All posts by William Banks

State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions After Tallinn 2.0

By | TLR Vol. 95-7 | No Comments
The U.S. response to the Russia DNC hack has been criticized as “late” and “weak”: the United States’ response to the Russian intrusions was delayed, and the United States limited its responses to self-help measures. Professor Banks points out that the timing and nature of the U.S. response in fact reflects the challenges posed by an underdeveloped part of the international cyber law—attribution. In this piece, Professor Banks examines Tallinn 2.0’s treatment of attribution in the cyber context. Given that this area of law is still underdeveloped, he suggests that the U.S. identify some attribution benchmarks as well as lawful responses to deter future cyber intrusions.

PDF

All posts by William Banks

State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions After Tallinn 2.0

By | TLR Vol. 95-7 | No Comments
The U.S. response to the Russia DNC hack has been criticized as “late” and “weak”: the United States’ response to the Russian intrusions was delayed, and the United States limited its responses to self-help measures. Professor Banks points out that the timing and nature of the U.S. response in fact reflects the challenges posed by an underdeveloped part of the international cyber law—attribution. In this piece, Professor Banks examines Tallinn 2.0’s treatment of attribution in the cyber context. Given that this area of law is still underdeveloped, he suggests that the U.S. identify some attribution benchmarks as well as lawful responses to deter future cyber intrusions.

PDF