help
  1. Livecasts
  2. EU Cyber Direct
  3. Roundtable: Closing the international law gap

Roundtable: Closing the international law gap

International law is a critical element in the debate about stability and irresponsible state behaviour in cyberspace. Yet, only a handful of governments around the world have made their views on the application of international law in cyberspace known. The purpose of this session is to look at the ongoing initiatives undertaken by both research and policy communities to answer: Does international law matter and how can we close the existing gap linked to its application in cyberspace?

14 July 2020Online Webinar

The 'Closing the Gap' conference is organised by the EU Cyber Direct project together with 12 other institutions from around the world and in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belgium. The aim of the conference is to contribute to closing various gaps that underpin the debates about cyber-related issues: between scholars and practitioners, different generations of scholars (emerging talents and established researchers), disciplines (law, political science, international relations, economics, IT, media studies), sectors (government, private sector, academia, NGOs) and regions (Global South-North).

eu, cyber, issues, closing the gap

  • Q: From your national perspective, would instruments like the Budapest Convention provide a good starting point for the discussion about the new instrument in the Third Committee at the United Nations. (to Phu Nguyen)

  • EU Cyber Direct

    Q: For those experiencing problems with video or audio: the quality depends on your connection. The video will be available online after the session.

  • Maroi KOUKA

    Q: Same problem.

  • Benjamin

    CENS

    Q: Sorry I cannot hear Phu Nguyen clearly (to Phu Nguyen)

  • Anastasiya Kazakova

    Kaspersky

    Q: Thank you for a comprehensive overview of EU's key instruments in fighting cybercrime. While the Budapest Convention is indeed a crucial document on this matter, this still lacks a consensus from all states. Are there any negotiations (where the EU takes part) or plans to have them on cybercrime investigation and cooperation between states at the UN level ? (to Cathrin Bauer-Bulst)

  • Patryk

    EUISS

    Q: Q1: How can we bridge the gap between criminal law conversations and international law discussions when it comes to accountability of non-state actors? Q2: What are the main challenges ahead in the UN Third Committee discussions about a new cybercrime instrument? (to Cathrin Bauer-Bulst)

  • Joe Burton

    Universite libre de Bruxelles

    Q: There seems to be a preference to apply existing int law to cyber issues, even when the challenges and domain are every different. New conventions are not needed, so the argument goes, because we already have the laws in place. I really think this is constraining new agreements that could get states around the negotiating table and encourage them to buy in to new, more specific rules of the road. There also seems to be a general hostility among some states to any UN level governance - which I think is behind a lot of the general antagonism towards new legal frameworks. I'd be interested in any thoughts on these issues from the panelists. More specifically, how about an International Attribution Agency involving tech sector, lawyers, judges etc,. Attribution by national governments and intel agencies is broken (imho). Thanks!

  • Przemysław Roguski

    Jagiellonian University

    Q: I fully agree with your comment that not only state officials need capacity building, but also PIL scholars need better insight into the "real" issues and current discussions (and thumbs up for Duncan's comment on coding lessons for PIL lawyers and researches). So my question is: how to achieve that? (to Tatiana Jančárková)

  • EU Cyber Direct

    Q: The capacitybuilding efforts mentioned by Cathrin Bauer-Bulst https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/capacity-building-programmes

  • Tara Hairston

    Kaspersky

    Q: Agree that increased transparency regarding state views on applicability of international law in cyberspace will benefit all actors in this domain. Although international law obligations are the purview of states, the infrastructure used to conduct cyber operations is largely privately held. How can or should non-state actors engage in these conversations? (to Duncan Hollis)

  • Maroi Kouka

    PhD candidate - Paris 8

    Q: Hello, Topics are indeed interrelated. How is it possible to be exhaustive when discussing the application of legal concepts to the cyber context given the fragmentary nature of international law applicable to cyberspace ? Many thanks (to Michael Schmitt)

  • Aude Gery

    GEODE

    Q: How do you take into account into your courses on international law and the subsequent exercises related to its application the different interpretations of rules of international law adopted by States ? Isn’t there a risk with case studies to underestimate the different interpretations and the risk of conflict that might flow from them ? (to Michael Schmitt)

  • Q: When states attribute cyber-attacks why don't they cite specific rule or principle of international law that was violated? Why among 20+ UN GGE countries less than 10 have publicly stated how international law applies to cyber operations/space - why states seem cautions in doing so? (to Michael Schmitt)

  • Nathalie Van Raemdonck

    EUISS

    Q: the latest report of Duncan Hollis http://www.oas.org/en/sla/iajc/docs/CJI_doc_603-20_rev1_corr1_eng.pdf

  • Benjamin Ang (Singapore)

    Centre of Excellence for National Security, RSIS, Nanyang Technological University

    Q: Thank you very much for your capacity building work here in Singapore and ASEAN. What are some of key international law issues that you see we (Singaporean academics) should follow up with Singapore and ASEAN country diplomats / officials? (to Michael Schmitt)

  • EU Cyber Direct

    Q: Here is the Toolkit mentioned by Tania: https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Main_Page

  • EU Cyber Direct

    Q: Welcome all to this roundtable. Please use the Q&A tab for comments and questions.

About the Organiser

About the Organiser

EGMONT – The Royal Institute for International Relations is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. Drawing on the expertise of its own research fellows, as well as that of external specialists, both Belgian and foreign, it provides analysis and policy options that are meant to be as operational as possible.

About EU Cyber Direct

The EU Cyber Direct project supports EU cyber diplomacy efforts and consequently contributes to the development of a secure, stable and rules-based international order in cyberspace through extensive dialogues with strategic partner countries and regional/international organisations. EU Cyber Direct is funded by the European Commission under the Partnership Instrument, International Digital Cooperation project: Trust and Security in Cyberspace.

Recent Live Streams by EU Cyber Direct

List ws3
Small eu cyber direct logo EU Cyber Direct

International security and emergency response cooperation

17 September 2020
cyber, forum
List ws4
Small eu cyber direct logo EU Cyber Direct

Internationalising (critical) infrastructure and functions protection

17 September 2020
cyber, forum
List ps6
Small eu cyber direct logo EU Cyber Direct

New era of digital and cyber alliances

16 September 2020
cyber, forum