Journals / Alternatif Politika / 2020 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1

JUS AD BELLUM AND JUS IN BELLO IN CYBER WARS

SİBER SAVAŞLARDA JUS AD BELLUM VE JUS IN BELLO

Pages
172–203
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

To this end, in its attempt to contribute the existing literature, it discusses how norms are contested in instances of cyber wars/attacks with reference to the specific cases of Estonia, Georgia and Stuxnet.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The concept of war has been transforming since the Cold War period, and such transformation has been strengthened by “the war against terror” policy of the United States of America.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In light of this conceptual transformation, it is no longer argued that wars take place only between states.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To this end, in its attempt to contribute the existing literature, it discusses how norms are contested in instances of cyber wars/attacks with reference to the specific cases of Estonia, Georgia and Stuxnet.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The concept of war has been transforming since the Cold War period, and such transformation has been strengthened by “the war against terror” policy of the United States of America. In light of this conceptual transformation, it is no longer argued that wars take place only between states. New wars—which are asymmetric and do not have a limited war zone—have not changed traditional wars all together, instead, they have blurred the definitions and distinctions pertaining to traditional wars and added new concepts. The grey zones that have emerged due to these transformations have also led to the rise of new challenges and problems related to the implementation of the rules of international law. The normative evolution of international law and its implementations do not take place independently of international politics. In this vein, this article focuses on a question that has been underexplored especially in the International Relations literature, namely the applicability of jus ad bellum and jus in bello in new wars through the lenses of contestation theory. To this end, in its attempt to contribute the existing literature, it discusses how norms are contested in instances of cyber wars/attacks with reference to the specific cases of Estonia, Georgia and Stuxnet.

Özet

Savaş kavramı, Soğuk Savaş dönemiyle birlikte dönüşmeye başlamış, yakın dönemde de Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin güttüğü “teröre karşı savaş politikası” ile bu durum perçinlenmiştir. Bu kavramsal dönüşüm çerçevesinde savaşların sadece devletler arasında gerçekleştiği artık düşünülmemektedir. Karakter olarak asimetrik ve genellikle sınırlı bir savaş alanından yoksun olan yeni savaşlar geleneksel savaşı tamamen değiştirememiş fakat geleneksel savaşlardaki tanımları ve ayırımları bulanıklaştırmış ve yeni kavramlar eklemiştir. Kavramsal dönüşümler ve yeni özellikler çerçevesinde ortaya çıkan yeni gri alanlar, uluslararası hukukun mevcut kuralları ve uygulanması açısından bazı zorlukları ve/veya sorunları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Ne var ki, uluslararası hukukun normatif gelişimi ve uygulamaları uluslararası politikadan bağımsız bir şekilde gerçekleşmemektedir. Bu çerçevede, bu makalede özellikle Uluslararası İlişkiler literatüründe az çalışılmış bir konu olan yeni savaşlarda jus ad bellum ve jus in bello prensiplerinin uygulanabilirliği siber savaşlar/saldırılar özelinde irdelenmekte ve Estonya, Gürcistan ve Stuxnet vakaları üzerinden literatürdeki örneklerinden farklı olarak “karşı çıkma kuramı” çerçevesinde tartışılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖKÇER, O., ERCAN, P. G. (2020). JUS AD BELLUM AND JUS IN BELLO IN CYBER WARS. Alternatif Politika, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1, 172–203. https://ajindex.com/articles/141731

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Allenby, Braden R. (2014), “Are New Technologies Undermining the Laws of War?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 70 (1): 21-31.
  2. Baker-Beall, Christopher (2014), “The evolution of the European Union’s ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse: Constructing the terrorist ‘other’”, Cooperation and Conflict, 49 (2): 212-238.
  3. Barnard-Willis, David ve Debi Ashenden (2012), “Virtual Space: Cyber War, Cyber Terror, and Risk”, Space and Culture, 15 (2): 110-123.
  4. Bassiouni, Cherif M. (2008), “The New Wars and the Crisis of Compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict by Non-State Actors”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98 (3): 711-810.
  5. Birleşmiş Milletler (1945), Birleşmiş Milletler Antlaşması ve Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Statüsü, https://www.ombudsman.gov.tr/contents/files/6535501- Birlesmis-Milletler-Antlasmasi.pdf (29.11.2019). Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu (BMGK), (14 Aralık 1974), “Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly”, Karar 3314 (XXIX). Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu (BMGK) (30 Temmuz 2010), “Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security”, A/65/201. Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu (BMGK) (24 Haziran 2013), “Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security”, A/68/98. Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu (BMGK) (22 Temmuz 2015), “Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security”, A/70/174. Brenner, Joel F. (2013), “Eyes wide shut: The growing threat of cyber attacks on industrial control systems”, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 69 (5): 15-20.
  6. Cavelty, Myriam Dunn ve Victor Manuer (2010), The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies (New York: Routledge). Charmatz, Jan P. ve Harold M. Witt (1953), “Repatriation of Prisoners of War and the 1949 Geneva Convention”, Yale Law Journal, 62 (3): 391-415.
  7. Choucri, Nazli (2000), Cyberpolitics in International Relations: Context, Connectivity and Content (Cambridge: MIT Press). Choucri, Nazli ve Daniel Goldsmith (2012), “Lost in Cyberspace: Harnessing the Internet, International Relations, and Global Security”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68 (2): 70-77.
  8. Clapper, James R. (2016), “Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/SASC_Unclassified_