No abstract

That states are subject to an obligation to prevent their cyber infrastructure from being used in a manner injurious to the international legal rights of other states is well established in customary international law. This obligation imposes a dual duty upon states. The first duty is an obligation of result insofar as it requires states to implement the laws and institutions necessary to prevent and punish malicious cyber conduct emanating from their territory, although international law confers upon states a wide margin of appreciation in deciding the design and content of such measures. The second duty is an obligation of conduct in the sense that where a threat emanates from their cyber infrastructure and states have (actual or constructive) knowledge of that threat they must act reasonably in utilising their capacity and resources to suppress it. What is reasonable in the circumstances will depend upon various factors operating at the time such as the resources available to the state and the risks involved in the particular activity. Taken together, these duties construct an international legal obligation which offers states a certain degree of protection from malicious transboundary cyber conduct committed by non-state actors. However, the conclusion of an international treaty or several international treaties dealing with specific cyber threats will be crucial to achieving a secure cyberspace.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper will suggest that since the end of the Cold War liberal states have instituted a new regime of international relations and of international peace and security in particular. Historically, legitimate statehood could be situated virtually exclusively within international society; in their international relations all states subscribed to a common normative standard which regarded all states qua states as legitimate sovereign equals irrespective of the political constitution that they endorsed. With the end of the Cold War, however, an international community of liberal states has formed within international society which considers only those states that respect the liberal values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law as legitimate. Non-liberal states are not only denigrated as illegitimate but more significantly they are stripped of their previously held sovereign status where international community, motivated by the theory that international peace and security can only be achieved in a world composed of exclusively liberal states, campaigns for their liberal transformation. Finally, it will be suggested that despite the disagreement between liberal states over the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 international community survives, and thus its (antagonistic) relationship with non-liberal states continues to provide a useful method for theorising international peace and security in the contemporary world order.