Cyber terrorism challenges: The need for a global response to a multi-jurisdictional crime

With the widespread concerns about cyber terrorism and the frequent use of the term “cyber terrorism” at the present time, many international organisations have made efforts to combat this threat. Since cyber terrorism is an international crime, local regulations alone are not able to defend against such attacks; they require a transnational response. Therefore, an attacked country will invoke international law to seek justice for any damage caused, through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Without the aid of international organisations, it is difficult to prevent cyber terrorism. At the same time, international organisations determine which state court, or international court, has the authority to settle a dispute. The objective of this paper is to analyse and review the effectiveness and sufficiency of the current global responses to cyber terrorism through the exercise of international jurisdiction. This article also touches upon the notion of cyber terrorism as a transnational crime and an international threat; thus, national regulations alone cannot prevent it. The need for an international organisation to prevent and defend nations from cyber terrorism attacks is pressing. This paper finds that, as cyber terrorism is a transnational crime, it should be subjected to universal jurisdiction through multinational cooperation, and this would be the most suitable method to counter future transnational crimes such as cyber terrorism.     

A rational jurisdiction for cyber terrorism

Cyberspace is a cross-national world that transcends geopolitical national borders. Jurisdiction is the focal point for any dispute arising in the international arena, because it determines which state court has the authority to settle a dispute. The objective of this paper is to analyse territorial and universal jurisdiction principles which can be specifically related to cyberspace to determine which of them is best suited to providing the appropriate jurisdiction in combating cyber terrorism and how conflicts arising between them can be settled. The transnational nature of cyber terrorism offences leads to jurisdictional complexity, thereby investigation and prosecution is difficult. Lack of harmonisation in legislating among countries leads to difficulty in investigation and prosecution of cyber terrorism offences. This paper notes that universal jurisdiction is the most feasible and effective method to deter cyber terrorism.     

Cross border data transfer: Complexity of adequate protection and its exceptions

The majority of the fear that exists about the cloud arises due to the lack of transparency in the cloud. Fears have persisted in relation to how the data are frequently transferred in a cloud for various purposes which includes storing and processing. This is because the level of protection differs between countries and cloud users who belong to countries which provide a high level of protection will be less in favour of transfers that reduce the protection that was originally accorded to their data. Hence, to avoid client dissatisfaction, the Data Protection Directive has stated that such transfers are generally prohibited unless the country that data is being transferred to is able to provide ‘appropriate safeguards’. This article will discuss the position of the Data Protection Directive and how the new General Data Protection Regulation differs from this Directive. This involves the discussion of the similarity as well as the differences of the Directive and Regulation. In summary, it appears that the major principles of the cross border transfer are retained in the new regulation. Furthermore, the article discusses the exceptions that are provided in the standard contractual clause and the reason behind the transition from Safe Harbor to the new US-EU Privacy Shield. This article subsequently embarks on the concept of Binding Corporate Rule which was introduced by the working party and how the new regulation has viewed this internal rule in terms of assisting cross border data transfer. All the issues that will be discussed in this article are relevant in the understanding of cross border data transfer.