Les Cyberattaques Étatiques Constituent-Elles Des Actes D’Agression En Vertu Du Droit International Public?: Deuxième Partie (Do State-Sponsored Cyberattacks Qualify as Acts of Aggression in Public International Law?: Part Two)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La Charte des Nations Unies, redigee pour faire face aux dangers qu’impliquent les conflits de forte intensite, ne semble pas, de prime abord, pouvoir repondre aux defis juridiques que presentent l’avenement et le developpement fulgurant des nouvelles technologies. Les infrastructures informatiques etant devenues les points nevralgiques de nos societes modernes, les Etats sont desormais vulnerables a une nouvelle menace proteiforme et sournoise : la cyberattaque etatique. En effet, si la subversion et les conflits de basse intensite etaient les methodes privilegiees des grandes puissances pendant la Guerre froide, l’acquisition progressive de l’arme nucleaire par de plus en plus de pays a fait des cyberattaques etatiques l’outil parfait pour atteindre les memes objectifs d’hegemonie. A l’instar de la Guerre froide et ses conflits par pays interposes, assiste-t-on, de nouveau, a des violations insidieuses de la prohibition contre le recours a la force dans les relations internationales ?La premiere partie de cette analyse, publiee dans le numero precedent de ce volume, a aborde les enjeux poses par les cyberattaques etatiques en matiere de maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales. Cette seconde partie va examiner si une cyberattaque etatique peut etre qualifiee d’acte d’agression sur la base du cadre d’analyse fourni dans la Definition de l’agression de l’Assemblee generale des Nations Unies, celle-ci ayant connu un regain d’interet depuis que l’Assemblee des Etats Parties au Statut de la Cour penale internationale a decide de s’en servir comme fondement de la definition du nouveau crime d’agression.English Abstract: The Charter of the United Nations, drafted to address the perils of high intensity conflicts, does not seem, at first glance, capable of answering the legal challenges raised by the rapid conception and development of new technologies. Information technology infrastructures, having become the hotspots of our modern societies, have now rendered states vulnerable to a new protean and insidious threat: the state cyber-attack. Indeed, if subversion and low intensity conflicts were the chosen means of the great powers during the Cold War, the buildup of nuclear capabilities by more and more states has made state cyber-attacks the perfect tool to reach the same hegemonic ambitions. Just as the Cold War and its proxy conflicts, are we witnessing, once again, insidious violations of the prohibition on the use of force in international relations?The first section of this analysis, published in the preceding issue of this volume, discussed the issues raised by state cyberattacks with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. This second section will examine whether a state cyberattack qualifies as an act of aggression according to the the analytical framework provided by the General Assembly of the United Nations’ Definition of Aggression, the latter having benefited from renewed interest since the Assembly of State Parties to the Statute of the International Criminal Court decided to use it as the basis of the definition of the new crime of aggression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".