Is countering terrorism a legitimate reason to violate the right to privacy in cyberspace? Professors Barnsby and Reeves identify a potential risk under Tallinn 2.0 that the counterterrorism exception might swallow a state’s obligations to respect and protect international human rights, given the broadly defined “legitimate purpose” and the vaguely defined “terrorism” in the manual. Nevertheless, Professors Barnsby and Reeves point out that this kind of uncertainty in Tallinn 2.0 is not new. Like Tallinn 1.0, Tallinn 2.0 also intentionally left some definitional gaps for further legal developments in the cyber context. Such gaps, Professors Barnsby and Reeves argue, are necessary for a project like the Tallinn Manual and would be better filled by state practices.
Give Them an Inch, They’ll Take a Terabyte: How States May Interpret Tallinn Manual 2.0’s International Human Rights Law Chapter
- September 7, 2017