عنصر زمینه‌ای جنایات جنگی سایبری ناشی از رایاجنگ‌های مختل‌کننده‎ ‎در ‏پرتو سند مقررات تالین

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران‏

10.22059/jcl.2024.377469.634640

چکیده

افزایش رایاجنگ‌ها کاربست مقررات کیفریِ جنگ بر آنها را ناگزیر ساخته و این درحالی است که مقررات یادشده متناسب با جنگ‌های سنتی وضع شده‌اند و اعمال این مقررات بر رایاجنگ‌ها چالش‌برانگیز است. این چالش‌ها در تناسب با رایاجنگ‌های مختل‌کننده- که آثار فیزیکی ایجاد نمی‌کنند- در برابر رایاجنگ‌های تخریب‌گر، بیشتر است. بر این اساس، چگونگی احراز عنصر زمینه‌ای لازم برای وقوع جنایت جنگی، یعنی «وقوع مخاصمة مسلحانة سایبری»، ضروری است و پرسش اصلی این پژوهش است. برای پاسخ به این سؤال، با گردآوری داده‌ها از طریق منابع کتابخانه‌ای، از روش توصیفی- تحلیلی در پژوهش استفاده شده است. در این نوشتار دیدگاه‌های مخالفانِ تحقق مخاصمة مسلحانة سایبری از طریق رایاجنگ‌های مختل‌کننده، مورد واکاوی و پاسخ قرار می‌گیرد. سند مقررات تالین به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین سند بین‌المللی غیرالزام‌آور برای کاربست مقررات حقوق بین‌الملل در فضای سایبر، موضوع این مطالعة تطبیقی است. برآمدِ این پژوهش آن است که تأکید سند مقررات تالین بر لزومِ ایجاد آثار فیزیکی در نتیجة رایاجنگ‌ها برای تحقق معیار شدت، موجب بی‌کیفرمانیِ تعداد بسیاری از رایاجنگ‌های مختل‌کننده می‌شود که آثار آنها لزوماً کمتر از رایاجنگ‌های تخریب‌گر نیست و بر این اساس، پیشنهاد می‌شود که ضمن تأکید بر معیارهای سند مقررات تالین، دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی همسو با رویکردهای روزآمد، تفسیر معیار «شدت» را فارغ از لزومِ ایجاد آثار فیزیکی دنبال کند و برای احراز آن از ریزشاخص‌های مقیاس، ماهیت، روش ارتکاب، تأثیرگذاری، اختلال در زیرساخت‌های حیاتی و اوضاع و احوال ارتکاب استفاده نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Background element of cyber war crimes arising from disruptive cyber ‎warfares in the light of The Tallinn Manual

نویسندگان [English]

  • Bagher Shamloo
  • Mahdi Hosseini
Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, ‎Tehran, Iran‎
چکیده [English]

The increase of cyber wars has made the application of criminal war regulations on them inevitable, and this is while the said regulations have been established in accordance with traditional wars and it is challenging to apply these regulations to cyber wars. The aforementioned challenges are proportionately greater for disruptive warfare that does not create physical effects -versus destructive cyber warfare-. Based on this, how to determine the background element necessary for the occurrence of a war crime, that is, "occurrence of cyber armed conflict", is necessary and is the main question of this research. To answer this question, by collecting data through library sources, descriptive-analytical method is used in the research. The opinions of the opponents of the implementation of cyber armed conflict through disruptive cyber warfare are analyzed and answered. The Tallinn Manual as the most important non-binding international document for the application of international law regulations in the cyberspace, is the subject of a comparative study. The result of this research is that the emphasis of the Tallinn Manual on the necessity of creating physical effects as a result of cyber wars to fulfill the Severity criterion, causes the impunity of a large number of disruptive cyber wars whose effects are not necessarily less than destructive cyber wars. on this basis, it is suggested that, while emphasizing the criteria of the Tallinn Manual, the International Criminal Court to follow the severity criterion, regardless of the need to create physical effects, in line with modern approaches And to verify it, use the micro-indicators of scale, nature, method of committing, influence, disturbance in vital infrastructures and circumstances of committing.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cyber war crime
  • ‎disruptive cyber war
  • ‎ The Tallinn Manual
  • ‎ cyber armed conflict
  • ‎ Severity criterion.‎

