self-Determination and Democracy: The Case of East Timor’ (2008) 6 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 176Google Scholar.

124 Besson, Samantha, ‘Sovereignty’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2012) 67Google Scholar.

125 Tsagourias (n 92).

126 Jamnejad and Wood (n 39) 349.

127 North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v Denmark and the Netherlands), Judgment [1969] ICJ Rep 1, [44].

128 Talmon, Stefan, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ's Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’ (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law 417, 420CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129 See, in general, International Law Commission (ILC), Report of the 70th Session (30 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2018), UN Doc A/73/10, 124–25.

130 ibid 126–27.

131 In this sense explicitly Ohlin (n 93) 24–26.

132 Merkouris, Panos, ‘Interpreting the Customary Rules on Interpretation’ (2017) 19 International Community Law Review 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 134 et seq.

133 Weisburd, A Mark, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Concept of State Practice’ (2009) 31 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 295, 327Google Scholar.

134 Christian Delev, ‘Throw Custom to the Wind: Examining the Life Cycle of Customary International Law in the Absence of a Custom-Making Moment’, Cambridge Journal of International Law Online, 17 October 2019, http://cilj.co.uk/2019/10/17/throw-custom-to-the-wind-examining-the-life-cycle-of-customary-international-law-in-the-absence-of-a-custom-making-moment.

135 North Sea Continental Shelf (n 127) dissenting opinion of Judge Tanaka, [181].

136 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).

137 Weisburd (n 133) 295.

138 Ministère des Armées (n 102) 5.

139 Egan, Brian J, ‘International Law and Stability in Cyberspace’ (2017) 35 Berkeley Journal of International Law 169, 171–73Google Scholar.

140 ILC (n 129) 126.

141 ibid 124 onwards.

142 Letter dated 9 January 2015 from the Permanent Representatives of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (13 January 2015), UN Doc A/69/723.

143 ibid.

144 ibid para 2(3).

145 Sarah McKune, ‘An Analysis of the International Code of Conduct for Information Security’, The Citizen Lab, 28 September 2015, https://citizenlab.ca/2015/09/international-code-of-conduct.

146 Osgood (n 32).

147 ‘Russia Tells Google Not To Advertise “Illegal” Events after Election Protests’, Reuters, 11 August 2019, https://reut.rs/2pBdVDy.

148 Steven Lee Myers, ‘In Hong Kong Protests, China Angrily Connects Dots Back to U.S.’, The New York Times, 5 September 2019.

149 Robert Morgus and Justin Sherman, ‘When to Use the “Nuclear Option”? Why Knocking Russia Offline Is a Bad Idea’, Just Security, 17 May 2019, https://www.justsecurity.org/64094/when-to-use-the-nuclear-option-why-knocking-russia-offline-is-a-bad-idea.

150 Jack Goldsmith, ‘Uncomfortable Questions in the Wake of Russia Indictment 2.0 and Trump's Press Conference with Putin’, Lawfare, 16 July 2018, https://www.lawfareblog.com/uncomfortable-questions-wake-russia-indictment-20-and-trumps-press-conference-putin.

151 Schmitt (n 27) 39.

152 Jessica Brandt and Joshua Rudolph, ‘A New National Security Framework for Foreign Interference’, Just Security, 27 September 2019, https://www.justsecurity.org/66357/a-new-national-security-framework-for-foreign-interference.

153 See Shane (n 23).

154 Egan (n 139).

155 ‘Japan Plans To Take Steps against “Fake News” by June’, The Japan Times, 14 January 2019, http://bit.ly/2PImnvf.

156 Ministère des Armées (n 102); Government of the Netherlands, ‘Letter to the Parliament on the International Legal Order in Cyberspace’, 5 July 2019, https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-foreign-affairs/documents/parliamentary-documents/2019/09/26/letter-to-the-parliament-on-the-international-legal-order-in-cyberspace.

157 Wright (n 101).

158 See below.

159 European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Europe in May 2019: Preparing for a More United, Stronger and More Democratic Union in an Increasingly Uncertain World’, 30 April 2019, 22, http://bit.ly/2pCaGf8.

160 European Commission, ‘A Europe that Protects: The EU Steps Up Action Against Disinformation’, Press Release, 5 December 2018, https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6647_en.htm.

161 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L 119/1.

162 Ursula von der Leyen, ‘A Union that Strives for More: My Agenda for Europe’, 2019, 21, http://bit.ly/2NBaNzv.

163 G7, ‘Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats’, 9 June 2018, https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000373846.pdf.

164 G7, ‘Defending Democracy: Addressing Foreign Threats’, 23 April 2018, http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/foreign/180423-democracy.html.

165 G7, ‘Foreign Ministers Joint Communiqué’, 23 April 2018, http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/foreign/180423-communique.html.

166 G7, ‘Foreign Ministers Communiqué’, 6 April 2019, http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/foreign/190406-communique.html.

167 ‘“Foreign Country” Intends to Intervene in Israeli Elections, Shin Bet Chief Says’, Ha'aretz, 8 January 2019, http://bit.ly/2C8lZhN.

