South Korea has continually experienced malicious cyber operations, and their frequency and sophistication have been ramped up, raising concerns over threats posed to economic and social developments as well as the security of the country. Unfortunately, South Korea has not yet come up with strategies for an effective international response, thereby failing to deter potential malicious actors. Such failure is traced back to South Korea’s main challenges in response to malicious cyber operations: attribution challenges and high political costs of unilateral countermeasures. In this context, the EU’s collective retorsion regime comprised of lawful but unfriendly acts as a means of response against malicious cyber operations may offer useful insights for South Korea’s cybersecurity policies. This chapter develops the argument that South Korea should seek cooperation with the EU to build a framework for collectively imposing proportionate costs on malicious cyber actors, a collective retorsion framework.
Anzeige
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.
In this chapter, “cyber operation” means the employment of cyber capabilities to achieve objectives in or through cyberspace, as proposed in the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Michael N. Schmitt (ed.), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, (Cambridge University Press, 2017), 564.
The US Department of Justice, “Six Russian GRU Officers Charged in Connection with Worldwide Deployment of Destructive Malware and Other Disruptive Actions in Cyberspace.” October 19, 2020; The UK, “UK exposes series of Russian cyber attacks against Olympic and Paralympic Games,” 19 October 2020.
Council of the EU, Council Conclusions on a Framework for a Joint EU Diplomatic Response to Malicious Cyber Activities (“Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox”), Brussels, 19 June 2017.
In addition to this legal aspect of attribution, there are also different concepts on attribution: technical attribution or political attribution. The Netherlands, Letter of 5 July 2019 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the President of the House of Representatives on the international legal order in cyberspace, Appendix: International law in cyberspace, 2019.
Exercise by a state of enforcement jurisdiction in a foreign state is possible under the term of a treaty (to which both states are party) or other consent of the foreign state. Generally, mutual legal assistance is governed by multilateral or bilateral treaties on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
Budapest Convention, Article 32(b). On 28 May 2021, the Council of Europe approved the draft for the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence. Thomas Wahl, CoE Committee Adopts Draft on E-Evidence Protocol, accessed October 29, 2021, https://eucrim.eu/news/coe-committee-adopts-draft-on-e-evidence-protocol.
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters, 17 April 2018, COM(2018) 225 final; European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings, 17 April 2018, COM(2018) 226 final. Similarly, the US has introduced the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) to speed access to electronic evidence in March 2018.
So Jeong Kim and Sunha Bae, “Korean Policies of Cybersecurity and Data Resilience” in The Korean Way with Data, (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2021), 58.
States can exercise the right of self-defence to deter malicious cyber operations which have amounted to the level of armed attack in Article 51 of the UN Charter. See also Schmitt (ed.), Tallinn Manual 2.0, Rule 71. As to low-intensity cyber operations, see Michael N. Schmitt, ““Below the Threshold” Cyber Operations: The Countermeasures Response Option and International Law,” Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2014.
UNGA, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, UN Doc. A/68/98, 24 June 2013, para. 20; UNGA, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, UN Doc. A/70/174, 22 July 2015, para. 27; UNGA, Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security, UN Doc. A/76/135, 14 July 2021, para. 71(b). See also the chapter of JoonKoo Yoo.
Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State. There is an internationally wrongful act of a State if conduct (i) is attributable to the State and (ii) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of that State. ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10, (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001), Articles 1 and 2.
Council of the EU, Implementing guidelines for the Framework on a Joint EU Diplomatic Response to Malicious Cyber Activities, Brussels, 9 October 2017.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1127 of 30 July 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States, OJ L 246, 30.7.2020.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1537 of 22 October 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States, OJ L 351I, 22.10.2020. For a discussion on the cyber threat landscape, see Mason Richey’s chapter.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 of 17 May 2019 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States, OJ L 129I, 17.5.2019, 13–19.
Catherine Stupp, “Germany Seeks EU Sanctions for 2015 Cyberattack on Its Parliament,” The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2020; M Baumgartner, et al, “The Breach from the East,” Der Spiegel, 18 March 2018.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1127. According to the US Department of Justice, Chosun Expo is known as a North Korean government front company. U.S.A. v. PARK JIN HYOK, Criminal Complaint, United States District Court for the Central District of California, June 2018, 133.
Jeff Kosseff, “Retorsion as a Response to Ongoing Malign Cyber Operations,” in 2020 12th International Conference on Cyber Conflict 20/20 Vision: The Next Decade, eds. T. Jančárková, L. Lindström and M. Signoretti, I. Tolga, G. Visky (Tallinn: CCDCOE, 2020).
In order to take countermeasures, states should comply with several requirements under the law of state responsibility. Most of all, it is necessary to establish whether there is an internationally wrongful act, which requires attribution of acts to a state and a breach of an international obligation of that state. For more requirements, see ILC Draft Articles, Articles 49–54.
Even though it is not required to establish state attribution under international law in order to take measures of retorsion, states need to identify which actors conducted malicious cyber operations.
The EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox, Annex, para. 4. Paul Ivan, Responding to Cyberattacks: Prospects for the EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox, European Policy Centre (March 2019), 12.
Michael Reiterer, “The 10th anniversary of the EU-Korea Strategic partnership,” Journal of European Union Studies 56, (October 2020): 3–20. https://brussels-school.be/sites/default/files/SpecialContribution-MichaelReiterer%28EU%EC%97%B0%EA%B5%AC%2057%ED%98%B8%29.pdf