The International Criminal Court Will Now Prosecute Cyberwar Crimes (wired.com) 32
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: For years, some cybersecurity defenders and advocates have called for a kind of Geneva Convention for cyberwar, new international laws that would create clear consequences for anyone hacking civilian critical infrastructure, like power grids, banks, and hospitals. Now the lead prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague has made it clear that he intends to enforce those consequences -- no new Geneva Convention required. Instead, he has explicitly stated for the first time that the Hague will investigate and prosecute any hacking crimes that violate existing international law, just as it does for war crimes committed in the physical world.
In a little-noticed article released last month in the quarterly publication Foreign Policy Analytics, the International Criminal Court's lead prosecutor, Karim Khan, spelled out that new commitment: His office will investigate cybercrimes that potentially violate the Rome Statute, the treaty that defines the court's authority to prosecute illegal acts, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. "Cyber warfare does not play out in the abstract. Rather, it can have a profound impact on people's lives," Khan writes. "Attempts to impact critical infrastructure such as medical facilities or control systems for power generation may result in immediate consequences for many, particularly the most vulnerable. Consequently, as part of its investigations, my Office will collect and review evidence of such conduct."
When WIRED reached out to the International Criminal Court, a spokesperson for the office of the prosecutor confirmed that this is now the office's official stance. "The Office considers that, in appropriate circumstances, conduct in cyberspace may potentially amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and/or the crime of aggression," the spokesperson writes, "and that such conduct may potentially be prosecuted before the Court where the case is sufficiently grave." Neither Khan's article nor his office's statement to WIRED mention Russia or Ukraine. But the new statement of the ICC prosecutor's intent to investigate and prosecute hacking crimes comes in the midst of growing international focus on Russia's cyberattacks targeting Ukraine both before and after its full-blown invasion of its neighbor in early 2022.
In a little-noticed article released last month in the quarterly publication Foreign Policy Analytics, the International Criminal Court's lead prosecutor, Karim Khan, spelled out that new commitment: His office will investigate cybercrimes that potentially violate the Rome Statute, the treaty that defines the court's authority to prosecute illegal acts, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. "Cyber warfare does not play out in the abstract. Rather, it can have a profound impact on people's lives," Khan writes. "Attempts to impact critical infrastructure such as medical facilities or control systems for power generation may result in immediate consequences for many, particularly the most vulnerable. Consequently, as part of its investigations, my Office will collect and review evidence of such conduct."
When WIRED reached out to the International Criminal Court, a spokesperson for the office of the prosecutor confirmed that this is now the office's official stance. "The Office considers that, in appropriate circumstances, conduct in cyberspace may potentially amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and/or the crime of aggression," the spokesperson writes, "and that such conduct may potentially be prosecuted before the Court where the case is sufficiently grave." Neither Khan's article nor his office's statement to WIRED mention Russia or Ukraine. But the new statement of the ICC prosecutor's intent to investigate and prosecute hacking crimes comes in the midst of growing international focus on Russia's cyberattacks targeting Ukraine both before and after its full-blown invasion of its neighbor in early 2022.
ICC in the Netherlands (Score:3, Interesting)
The ICC is hosted in the Netherlands, a country that a few years ago made a new law that says that anyone in a profession with an obligation to secrecy cannot be prosecuted for perjury if they lie in court. And the attorney general also said that a Dutch prosecutor can never be prosecuted for for perjury.
So that means the court itself will also be running with these rules, real high integrity then.
Re: (Score:2)
In case it wasn't clear, everyone in government has an obligation for secrecy. So everyone in government can lie under oath in Dutch courts without fear of prosecution. Clearly that would also mean in the ICC.
Re:ICC in the Netherlands (Score:5, Informative)
So that means the court itself will also be running with these rules
This is patently false FUD. The ICC is no more bound to follow Netherlands law because it’s in the Netherlands than the UN is bound to follow US law because it’s headquartered in New York City. The ICC was established by international treaty (Rome Treaty) and is governed by international treaty, not the national laws of the Netherlands. While perjuring yourself may not violate national law, it would still violate the rules governing the ICC.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah!! Okay. So then in this case, being hosted in the Netherlands, there's not even that. Comforting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You might be wondering why I have reacted in this fashion. It's not because I'm against the rule of law, it's the exact opposite. I'm absolutely for the rule of law.