168 See Ruth Levush, ‘Initiatives to Counter Fake News in Selected Countries: Israel’, The Law Library of Congress, April 2019, 41, 44.

169 ‘Australia Passes Foreign Interference Laws amid China Tension’, BBC News, 28 June 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44624270.

170 Gareth Hutchens, ‘Brandis Reveals Plans to Curb “Unprecedented” Foreign Influence on Politics’, The Guardian, 14 November 2017.

171 Egan (n 139).

172 Radsan, A John, ‘The Unresolved Equation of Espionage and International Law’ (2007) 28 Michigan Journal of International Law 595Google Scholar, 601 et seq; but see critically Beim, Jared, ‘Enforcing a Prohibition on International Espionage’ (2018) 18 Chicago Journal of International Law 647Google Scholar.

173 ILC (n 129) 132.

174 For this see, eg, Rebecca J Cook and Lisa M Kelly, ‘Polygyny and Canada's Obligations under International Human Rights Law’, Department of Justice Canada, 2006 (analysing national attitudes towards polygyny in order to derive a rule of customary human rights law).

175 Beim (n 172) 653.

176 See Rachel Blundy, ‘Tactics to Fight Disinformation in Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, The Philippines and India’, Global Ground Media, 23 April 2019, https://www.globalgroundmedia.com/2019/04/23/tactics-to-fight-disinformation-in-thailand-indonesia-japan-the-philippines-and-india; Emma Goodman, ‘The Online Harms White Paper: Its Approach to Disinformation, and the Challenges of Regulation’, LSE Media Policy Project Blog, 10 April 2019, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2019/04/10/the-online-harms-white-paper-its-approach-to-disinformation-and-the-challenges-of-regulation; Peter Roudik, ‘Initiatives to Counter Fake News in Selected Countries: Comparative Summary’, The Law Library of Congress, April 2019, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/fake-news/index.php.

177 Bradshaw, Neudert and Howard (n 73) 8.

178 ‘Vietnam Unveils 10,000-Strong Cyber Unit to Combat “Wrong Views”’, Reuters, 4 January 2018, http://bit.ly/2C9LTS6.

179 Bradshaw, Neudert and Howard (n 73) 8.

180 Nick Bonyhady, ‘Australian Anti-Foreign Interference Laws a Model for Singapore’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2019.

181 Daniel Funke and Daniela Flamini, ‘A Guide to Anti-Misinformation Actions Around the World’, Poynter, 2019, https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/anti-misinformation-actions.

182 ‘Singapore “Fake News” Law Set to Come into Force on Wednesday, Reuters, 1 October 2019, https://reut.rs/2WDWzC8.

183 Salil Tripathi, ‘Singapore: Laboratory of Digital Censorship’, NYR Daily, 19 July 2019, https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/07/19/singapore-laboratory-of-digital-censorship.

184 Lucas Robinson, ‘Fake News Persists in Argentina as Election Draws Near’, Buenos Aires Times, 14 September 2019, https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/fake-news-persists-in-argentina-as-election-draws-near.phtml.

185 Melanie Ehrenkranz, ‘Brazil's Federal Police Says It Will “Punish” Creators of “Fake News” Ahead of Elections’, Gizmodo, 10 January 2018, https://gizmodo.com/brazil-s-federal-police-says-it-will-punish-creators-of-1821945912.

186 US Department of Justice, Justice Manual, Title 9: Criminal, 9-90.730 – Disclosure of Foreign Influence Operations, September 2018, https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-90000-national-security#9-90.730.

187 FBI, ‘What We Investigate’ (undated), https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/foreign-influence.

188 US Government Publication Office, ‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019’, 13 August 2018, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5515/text.

189 Alina Polyakova and Daniel Fried, ‘Democratic Defense Against Disinformation 2.0’, Atlantic Council, 2019, 9, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Democratic_Defense_Against_Disinformation_2.0.pdf.

190 Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, ‘Controlling Foreign Influence in Canadian Elections’, June 2017, 2, http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/sen/yc24-0/YC24-0-421-17-eng.pdf.

191 Funke and Flamini (n 181).

192 Polyakova and Fried (n 189) 7.

193 ‘Government Announces Anti-Fake News Unit’, BBC News, 23 January 2018.

194 Funke and Flamini (n 181).

195 ibid.

196 Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, ‘If Crisis or War Comes: Important Information for the Population of Sweden’, May 2018, 12.

197 Polyakova and Fried (n 189) 5.

198 Davey Alba and Sheera Frenkel, ‘Russia Tests New Disinformation Tactics in Africa to Expand Influence’, The New York Times, 30 October 2019.

199 Abed Kataya, ‘Do New Sudanese Laws Regulate Digital Space or Limit Freedom of Expression?’, SMEX, 23 July 2018, https://smex.org/do-new-sudanese-laws-regulate-digitalspace-or-limit-freedom-of-expression.

200 Besson (n 124) 121.

201 ILC (n 129) 136.

202 eg, for the US, Coppins (n 21).

