The dynamics of warfare have changed from the conventional wars fought on the battlefield to virtual warfare as states have been involved in the cyber arms race. From simple distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks to the potent Stuxnet and Flame the cyber weapons vary in their potential human cost. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is drafted flexibly to adapt to changing circumstances. This paper is primarily based upon the assumption that existing treaty law is sufficient in many aspects yet in some areas treaty-making is also needed. What is the foreseeable solution is the comprehensive state practice for interpreting the existing rules (lex lata) regulating the armed conflict in the cyber context. This is because armed conflicts in cyberspace differ from kinetic warfare in multiple dimensions. The world community is yet to reach a consensus on how LOAC protects at times of cyberwarfare. From defining the basic terms like attack and object to the attribution need resolution. Given such ambiguity, international humanitarian law (IHL, interchangeably used with LOAC) will more frequently be violated in conflicts occurring in cyberspace than in physical space. Efforts by states in sincere exploitation of existing laws are the sine qua non for the evolution of IHL in the cyber context.


  1. Kathleen. (2006). A Guide to the Legal Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare. Geneva, Switzerland: International Committee of the Red Cross.
  2. Gisel, Laurent, Rodenhauser, Tilman, Dormann, Knut. (2020). Twenty years on: International humanitarian law and the protection of civilians against the effects of cyber operations during armed conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross 102(913), 289.
  3. Dinniss, H. H. (2008). The Status and Use of Computer Network Attacks in International Humanitarian Law. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2527/1/U615476.pdf.
  4. McGuinness, Damien. (2017). How a cyber attack transformed Estonia. Retrieved on May 20, 2021 from https://www.bbc.com/news/39655415.
  5. David, Hollis. (2011). Cyberwar Case Study: Georgia 2008. Small Wars Journals, 2.
  6. Swanson, Lesley. (2010). The Era of Cyber Warfare: Applying International Humanitarian Law to the 2008 Russian-Georgian Cyber Conflict. Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 32(2), 303.
  7. Tikk, E., Kaska, K., Vihul, L. (2010). International Cyber Incidents: Legal Considerations. Tallinn, Estonia: Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.
  8. Turns, David. (2012). Cyber Warfare and the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 17(2), 296.
  9. Beck, L. Doswald. (2002). Some Thoughts on Computer Network Attack and the International Law of Armed Conflict. International Law Studies 76.
  10. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2013). What Limits Does Law of War Impose on Cyber Attacks? Retrieved on May 24, 2021 from https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/faq/130628-cyber-warfare-q-and-a-eng.htm.
  11. Droege, Cordula. (2012). Get Off My Cloud: Cyber Warfare, International Humanitarian Law, and the Protection of Civilians. International Review of Red Cross 94(886), 543.
  12. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2013). Cyber warfare and international humanitarian law: The ICRC's position. Retrieved on May 27, 2021 from https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/2013/130621-cyber-warfare-q-and-a-eng.pdf.
  13. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2015). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. (Report EN 32IC/15/11), 44. Retrieved on May 27, 2021 from file:///D:/32ic-report-on-ihl-and-challenges-of-armed-conflicts.pdf.
  14. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2016). International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross 97, 1427-8.
  15. Healey, Jason. (2012). Beyond Attribution: Seeking National Responsibility for Cyber Attacks. Washington, Atlantic Council, Issue Brief. Retrieved on May 29, 2021 from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/beyond-attribution-seeking-national-responsibility-in-cyberspace/.
  16. Assumpcao, Clara. (2020). The Problem of Cyber Attribution Between States. Retrieved on June 2, 2021 from https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/83271.
  17. Rid, Thomas, Buchanan, Ben. (2015). Attributing Cyber Attacks. Journal of Strategic Studies38(1), 5-6.
  18. Jastram, Kate, Quintin, Anne. (2011). The Internet in Bello: Cyber War Law, Ethics & Policy. Seminar Summary Report, 10. Retrieved on June 2, 2021 from https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/cyberwarfare-seminar-summary-complete.pdf.
  19. Singer, P. W., Friedman, Allan. (2014). Cyber Security and Cyberwarfare. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 73.
  20. McConnell, Mike. (2020). How to Win the Cyberwar We’re Losing. Retrieved on June 5, 2021 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022502493_pf.html.
  21. Tsagourias, Nicholas. (2013). Cyber Attacks, Self Defence and the Problem of Attribution. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 17, 229-44.
  22. Waxman, Mathew C. (2011). Cyber-Attacks and the Use of Force. Yale Journal of International Law 36, 421-59.
  23. Roscini, Macro. (2014). Cyber Operations and The Use of Force in International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 33-40.
  24. Healey, Jason. (2013). A Fierce Domain: Conflict in Cyberspace, 1986 to 2012. Cyber Conflict Studies Association, 265.
  25. Lin, Herbert. (2012). Cyber Conflict and International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 94(886), 515, 522.
  26. Spaight, J.M. (1924). Air Power and War Rights. London, UK: Longmans Green & Co., 31.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.