However, I had the unfortunately luck in 1995 to move squished between two other house holds. Then at a certain stage left neighbor began to hassle right neighbor (And us because we got in the way) and then 3 months later right neighbor was arrested for having a hennepplantation. The harrassment continued... against both of us, though we clearly
Re:ICC in the Netherlands (Score:5, Informative)
The UN and all of its staff, officers, and diplomats, are obligated to follow all laws of the United States, The State of New York, and the City of New York.
Yes and no. Your points are almost entirely orthogonal to the discussion at hand because you're talking about actions on US soil, whereas I'm not.
Both the UN headquarters and ICC operate on extraterritorial soil within their respective host countries, similar to how embassies exist on sovereign soil outside the jurisdiction of their host countries. In the case of the UN, it was established via the 1947 Headquarters Agreement [un.org]. Section 7 stipulates that while the UN has full authority over the site, they agree to yield to US jurisdiction for most actions on the site, provided the US abide by Section 8, which says: (emphasis mine):
The United Nations shall have the power to make regulations, operative within the headquarters district, for the purpose of establishing therein conditions in all respects necessary for the full execution of its functions. No federal, state or local law or regulation of the United States which is inconsistent with a regulation of the United Nations authorised by this section shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be applicable within the headquarters district.
Similarly, the Headquarters Agreement that established the ICC site [icc-cpi.int] in the Netherlands creates the same sort of legal structures. Article 8 says that the ICC is to be bound by the laws of the host country, but Article 5 makes it clear that...
The Court shall enjoy, in the territory of the host State, such privileges, immunities and facilities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.
In other words, the UN and ICC are not bound by the laws of their host countries when it comes to engaging in their duties. Moreover, to the degree that the laws of the host countries apply, it is done with the authority of the UN, which has ultimate authority over the sites.
Re: (Score:2)
>Diplomats are always required to follow all laws in the country they are in. Period.
False
They can break the law and by the treaty, they have diplomatic immunity. If the origin country do not remove that immunity, the country they are on would have to break their own laws to arrest them. You do not want to do that, as they may do the same to your own diplomats in their country. this is a very risky game
What they can legally do is declare "Persona non grata" and expel the diplomat and the origin country w
Re: (Score:1)
Re:ICC in the Netherlands (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm... While the ICC is located inside the borders of the Netherlands, it's actually international territory so international law applies there, not Dutch law.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected then. That's good to know!
So it's just the local court system that's absolutely corrupt and has no integrity.
This is no way suggests that the ICC within it's borders is tainted by these laws, thanks for clarifying. That's something at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck must be terrified (Score:2)
Zuck must be terrified. At least as much as he experiences human emotions.
Re: (Score:2)
USA and Russia are not signatories to ICC, so I suspect Zuck's sipping his coffee as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's smart, though, he drinks it black, without sugar or cream...
Not for US (Score:2)
Congress doesn't much care for the ICC:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Repeal attempts have been voted down.
"Not today, Globalists!"
Re: (Score:3)
Congress doesn't much care for the ICC:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Repeal attempts have been voted down.
"Not today, Globalists!"
Americans distrust the very idea of "international law", because it implies a loss of sovereignty and independence. Probably with good reason. As much of a clown show as our own government is, the various UN groups are even worse.
Re:Not for US (Score:4, Insightful)
and that his why Russia can do bad things, because they think just like the US ...
laws are for other people to follow, "we" are superior to them.... hey, the other side is doing war crimes, you must act, ICC... our war crimes were accidents, ICC, ignore them...
Now replace the we for US or Russia, it is exactly the same, if there is impunity, there will be abuses
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a warrant out for Putin's arrest. But because Russia isn't a part of the Rome treaty, they're not obligated to follow it.
But it's a bit of a problem, because Russia is a part of BRICS. And the BRICS conference was held in South Africa, which IS a signatory. In fact it resulted in a problem because if Putin were to travel to South Africa to attend, South Africa would be obligated to arrest Putin. Russia sent some other
Re: Not for US (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a law... (Score:1)
Re: It's not really a law... (Score:2)
And the country hosting it doesnâ(TM)t doesnâ(TM)t even have functional human rights.
In unrelated news (Score:1)
Tyler Durden, war criminal (Score:2)
I guess they'll have to rename it Flight Club.
What (Score:2)
Not to defend war, but knocking out power stations helps cripple the opponents' infrastructure.
Hospitals are, of course, already exempted as war crimes (and even have problems with scurrilous regimes hiding stuff there, or putting radars atop them, as if daring attacks.)
So the US also needs to be adressed (Score:2)
Hospital databases (Score:1)