203 See Casey Michel, ‘The Kremlin's California Dream’, Slate, 4 May 2017, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/05/why-russia-cultivates-fringe-groups-on-the-far-right-and-far-left.html; Michael Carpenter, ‘Russia Is Co-opting Angry Young Men’, The Atlantic, 29 August 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/russia-is-co-opting-angry-young-men/568741.

204 Alex Pascal and Tim Hwang, ‘War Is as War Does: World Order and the Future of Conflict’, Just Security, 26 August 2019, https://www.justsecurity.org/65959/war-is-as-war-does-world-order-and-the-future-of-conflict; on this concept more generally see Malcolm Chalmers, ‘Which Rules? Why There Is No Single “Rules-Based International System”’, Royal United Services Institute, April 2019, https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201905_op_which_rules_why_there_is_no_single_rules_based_international_system_web.pdf.

205 Raynova (n 50) 7.

206 Adam Segal, ‘The Development of Cyber Norms at the United Nations Ends in Deadlock. Now What?’, Council on Foreign Relations, 29 June 2017, https://www.cfr.org/blog/development-cyber-norms-united-nations-ends-deadlock-now-what.

207 Moynihan (n 92) 55.

208 Andy Greenberg, ‘The Wired Guide to Cyberwar’, Wired, 23 August 2019, https://www.wired.com/story/cyberwar-guide.

209 Raynova (n 50) 7.

210 Noah Feldman, ‘Free Speech in Europe Isn't What Americans Think’, Bloomberg, 19 March 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-19/free-speech-in-europe-isn-t-what-americans-think; Michael Chertoff, ‘Fake News and the First Amendment’, Harvard Law Review Blog, 10 November 2017, https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/156-2.

211 Quinn Mulholland, ‘Fighting Words: The Free Speech Fundamentalists’, Harvard Political Review, 6 April 2018, https://harvardpolitics.com/columns-old/fightwords1.

212 Chertoff (n 210).

213 Pomerantsev (n 3).

214 See Sally Adee, ‘The Global Internet Is Disintegrating. What Comes Next?’, BBC Future, 15 May 2019, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190514-the-global-internet-is-disintegrating-what-comes-next.

215 Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ‘The West's Dangerous Lack of Tech Strategy’, Politico, 11 March 2019, https://www.politico.eu/article/opinion-the-wests-dangerous-lack-of-tech-strategy.

216 Annegret Bendiek and Eva Pander Maat, ‘The EU's Regulatory Approach to Cybersecurity’, SWP Working Paper, October 2019, 24, https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/WP_Bendiek_Pander_Maat_EU_Approach_Cybersecurity.pdf; Pawlak, Patryk, ‘The EU's Role on Shaping the Cyber Regime Complex’ (2019) 24 European Foreign Affairs Review 167Google Scholar.

217 Heiko Maas, ‘Speech by Minister for Foreign Affairs, Heiko Maas at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, Japan’, 25 July 2018, https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/maas-japan/2121846.

218 See Hurel, Louise Marie and Lobato, Luisa Cruz, ‘Unpacking Cyber Norms: Private Companies as Norm Entrepreneurs’ (2018) 3 Journal of Cyber Policy 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

219 Especially Ohlin (n 93).

220 ibid.

221 See Noam Cohen, ‘Will California's New Bot Law Strengthen Democracy?’, The New Yorker, 2 July 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/will-californias-new-bot-law-strengthen-democracy.

222 Bradley Hanlon and Laura Rosenberger, ‘Countering Information Operations Demands a Common Democratic Strategy’, Alliance for Securing Democracy, 14 October 2019, https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/countering-information-operations-demands-a-common-democratic-strategy.

223 Markus Reuter, ‘Was nicht erkannt werden kann, sollte nicht reguliert werden’, netzpolitik.org, 9 May 2019, https://netzpolitik.org/2019/social-bots-was-nicht-erkannt-werden-kann-sollte-nicht-reguliert-werden.

224 Toi Staff, ‘Election Judge Bars Anonymous Internet Ads Despite Likud Objection’, The Times of Israel, 23 February 2019, https://www.timesofisrael.com/election-judge-bars-anonymous-internet-adds-despite-likud-objection.

225 Hanlon and Rosenberger (n 222); Robert D Blackwill and Philip H Gordon, ‘Containing Russia: How to Respond to Moscow's Intervention in U.S. Democracy and Growing Geopolitical Challenge’, Council on Foreign Relations, January 2018, 21, https://backend-live.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/CSR80_BlackwillGordon_ContainingRussia.pdf; Elizabeth Bodine-Baron and others, ‘Countering Russian Social Media Influence’, RAND Corporation, 2018, 32–36, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2700/RR2740/RAND_RR2740.pdf.

226 See tentatively likewise Moynihan (n 92) 43.

227 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 25 to the ICCPR (12 July 1996), UN DOC CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7 (emphasis added).

228 See similarly Bayer and others (n 2) 61–63.

229 Similarly, Nye (n 24).

230 UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, ‘Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda’, 3 March 2017.

231 ibid.

232 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (22 May 2015), UN Doc A/HRC/29/32, 7.

233 Shane (n 23).

234 In this sense, however, Ohlin (n 93) 24.

235 See likewise Nye (n 24).

236 Goldsmith (n 150).

237 ibid.