The Concept of Cybertort and Liability in International Law

The digitalization of social relations not only simplifies life, but also creates the ground for an increase in the number of offences in cyberspace, including those involving subjects of international law. Victimized countries often resort to the use of disproportionate measures against offending States using traditional instruments of international law. In addition, the lack of optimal means of responding to low-intensity cyber-interference is ineffective. Having considered the main mechanisms and complexities faced by international law when states inflict harm through digital technologies, the authors propose a private law concept of cybertort, the use of which, on the one hand, makes it possible to eliminate the consequences of ex post violations and, on the other hand, does not lead to an escalation of the existing conflict. In describing the problems of interstate interaction, the auxiliary nature of the use of private legal tools is emphasized. Using both systemic and comparativist methods of research, the authors reveal the essence and legal consequences of the variable qualification of an act as an offense (state responsibility) or an act not prohibited by international law (state liability), as well as substantiate the need to apply a flexible system of legal regulation to the law of causing harm on the Internet. Using the critical method, the shortcomings of the modern doctrine of international law in the considered context are revealed. Using the deductive method, with reference to Russian and foreign doctrinal sources, legal acts, as well as judicial practice, an optimal regime of liability for an offence in the digital environment is proposed, which creates appropriate incentives to improve the methods of cyber-interference.

1. Belykh V.S., Puchkov V.O. (2020). Kontseptsiya kiberdelikta (Cybertort) v anglo-amerikanskom prave [The Cybertort Concept in the Anglo-American law]. Yurist. No. 10. P. 2–11.

2. Cartier M. (2007). Begriff der Widerrechtlichkeit nach Art. 41 OR. Dissertation der Universität St. Gallen, Hochschule für Wirtschafts-, Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaften (HSG) zur Erlangung der Würde eines Doktors der Rechtswissenschaft. Nr. 3287. Eschen. S. 198.

3. Chircop L. (2018). A Due Diligence Standard of Attribution in Cyberspace // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 67. No. 3. P. 643–668. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589318000015

4. Crootof R. (2018). International Cybertorts: Expanding State Accountability in Cyberspace. Cornell Law Review. Vol. 103. No. 3. P. 565–644.

5. Dam C. van (2013). European Tort Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 656 p.

6. Duranske B.T. (2008). Virtual Law: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Virtual Worlds. Chicago: ABA Publishing. 461 p.

7. Finnis J. (2016). Absolute Rights: Some Problems Illustrated. The American Journal of Jurisprudence. Vol. 61. No. 2. P. 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auw015

8. Fitzmaurice M. (2008). International Responsibility and Liability. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnee, E. Hey. (eds.). Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 1010–1035. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199552153.013.0044

9. Gadzhiev G.A. (2018). Printsip ravnogo pravonadeleniya i paritetnoy (elastichnoy) pravovoy zashchity [The Principle of Equal Entitlement and Parity (Elastic) Legal Protection]. Civil Law: Modern Problems of Science, Legislation, Practice: Collection of Articles for the Anniversary of Doctor of Law, Professor Evgeny Alekseevich Sukhanov. Moscow: Statut. P. 132–150.

10. Garkusha-Bozhko S.Y. (2021). Problema kibershpionazha v mezhdunarodnom gumanitarnom prave [The Problem of Cyber Espionage in International Humanitarian Law]. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 1. P. 70–80. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2021-1-70-80

11. Gill T.D. (2013). Non-Intervention in the Cyber Context. In: K. Ziolkowski. (ed.). Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace International Law, International Relations and Diplomacy. Tallinn: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. P. 217–238.

12. Gross O. (2015). Cyber Responsibility to Protect: Legal Obligations of States Directly Affected by CyberIncidents. Cornell International Law Journal. Vol. 48. P. 481–511.

13. Hathaway O. et al. (2012). The Law of Cyber-Attack. California Law Review. Vol. 100. No. 4. P. 817– 885.

14. Inozemtsev M.I. (2021). Tsifrovoe pravo: v poiskakh opredelennosti [Digital Law: the pursuit of certainty]. Digital Law Journal. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 8–28. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-1-8-28

15. Jansen N. (2002). Das Problem der Rechtswidrigkeit bei § 823 Abs. 1 BGB. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis. Bd. 202. S. 517–554.

16. Kozheurov Y.S. (2016). Differentsiatsiya mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti: tendentsii i perspektivy [Differentiation of International responsibility: the trends and prospects]. In: K. A. Bekyasheva. (ed.). The Future of International Law: Collection of Articles. Moscow: Prospekt. P. 166–178.

17. Koziol H. (2016). Gibkaya sistema – zolotaya seredina v zakonodatel'stve i doktrine [Flexible System – Golden Mean in Legislation and Doctrine]. Herald of Civil Law. No. 6. P. 246–267.

