Cyber Law and the Tallinn Manual 2.0

The desire for mankind to become more interconnected has posed a multitude of new legal issues that cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Internationally, cyber topics have gained notoriety as humanity has developed new technologies used in the cyber realm. The cyber world is rampant with reports of child pornography, human-trafficking, and child grooming. There are an abundance of computer crimes like purchasing anonymous credit cards, bank accounts, encrypted telephones, and false passports, or identify theft. And these are only increasing in frequency as humans become more technologically interconnected. Even more concerning to some is the threat of the takeover of information networks and computers through cyberspace to execute acts of terrorism.

The legality of many issues within cyberspace are undefined and uncertain when compared to other international legal practice areas. In fact, common definitions for many cyber terms are malleable like: cyber security, cybercrimes, cyber defense, cyberattacks, and cyber warfare. As this field develops, there have even been disagreements about the proper terms themselves. The biggest questions surround the lack of a unique international legal framework to identify what is and is not acceptable behavior in cyberspace.

The Tallinn Manual, written by a group of international experts, examines how international law applies to cyber conflicts and cyber warfare. The project was initiated by the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence though it does not represent the views of the Centre, the sponsoring nations, or NATO. The Tallinn Manual focuses particularly on jus ad bellum and international humanitarian law. Jus ad bellum, the law of wars, are those ‘rules’ to consult before engaging in war, whereas international humanitarian law focuses on jus in bello, the limitations to acceptable wartime behavior. The scope of the Tallinn Manual also touches on related subjects such as the law of state sovereignty, and the law of sea within the context of cyber topics.

The excitement for this practice area comes with the expected release of the Tallinn Manual 2.0. This second edition is planned to focus on providing guidance on applying existing international norms to the cyber context, similar to the first Tallinn Manual. However, it will expand the scope considered in the original Tallinn Manual and it will address cyber issues during peacetime international law. The focus here will be the challenges of daily cyber operations that do not rise to the level of armed attacks. It will touch on related subjects such as State responsibility, the law of the sea, international telecommunications law, space law, diplomatic and consular law, and human rights law within the context of cyber topics.

The Director of both editions is Professor Michael Schmitt, a Senior Fellow at the Centre, from the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI, and the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. Professor Schmitt is an international law scholar, with a long list of accolades and contributions to international law.

The Tallinn Manual 2.0 is expected to be released in the latter part of 2016.

What Steve Jobs Taught Me About Brexit

When Britain ended its economic ties with the European Union, I found myself unabashedly ill with rage. Why? Because I believe this decision was made without vision as to what the future of the UK will and should be. Severance was done without any regard for what consequences lie in wait. People were afraid of immigration and terrorism and convulsed in stupendous confusion by lashing out involuntarily at a symbol of internationalism: the EU. Leaving the EU was a nationalist, reactionary move made from fear, not a move following a thoughtful mission pursuing a clear vision, as demonstrated by the British public’s frantic Google searches asking “what is the EU” just hours after the vote was concluded. This is not to diminish the massive policy challenges that Britain faces from either immigration or terrorism, but rather to emphasize the massive economic and geopolitical ramifications of this sudden, ill-understood severance. What, for example, will become of Britain’s farmers who received £2.4 billion pounds in subsidies last year?  This should serve as a reminder of what may lie in wait for the U.S. electorate should it be swayed by similarly misguided rhetoric.

I think this move was made by people Steve Jobs would have described, as he did in his famous Stanford speech, as people whose values are “old and need to be washed away.” This has nothing to do with age. This has everything to do with vision. As Jobs goes on to describe, these conservative separatists are “trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking.” Populist conservatives and their followers are trapped by the rhetorical ignorance of nativism that plagued the 20th century repeatedly, and will follow us for the foreseeable future throughout the 21st. 

But what does this have to do with me? How does this play into my vision and my mission as a law student, as a writer, and as a United States citizen? 

My mission at this moment is to improve myself mentally, academically, and emotionally for the rigors of political life and change. My vision for the future is to help lead and inform a constituency of like-minded individuals into a future with dialogue, innovation, and equal opportunity for all.  When I leave law school and management school, I want to work for the State Department to gain experience with the realities of our international relations, using the skills I have gained to succeed there. After that work as a public servant, if I am so lucky, I would like the opportunity to serve as a policy-maker. I have a clear vision of what the future could be for me, and what I believe could bring about a better world for my country and humanity. I hope that by learning the realities of business and the law, by meeting more people who see that we must build coalitions among ourselves and other peoples, I can navigate the harsh realities with thoughtful mission to make it happen. 

