MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393091494 · doi:10.34190/iccws.19.1.1948

Recognising Cyber Blockades as Crimes Against Humanity: Can International Criminal Law Keep Up?

2024· article· en· W4393091494 on OpenAlex
Dora Vanda Velenczei

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsRegent College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrimes against humanityHumanityCriminal lawLawPolitical scienceCriminologyInternational lawWar crimePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of the heavily digitalised world on top of our increasing online presence and interconnectedness, states and civilian populations are becoming more and more vulnerable to cyber attacks. It is thus imperative to examine the dangers large scale cyber attacks pose with respect to their contribution to potential human suffering. As such, these large scale cyber attacks, especially a cyber blockade, may be able to constitute an international crime. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced at the Digital Front Lines conference that his office is willing to investigate cyber operations as potential war crimes given that they are capable of causing severe consequences akin to kinetic warfare. (Yoon Onn, 2023) This is the first significant step towards recognising the harmful effects of malicious cyber operations as international crimes. However, not only is the Rome Statute itself silent on cyber operations as potential international crimes, the ICC has not yet seen a case concerning malicious cyber activities as either a war crime or as a crime against humanity. As such, the central question the paper seeks to answer is whether the Rome Statute could potentially encompass cyber blockades as the crime against humanity of “other inhumane acts” under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute. The paper looks at crimes against humanity for three reasons: firstly, Karim Khan KC has already touched on cyber attacks potentially prosecuted as war crimes, as mentioned above, thus the knowledge gap is gradually being bridged with respect to war crimes. Secondly, there is an absence of any regulatory framework should a cyber blockade be unleashed in peacetime, where international humanitarian principles do not apply. Thirdly, establishing a cyber blockade as a crime against humanity would lead to greater individual criminal responsibility as opposed to a war crimes conviction. This, in turn, would send a strong deterrent message in both war and peace.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it