No abstract

This Chapter explores the policies outlined by Israel and Iran concerning the application of international law to cyberspace, in a quest to understand if there is some form of a Middle-Eastern approach to the topic. The Chapter demonstrates how Iran and Israel intertwine their security and military interests with their legal perspectives. The Chapter reveals that Israeli policy reflects its self-perception as a technologically advanced State that is part of the dominant camp, composed mostly of Western States. As for Iran, its position is affected from its experience with sanctions, which creates a sense of unfairness, leading Iran to push for promotion of new international law instruments that will regulate this new and constantly developing field, unlike Israel which prefers application of existing international laws to cyberspace. The Chapter also suggests, more generally, that clearer international law rules could settle questions such as the required standard of proof for attribution, or the procedure through which a State can make a claim of attribution. They could also incentivise States to cooperate in international efforts, encourage them to accept restraint in cross-border cyber operations, and to exercise prudence in their own territory. It can also serve as an important chilling factor. States that have outlined their legal position, such as Israel and Iran, have taken a first step – but this is not enough. As such, declarations by States should be a leverage in this direction rather than a move in a different one.

This article discusses the military campaign against the ‘Islamic State’ (Daesh) in an attempt to illustrate the gaps in the international legal framework that regulates the use of force in dealing with a challenge such as that presented by the Islamic State. This case study was demanding given the need to reconcile state-centred rules with a diverse reality which includes several players, and particularly non-state armed groups in control of territory and population. In order to deal with this issue, the article proposes the invocation of a functional approach, compared with a binary approach, which is suitable in cases where several players exercise power in the same territory. In particular, it suggests that the Islamic State could have been treated functionally as a state for the purposes of self-defence or collective security measures, rather than invoking legal doctrines of unclear status that might result in undermining the international legal system they are invoked to protect.

No abstract