Frankly, I cannot go quietly into a future knowing, as “Brexit” demonstrates, that it is still being so swayed by fear to accept ignorance of the negative externalities . It offends everything that previous generations have taught us through their follies and triumphs. World War I. World War II. The Holocaust. Genocide in Rwanda. Genocide in Bosnia. How can we face ISIS, those cowards and abusers of human dignity, when we still hold on to our unconscious reaction of “Let’s just think about us and forget our commitments to the rest of the world?”

We can’t. We simply cannot survive or afford to. That is why my mission is to become the best individual I can through my legal and management studies, so that I will be more capable to achieve whatever else we must to bring about our vision of a better world.

Steve Jobs wanted to make a dent in reality with his time here, and by all measures he did that with his all too brief time on this planet. One man was able to accomplish that through his intellect and courage to go forth purposefully. Imagine what we could all do, if we took that same Jobsian challenge together. What a wonderful world this could be. As Jobs said, “Remember we are all going to die, so we have nothing to lose.” So let’s give it shot and make a dent not for profit, not for fame, but for each other, for our kids, and for a better tomorrow.

Property Rights In Outer Space

The final frontier is wilder than the Old West. Beyond the sheer awe of vast and seemingly endless space—who would own property in space?

The classic legal answer: is that it depends. And it depends precariously on the intricacy and interpretation of treaties and international principles established years ago.

The Outer Space Treaty—the main legal authority on space law—provides the international community with guidelines on expected national behavior in space. The treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967. The United States Department of State describes it as the second ever non-armament treaty. And the treaty says that outer space—including celestial bodies and the moon—is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. Rather, this treaty purports to treat outer space exploration as the “province of all mankind.”

Some scholars have interpreted this language to assert that all extraterrestrial property rights are banned by the Outer Space Treaty. Others argue that the non-appropriation provision of the Outer Space Treaty applies only to national governments and therefore private parties are implicitly allowed to claim property. If true, imagine the door to the final frontier wide open for private companies to walk through and claim title and ownership to celestial bodies.

Just last year, Rosetta, a European Space Agency space probe was the first to orbit a comet. Its lander module, Philae, made the first successful soft landing on a comet nucleus on November 12, 2015. The lander will drill into the surface, collect data on its composition, and observe critical changes to the comet as it approaches the sun.

Alongside the striking reality that the vast unknown is slowly becoming more known, is the certainty that outer space is prime to become the next place for commercial exploration and expansion.

There has been a lot of privately funded movement to go to space—for more reasons than just scientific exploration. For instance, Virgin Galactic founded by Richard Branson expects to provide leisure travel to the highest reaches to paying tourists on regularly scheduled spaceflights. Spaceport America, a government built spaceport, is a connected development, built in the desert of New Mexico, hosting both: Virgin Galactic and SpaceX. SpaceX led by CEO Elon Musk has already completed contracts with NASA delivering payloads of crew supplies, station hardware and science experiments to and from the International Space Station. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 has made successful landings, first in December 2015 on a landing pad at Cape Canaveral, then in April 2016 on a drone ship named “Of Course I Still Love You.” In May 2016, again the Falcon 9 successfully landed on the same drone ship, but under increased difficulty because of the increased speed during booster separation. Planetary Resources Inc., previously known as Arkyd Astronautics, and founded by multiple billionaire entrepreneurs, intends to expand Earth’s natural resource base with long-term plans to develop a robotic asteroid mining industry. In April 2015, a test satellite was launched and successfully transported into orbit, and thereafter deployed to the International Space Station.,

Considering these transitions in the motivations to develop the space industry and the ever developing technological advances, it seems only a matter of time until the law must move forward to match the technology. However, for now the treaty interpretation debates are best left to legal academics, because the technology for private companies to venture into outer space and establish commercial enterprises is not quite there. Certainly with the recent technological strides, like a space probe orbiting and descending its module onto a moving celestial body, the idea of property ownership in space becomes thought provoking. It is cutting edge and an achievement that will likely change the perspective of comets, asteroids, and planets in the final frontier for many.

 

-Felicia Carboni