The aim of this paper is to evaluate and differentiate between the phenomena of cyberwarfare and information warfare, as manifestations of what we perceive as postmodern warfare. We describe and analyse the current examples of the use the postmodern warfare and the reactions of states and international bodies to these phenomena. The subject matter of this paper is the relationship between new types of postmodern conflicts and the law of armed conflicts (law of war). Based on ICJ case law, it is clear that under current legal rules of international law of war, cyber attacks as well as information attacks (often performed in the cyberspace as well) can only be perceived as "war" if executed in addition to classical kinetic warfare, which is often not the case. In most cases perceived "only" as a non-linear warfare (postmodern conflict), this practice nevertheless must be condemned as conduct contrary to the principles of international law and (possibly) a crime under national laws, unless this type of conduct will be recognized by the international community as a " war"proper, in its new, postmodern sense. KEYWORDSInternational law, law of war, cyber attacks, information attacks, postmodern warfare

Summary The phenomenon of geo-blocking is one of the new challenges of the digital era. Geo-blocking is a modern form of discrimination that differentiates between consumers on the basis of their geographical location. The phenomenon ultimately affects the situation of the citizen concerned and may also constitute an obstacle to the single market. Digital time has put a number of issues to be resolved on the legislator’s table in recent years, one of which is the phenomenon of geo-blocking. Already in 2015, the European Commission led by Juncker (2014–2019) adopted the Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, which marked the European Union’s (EU) path towards innovation by creating a new digital dimension of the Single Market. In order to achieve the DSM strategy and the digital objectives, a number of legislative acts have been put in place to address the elements of the DSM and exploit the benefits of technological modernisation. The geo-blocking phenomenon is presented in this study, partly in terms of practical aspects and partly with regard to the geo-blocking regulation. The Ursula von der Leyen-led Commission (2019–2024) identifies “a Europe fit for the digital age” among its six priorities. Among the priorities, the “promotion of a European way of life”, must be linked to the digital priorities, as our smart tools and our digital presence are becoming an integral part of our lives – and our common way of life – especially at this time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovation has also been accelerated by the current exceptional situation, the health emergency caused by COVID-19, forcing us to work remotely, remote contacts and the constant use of our smart tools. The realisation of digital well-being is therefore also an integral part of our lifestyle. In the intersection of digitalisation and development and the promotion of a common European way of life, we can find a single market in which we can experience a significant aspect of our European way of life – the free movements and cross-border transactions – even through our online presence. The internal market is the dimension for the proper functioning of which the Union institutions can adopt a legislative act. In addition, measures taken to remove barriers and remove obstacles are essential for the functioning of the internal market. Joint action against geo-blocking as an internal market barrier will also play a role in creating digital prosperity by promoting the proper functioning of the internal market by promoting e-commerce and electronic content access. The aim of the study on the one hand is to present issues related to geo-blocking in a brief and descriptive manner from the perspective of the social, economic and legal environment linked to the internal market. On the other hand, the study briefly presents the legal environment of geo-blocking in the USA, Russia, China and Japan.

Traditionally, the idea of a sovereign is being connected either with an absolutist ruler (later replaced by “the people”) at the national level, or the nation-state at the international level – at least in the conditions of the Westphalian system created in 1648. Today, on the contrary, we are witnessing a “post-” situation in many respects – post-modernism, post-positivism, but also post-statism – basically being a sort of return to the pre-Westphalian system (see Ondrej Hamuľák, “Lessons from the ‘Constitutional Mythology’ or How to Reconcile the Concept of State Sovereignty with European Integration,” DANUBE: Law, Economics and Social Issues Review Vol. 6, No. 2 (2015); or Danuta Kabat-Rudnicka, “Autonomy or Sovereignty: the Case of the European Union,” International and Comparative Law Review Vol. 20, No. 2 (2020)). However, paternalistic views, prevailing especially in times of crisis and uncertainty, desperately search for a sovereign to lead us from the crises. With regard to cyberattacks and insecurity in the cyberspace this means an effort to subordinate cyberspace to state sovereignty. Still, given the limitations of traditional state-based monopolies of power and legislation, the state as an “analogue sovereign” shrinks in the digital cyberspace rather to a co-sovereign, co-ordinator, or in feudal terms a “senior” vis-à-vis their vassals. The actual ensuring of the tasks of state as a “digital sovereign” is namely often being entrusted to non-state (essentially private-owned) entities, under the threat of legal sanctions. The current situation of constructing “digital sovereignty” of traditional states or of the EU is thus marked by the necessity of cooperation between the state power and those non-state entities which are falling under its analogue jurisdiction.

No abstract

Some recent views question the concept of sovereignty (especially the sovereignty of states), arguing that sovereignty is to be abandoned as a historical concept, because it existed in the world of the Westphalian system (created after 1648), where states were the major players, centers of power and objects of interest. Instead, we suggest that sovereignty should be perceived again as a “supreme power” (summa potestas), meaning a return to the pre-Bodinian concept of sovereignty and perceive it as a “power to exert control”. With regard to cyberspace, this does not mean direct control of all entities in the cyberspace, but only those that provide services which are perceived as “essential” or “critical” for the security and interests of the state. That is actually the approach taken with regard to ensuring the safety of 5G networks—through control imposed on the network operators, as required by the respective EU legislation and the EU Toolbox on 5G Networks specifically.