Search

The use of cyber operations in armed conflicts has become a reality, with several states openly admitting to being involved in such activities. An increasing number of nations are developing military cyber capabilities, and the use of these operations is expected to rise. Advancements in offensive cyber capabilities have demonstrated that these operations can significantly impact civilian infrastructure and cause harm to humans. This study explores the complex application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to cyber warfare, focusing on the evolving roles of both state and non-state actors. It examines the difficulties in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants in the light of the concept of direct participation in hostilities during cyberattacks. Furthermore, this paper examines the responsibilities and legal consequences for states that direct or control non-state actors and the need to adapt IHL to the specific nature of cyber conflicts. It underscores the crucial need for strong legal frameworks to protect civilians and uphold humanitarian principles in the digital era. This study employs cyberattacks which occurred during the Russian-Ukraine armed conflict as a case study.

Consistent with the monitoring function played by financial analysts, we find that greater analyst coverage leads to the same extent of improvement in the quantity and quality of environmental information disclosed by the firm. This result is remarkably robust after conducting a difference‐in‐differences analysis that exploits brokerage closures and mergers as an exogenous decrease in analyst coverage, as well as using an instrumental variable approach. The positive influence of analyst coverage on corporate environmental disclosure is particularly evident for firms that cause high environmental damage, firms with low information asymmetry and those followed by analysts with superior experience, accuracy and reputation. Taken together, our empirical findings provide new insights into the bright side effect of analyst coverage on corporate environmental‐related activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cyberspaces can be significantly influenced by simple tools and tactics, and offer cost-effective solutions for states to achieve their objectives. However, it can also be used for conducting cyberwarfare, and its effects remain in gray areas. The spectrum of cyberwarfare activities ranges from minor web disruptions to crippling attacks on critical national infrastructures. Nevertheless, cyberattacks present a unique challenge in applying well-established humanitarian legal principles, particularly regarding the distinction between civilian and military targets. This is because of the interconnectedness and shared infrastructure of cyberspace between civilian and military entities, which blurs the lines between combatants and civilian populations. This article seeks to shift the general perception of the problems associated with this manner of conducting hostilities by building on the learning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Furthermore, the authors examine the cyber activities that occurred during the conflict and the legal and ethical challenges that arise from classifying these activities and applying international law. They try to distinguish cyber activities as an act of force or armed attack, with a focus on determining the criteria that played a role in this classification, in light of Articles 2 (4) and 51 of the UN Charter. With reference to the United Nations (UN) Charter and the principles of self-defence, the concept of attack is scrutinised. Furthermore, the article addresses the principles of distinction and proportionality in relation to qualified cyber activities as an armed attack in the same conflict, emphasising the importance of the principle of proportionality in assessing cyber warfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migrants in Libya are experiencing the worst form of human rights violations, particularly after the fall of the Gaddafiregime. Post-2014 migrants faced a serious threat of human rights violations in detention centres and became the most vulnerable in Libyan society. The migrants experienced various human rights violations such as murder, torture, rape, enforced disappearance, and forced labour that may amount to crimes against humanity in international criminal law. In light of this situation, European policies aim at returning migrants to the European coasts. This has led to the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral migration agreements with the Libyan government and armed non-state actors. These policies have contributed to the vulnerability of migrants and the legitimization of violations by armed non-state actors. This article examines the violations committed against migrants in detention centres in Libya under the national and international legal framework with the aim of revealing the shortcomings and gaps in the Libyan national legal system and identifying the responsibility of the Libyan government, European Union countries and non-state actors for violations committed against immigrants in Libya. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]