مراجع

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. برادران، نازنین و حبیبی، همایون (1398). قابلیت اعمال قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل بشردوستانه در جنگ‌های سایبری. مطالعات حقوق عمومی، 49 (1)، 139-158.
    2. شایگان، فریده و صفوی کوهساره، سیدحامد (1397). عملیات سایبری به‌مثابة توسل به زور. مطالعات حقوق عمومی، 48 (2)، 419-441.
    3. شریفی طرازکوهی، حسین و برمکی، جعفر (1399). چالش‌های حقوقی قابلیت‌های فضای سایبری در پرتو مادة 36 پروتکل یکم الحاقی 1977. مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، (62)، 119-
    4. صابر، محمود و صادقی، آزاده (1394). بررس معیار آستانة شدت برای تعقیب جنایات در دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی؛ با نگاهی بر دیگر داد‌گاه‌های بین‌المللی. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 6 (2)، 627-650.
    5. عباسی، مجید و مرادی، حسین (1394). جنگ سایبر از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل بشردوستانه. مجلس و راهبرد، 22 (81)، 37-68.
    6. فقیه حبیبی، علی (1395). جنگ مدرن و تخاصمات سایبری در چارچوب فضای بین‌الملل. جستارهای سیاسی معاصر، 7 (19)، 115-144.
    7. کیهانلو، فاطمه و رضادوست، وحید (1394). حملات سایبری به‌مثابة توسل به زور در سیاق منشور سازمان ملل متحد. تحقیقات حقوقی، (69)، 193-208.
    8. محقق هرچقان، علیرضا؛ اردبیلی، محمدعلی؛ بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ و مهدوی ثابت، محمدعلی (1401). اثربخشی دستورالعمل تالین 2017 میلادی بر صلاحیت دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی در ایجاد صلح و امنیت سایبری بین‌المللی. آموزه‌های حقوق کیفری، 19 (23)، 296-269.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Akande, Dapo and Hollis, Duncan (2020). The Oxford Process on International Law Protections in Cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed https://www.elac.ox.ac.uk/the-oxford-process/.
    2. Ambos, Kai (2015). International Criminal Responsibility in Cyberspace. in Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace. Edited by Nicholas Tsagourias & Russell Buchan. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    3. Bond, James (1996). Peacetime Foreign Data Manipulation As One Aspect of Offensive Information Warfare: Questions of Legality Under the United Nations Charter Article 2(4). Naval war college.
    4. Brownlie, Ian (1963). International Law and the Use of Force by States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    5. Bussolati, N. (2015). The Rise of Non-State Actors in Cyberwarfare. in Cyberwar: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts. Edited by JD Ohlin, K Govern and C Finkelstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    6. Corten, Olivier (2012). The Law against War - The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
    7. Delerue F (2020). Cyber Operations and International Law: Cambridge University Press.
    8. Dinniss, H. Harrison (2012). Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    9. Droege, C. (2012). Get Off My Cloud: Cyber Warfare, International Humanitarian Law and the Protection of Civilians. IRRC: Volume 94.
    10. Greenwood, C. (2008). Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law. in The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. edited by D Fleck. 2nd edn: Oxford University Press.
    11. Hollis, Duncan B. (2008). New Tools, New Rules: International Law and Information Operations. In THE MESSAGE OF WAR: INFORMATION, INFLUENCE AND PERCEPTION IN ARMED CONFLICT. Edited by G. David and T. McKeldin: Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper.
    12. Kerschischnig, Georg (2012). Cyberthreats and International Law. Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
    13. Lubin, A. (2021). The Rights to Privacy and Data Protection Under International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. In Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Further Reflections and Perspectives. Edited by R Kolb, G Gaggioli and P Kilibarda: Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
    14. Myjer, Eric (2015). Some Thoughts on Cyber Deterrence and Public International Law. in: Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace. Edited by Nicholas Tsagourias and Russell Buchan. Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. O’Connell, Mary Ellen (2013). The Prohibition of the Use of Force. in Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum. Edited by Christian Henderson and Nigel White. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Radziwill, Yaroslav (2015). Cyber-Attacks and the Exploitable Imperfection of International Law. Leiden: Brill & Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    17. Roscini, Marco (2014). Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    18. Schabas, William A. and El Zeidy, Mohamed M. (2016). ‘Article 17’. in: The Statute of the International Criminal Court, A Commentary. Edited by Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    19. Schmitt, Michael N. (A) (2013). Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    20. Schmitt, Michael N. and Vihul, Liis (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    21. Sharp, Walter Gray (1999). Cyberspace and the Use of Force. Virginia: Aegis Research Corp.