18. Koziol H. (2017). Das bewegliche System – die golden Mitte für Gesetzgebung und Dogmatik. Austrian Law Journal. Bd. 3. S. 160–182.

19. Lubin A. (2018). Cyber Law and Espionage Law as Communicating Vessels. In: T. Minárik, R. Jakschis, L. Lindström (eds.). Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, CyCon X: Maximising Effects. 2018. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publications. P. 203–226.

20. Lukashuk I.I. (2005). Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Osobennaya chast': Uchebnik dlya studentov yurid. fak. i vuzov [International Law. Special Part: A textbook for law students]. 3rd ed., rev. and exp. Moscow: Walters Kluwer. 517 p.

21. Maras M.-H. (2017). Cybercriminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 448 p.

22. Martens F.F. (1882). Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe pravo tsivilizovannykh narodov [Modern International Law of Civilized Peoples]. Saint Petersburg: Ministerstvo Putey Soobshcheniya. 419 p.

23. Maurer T. (2018). Cyber Mercenaries: The State, Hackers, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 266 p.

24. Murphy J. (2019). Heterogeneity of Tort Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 455– 482. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqz008

25. Nipperdey H.C. (1957). Rechtswidrigkeit, Sozialadäquanz, Fahrlässigkeit, Schuld im Zivilrecht. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift. Bd. 10. S. 1777–1782.

26. Pirker B. (2013). Territorial Sovereignty and Integrity and the Challenges of Cyberspace. In: K. Ziolkowski. (ed.). Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace International Law, International Relations and Diplomacy. Tallinn: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. P. 189–289.

27. Pozner R.A. (2020). Rubezhi teorii prava [Frontiers of the Theory of Law]. Мoscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. 482 p.

28. Rusinova V.N. (2022). Mezhdunarodno-pravovaya kvalifikatsiya vredonosnogo ispol'zovaniya informatsionno-kommunikatsionnykh tekhnologiy: v poiskakh konsensusa [International Legal Qualification of the Harmful Use of Information and Communication Technologies: in search of consensus]. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 1. P. 38–51. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2022-1-38-51

29. Rustad M.L. (2009). The Role of Cybertorts in Internet Governance. In: D. Campbell. The Comparative Law Yearbook of International Business. Vol. 31. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. P. 391–419.

30. Savel'eva L.V. (1996). Problema ob"ektivnoн otvetstvennosti v mezhdunarodnom prave [The problem of objective liability in international law]. PhD thesis. Мoscow. 180 p.

31. Shackelford S., Russell S., Kuehn A. (2016). Unpacking the International Law on Cybersecurity Due Diligence: Lessons from the Public and Private Sectors. Chicago Journal of International Law. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 1–50. URL: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1700& context=cjil

32. Shaw M. (2021). International Law. 9th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1308 p.

33. Schmitt M. (2015). In Defense of Due Diligence in Cyberspace. Yale Law Journal Forum. No. 68. P. 68–81.

34. Sinitsyn S.A., Diakonova M.O., Chursina T.I. Smart-kontrakty v cifrovoj ekonomike: dogovornoe regulirovanie i razreshenie sporov [Smart-Contracts in the digital economy: Contractual regulation and dispute resolution]. Tsifrovoe pravo. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 40–50. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136- 2021-2-4-40-50

35. Stepanov S.K. (2021). Dekonstruktsiya pravosub"ektnosti ili mesto iskusstvennogo intellekta v prave [Deconstruction of the Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence]. Digital Law Journal. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 14–30. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-2-14-30

36. Sucharitkul S. (1996). State Responsibility and International Liability Under International Law. The Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. Vol. 18. P. 821–840.

37. Suhanov E.A. (2021). O grazhdansko-pravovoy prirode tsifrovogo imushchestva [On the Civil Law Nature of Digital Property]. Herald of Civil Law. Vol. 21. No. 6. P. 7–29.

38. Uerta de Soto H. (2008). Sotsializm, ekonomicheskiy raschet i predprinimatel'skaya funktsiya [Socialism, Economic Calculation, and the Entrepreneurial Function]. Moscow; Chelyabinsk: IRISEN; Socium. 488 p.

39. Schmitt M.N. (ed.) (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Prepared by the International Groups of Experts at the Invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 598 p. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/9781316822524

40. Vylegzhanin A.N. (ed.). (2021). Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. V 2 chastyakh. Ch. 2: Uchebnik dlya vuzov [International Law. In 2 parts. Part 2: textbook for universities]. 4th ed. Moscow: Yurayt. 664 p.

41. Walton B.A. (2017). Duties Owed: Low-Intensity Cyber Attacks and Liability for Transboundary Torts in International Law. Yale Law Journal. Vol. 126. No. 5. P. 1460–1519.