     

     

     

    • Articles
    1. Barkham, Jason (2001). Information Warfare and International Law on the Use of Force. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. 34 (57), 57-113.
    2. Bijleveld, A. (2018). Keynote Address, Diplomacy and Defence in Cyber Space. cyber seminar in 20 June 2018, accessed 2 May 2024. https://english.defensie.nl/downloads/speeches/2018/06/21/keynote-address-by-the-minister-of-defence-ms.-ank-bijleveld-marking-the-firstanniversary-of-the-tallinn-manual-2.0-on-the-20th-of-june-2018.
    3. Biller J.T. and Schmitt, M.N. (2019). Classification of Cyber Capabilities and Operations as Weapons, Means, or Methods of Warfare: International Law Studies, 95.
    4. Brown G. and Tullos O. (2012). On the Spectrum of Cyberspace Operations: Small Wars Journal, 12 Nov. 2012, accessed 2 May 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ?abstract_id=2400536.
    5. Buchan, R.J. (2014). The critical comments of Russell Buchan, ‘The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court’: Criminal Law Forum,
    6. Coleman, C. (2003). Securing Cyberspace – New Laws and Developing Strategies. Computer Law and Security Review. 19 (2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-3649(03)00208-5.
    7. Creekman, Daniel M. (2001). A Helpless America? An Examination of the Legal Options Available to the United States in Response to Varying Types of Cyber-Attacks from China. American University International Law Review. 17 (3), 641-681.
    8. Duncan, Hollis B. and Benthem, Tsvetelina van (2021). What Would Happen If States Started Looking at Cyber Operations as a “Threat” to Use Force?: LAWFARE, 30 March 2021, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-would-happen-if-states-started-looking-cyber-operations-threat-use-force.
    9. Frankel, Simon (2024). When AI Decides Who Lives and Dies, The Israeli military’s algorithmic targeting has created dangerous new precedents: Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/02/israel-military-artificial-intelligence-targeting-hamas-gaza-deaths-lavender/.
    10. Georgia, Beatty (2020). War crimes in cyberspace: prosecuting disruptive cyber operations under Article 8 of the Rome Statute. The Military Law and the Law of War Review. 58 (2), 209-239. https://doi.org/10.4337/mllwr.2020.02.17.
    11. Greenberg, A. (2023). The International Criminal Court Will Now Prosecute Cyberwar Crimes: Wired, 7 September 2023, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.wired.com/story/icc-cyberwar-crimes/.
    12. Hathaway, Oona A. (2022). To What Extent and Under What Conditions Might Cyber Operations or Cyberwarfare Constitute Crimes Specified in the Rome Statute?: ICC Forum. https://iccforum.com/cyberwar#Hathaway.
    13. Hern, A. (2017). WannaCry, Petya, NotPetya: how ransomware hit the big time in 2017: The Guardian. 30 December 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/30/wannacry-petya-notpetya-ransomware.
    14. Hoisington, Matthew (2009). Cyberwarfare and the Use of Force Giving Rise to the Right of Self-Defense. International & Comparative Law Review. 32, 439-454.
    15. Hoogh, André (2009). Georgia’s Short-Lived Military Excursion into South Ossetia: The Use of Armed Force and Self-Defence: ejiltalk. 9 December 2009, accessed 2 May 2024. www.ejiltalk.org/georgia’s-short-lived-military-excursion-into-southossetia-the-use-of-armed-force-and-self-defence/.
    16. Horowitz, J. (2020). Cyber Operations under International Humanitarian Law: Perspectives from the ICRC: American Society of International Law, 24, 19 May 2020.
    17. Joyner, Christopher C. and Lotrionte, Catherine (2001). Information Warfare as International Coercion: Elements of a Legal Framework. European Journal of International Law. 12 (5), 525-565, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/12.5.825.
    18. Karim A.A. Khan (2023). Technology Will Not Exceed Our Humanity: digitalfrontlines, 20 August 2023, accessed 2 May 2024. https://digitalfrontlines.io/2023/08/20/technology-will-not-exceed-our-humanity/.
    19. Kelsen, Hans (2001). Collective Security under International Law: International Law Studies, Naval War College and The Lawbook Exchange.
    20. Kelsey, J. (2008). Hacking into International Humanitarian Law: The Principles of Distinction and Neutrality in the Age of Cyber Warfare. Michigan Law Review. 106 (7), 1427-1452.
    21. Kilovaty, I. (2016). Virtual Violence – Disruptive Cyberspace Operations as “Attacks” Under International Humanitarian Law. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review. 23 (1), 113-147.
    22. Levie, HS. (1991). The Status of Belligerent Personnel “Splashed” and Rescued by a Neutral in the Persian Gulf Area". Virginia Journal of International Law. 31, 239-245.
    23. Li, S. (2013). When Does Internet Denial Trigger the Right of Armed Self-Defense?. Yale Journal International Law. 38, 179-216.
    24. Lin, Herbert S (2010). Offensive Cyber Operations and the Use of Force. Cybersecurity Symposium: National Leadership, Individual Responsibility. Journal of National Security Law & Policy. 4(1), 63-86.
    25. Milanovic, Marko and Schmitt, Michael N. (2020). Cyber Attacks and Cyber (Mis)information Operations during a Pandemic. Journal of National Security Law & Policy. 11, 247-284.
    26. Miller, K. (2014). The Kampala Compromise and Cyberattacks – Can There Be an International Crime of Cyber-Aggression?. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. 23, 217-260.
    27. O’Brien, Melanie (2012). Prosecutorial Discretion as an Obstacle to Prosecution of United Nations Peacekeepers by the International Criminal Court: Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10.
    28. Ophardt, J. (2010). Cyber Warfare and the Crime of Aggression: The Need for Individual Accountability on Tomorrow’s Battlefield. Duke Law & Technology Review. 9 (3), 1-28.
    29. Roscini, M. (2019). Gravity in the Statute of the International Criminal Court and Conduct that Constitutes, Instigates or Facilitates International Crimes: Criminal Law Forum, 30 (3), 247–272.
    30. Roscini, M. (2022). Cyber Operations Can Constitute War Crimes Under the ICC Jurisdiction Without Need to Amend the Rome Statute: ICC FORUM, 7 March 2022.
    31. Ruys, Tom (2014). The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?. American Journal of International Law. 108 (2), 159-210.
    32. Saxon, Dan (2016). Violations of International Humanitarian Law by Non-State Actors during Cyberwarfare: Challenges for Investigations and Prosecutions. Journal of Conflict and Security Law. 21 (8), 555-574. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krw018.
    33. Schabas, William A. (2008). Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the International Criminal Court: Journal of International Criminal Justice, 6.
    34. Scheffer, David (2022). Amending the Rome Statute to Cover Cyberwarfare as Aggression: ICC Forum, 7 Mar. 2022, accessed 2 May 2024. https://iccforum.com/cyberwar#Scheffer.
    35. Schmitt, Michael N (1998). Bellum Americanum: The U.S. View of TwentyFirst Century War and Its Possible Implications for the Law of Armed Conflict: Michigan Journal of International Law,  19.
    36. Schmitt, Michael N (2011). Cyber Operations and the Jus Ad Bellum Revisited. Villanova Law Review. 56, 569-605.
    37. Schmitt, Michael N (B) (2013). The Law of Cyber Warfare: Quo Vadis?: Stanford Law & Policy Review, 25, 269-299.
    38. Schmitt, Michael N. (1999). Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative Framework. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. 37, 885-937.
    39. Shackelford, Scott (2009). From Nuclear War to Net War: Analogizing Cyber Attacks in International Law: Berkley Journal of International Law, 27.
    40. Silver, Daniel B. (2002). Computer Network Attack as a Use of Force under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. International Law Studies. 76, 73-97.
    41. Trahan, J. (2022). Contributing to Cyber Peace by Maximizing the Potential for Deterrence: Criminalization of Cyberattacks under the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute. In: Cyber Peace, 131-153.
    42. Trahan, J. (2022). The Criminalization of Cyber-operations Under the Rome Statute: Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19 (5), 1133–1164.
    43. Tsagourias, Nicholas (2012). Cyber Attacks, Self-Defence and the Problem of Attribution: Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 17.
    44. Waxman, Matthew C. (2011). Cyber-Attacks and the Use of Force: Back to the Future of Article 2(4). Yale Journal of International Law. 36, 421-459.
    45. Ziolkowski, Katharina (2010). Computer Network Operations and the Law of Armed Conflict: Military Law and Law of War Review, 49.

     

    - Documents

    1. Dörmann, K. (2004). The Applicability of the Additional Protocols to Computer Network Attacks: An ICRC Approach. Stockholm: International Expert Conference on Computer Network Attacks and the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 19 November 2004, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/applicabilityofihltocna.pdf.
    2. Gisel, L. and Olejnik, L. (2019). The Potential Human Cost of Cyber Operations: ICRC, 29 May 2019, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/potential-human-costcyber-operations.
    3. ICC Decision (2007). The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, PTC I, 29 Jan. 2007.
    4. ICJ Reports (1949). Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), ICJ Reports 4.
    5. ICJ Reports (1996). Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports 226.
    6. Int’l. Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia (1995). Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-l, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Octoer .1995
    7. International Committee of the Red Cross (1977). Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 12 December, 1977.
    8. International Committee of the Red Cross (2011). International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts: ICRC position paper.
    9. International Committee of the Red Cross (2015). International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts: ICRC position paper.
    10. International Committee of the Red Cross (2016). Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
    11. International Committee of the Red Cross (2019). International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts: ICRC position paper.
    12. International Committee of the Red Cross (2019). International Humanitarian Law and Cyber Operations during Armed Conflicts: ICRC position paper. November 28, 2019, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ international-humanitarian-law-and-cyber-operations-during-armed-conflicts.
    13. Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the President of the House of Representatives on the International Legal Order in Cyberspace (2019), Appendix, July 5, 2019, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.government.nl/documents/parliamentary-documents/2019/09/26/letter-to-theparliament-on-the-international-legal-order-in-cyberspace.
    14. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (2009). Report of the International Fact-Finding Commission on the Conflict in Georgia: ceiig, accessed May 2, 2024. ceiig.ch/Report.html.
    15. Ministry of the Armies (2019). International Law Applied to Operations in Cyberspace: Ministère des Armées, 19 March 2019, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/567648/9770527/file/international+law+applied+to+operations+in+cyberspace.pdf.
    16. Morgan, J. (2014). A Simple Explanation of the Internet of Things: Forbes, 13 May 2014, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#69481bd01d09.
    17. Office of General Counsel (2015). United States Department of Defense Law of War Manual, 12 June 2015, updated December 2016, accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=797480.
    18. Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations (2021). The Council of Advisers’ Report on the Application of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to Cyberwarfare.
    19. Porup, JM. (2019). How a nuclear plant got hacked: CSO Online, 9 December 2019, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3488816/how-a-nuclear-plant-got-hacked.html.
    20. Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (2000). Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Addendum, add. Part II Finalized draft text of the Elements of Crimes, U.N. Doc. PCNIC/2000/1/Add.2.
    21. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). 17 July 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90.
    22. Schmitt, Michael N. (2019). France’s major statement on international law and cyber: an assessment. Just Security, 16 September 2019, accessed 2 May 2024. justsecurity.org/66194/frances-major-statement-on-international-law-and-cyber-an-assessment/.
    23. UN General Assembly Resolutions Tables (2003). Creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, UNGA Res 58/199, 23 December 2003.
    24. US White House, ‘Presidential Policy Directive -- Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience’, 2013, Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, available in: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidentialpolicy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil.
    25. Zetter, K. (2016). Inside the Cunning, Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine’s Power Grid: Wired, 3 March 2016, accessed 2 May 2024. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunning-unprecedentedhack-ukraines-power-grid/
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 15، شماره 2
پاییز و زمستان 1403
دی 1403
صفحه 601-636

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار