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.     

The challenge of cyber attack deterrence

National security planners have begun to look beyond reactive, tactical cyber defense to proactive, strategic cyber defense, which may include international military deterrence. The incredible power of nuclear weapons gave birth to deterrence, a military strategy in which the purpose of armies shifted from winning wars to preventing them. Although cyber attacks per se do not compare to a nuclear explosion, they do pose a serious and increasing threat to international security. Real-world examples suggest that cyber warfare will play a lead role in future international conflicts. This article examines the two deterrence strategies available to nation-states (denial and punishment) and their three basic requirements (capability, communication, and credibility) in the light of cyber warfare. It also explores whether the two most challenging aspects of cyber attacks – attribution and asymmetry – will make cyber attack deterrence an impossible task.     

On the Question of Dutch Courts' Universal Jurisdiction: A Response to Mettraux

In response to Guénaël Mettraux's article regardingthe recent exercise of universal jurisdiction over torture andwar crimes by a Dutch court, the author disputes Mettraux'sreading of these cases on several points. These points includethe legal basis for exercising universal jurisdiction over violationsof Common Article 3 and the criterion of involvement of publicauthorities in the crime of torture.     

The Duty to Bring Terrorists to Justice and Discretionary Prosecution

In Res. 1373 (2001), the Security Council laid down the dutyto bring terrorists to justice and to deny them safe haven.Whereas such duty expressed a clear political imperative inthe aftermath of 11 September 2001, it is less clear how nationalauthorities are supposed to translate it into a set of enforceablelegal obligations. If it is interpreted as ‘obliging’states to prosecute and try terrorists, as the Security CouncilCounter Terrorism Committee seems to suggest, the power of prosecutorsto decide whether or not to bring a case to court may be severelyimpaired. An unconditional obligation to bring terrorists tocourt would not necessarily strengthen states’ judicialresponse to the threat of international terrorism. A sensibleexercise of prosecutorial discretion may be instrumental inarticulating a flexible and more effective response in variouscircumstances. Moreover, a rigid interpretation of the requirementto bring terrorists to justice does not find support in SecurityCouncil and General Assembly resolutions on terrorism. Far frommandating that alleged offenders be unconditionally broughtto trial, the universal counter-terrorism conventions and protocolslimit themselves to requiring that the jurisdiction of nationalcourts be established, which is conceptually different fromimposing its actual exercise.     

Online victimization risk and self-protective strategies: developing police-led cyber fraud prevention programs

ABSTRACT

The prevalence and impact of cyber fraud continues to increase exponentially with new and more innovative methods developed by offenders to target and exploit victims for their own financial reward. Traditional crime reaction methods used by police have proved largely ineffective in this context, with offenders typically located outside of the police jurisdiction of their victims. Given this, some police agencies have begun to adopt a victim focused, crime prevention approach to cyber fraud. The current research explores with a sample of two hundred and eighteen potential cyber fraud victims, the relationship between online victimization risk, knowledge and use of crime prevention strategies. The study found those most at risk of cyber fraud victimization despite accurate perceptions of risk and knowledge of self-protective behaviors in the online environment underutilise online prevention strategies. This research has important implications for police agencies who are designing and delivering cyber fraud education. It provides guidance for the development of effective prevention programs based on practical skills development.     

关于我国网络犯罪刑事管辖权立法的思考

在确定网络犯罪刑事管辖权时,适用传统的刑事管辖权理论面临诸多困境。许多国家的立法以及《网络犯罪公约》都在尝试解决这一问题,而我国关于网络犯罪管辖权的立法明显滞后。为了惩治和打击网络犯罪,我国应根据可能、公正、方便及国际协调原则,分别确立网络犯罪的国内管辖权和国际管辖权。对网络犯罪的国内管辖,可适用刑法中的地域管辖理论,借鉴民事网络案件的管辖权规则,以网络犯罪的IP地址作为确定管辖权的依据。在网络犯罪的国际管辖权方面,建议确立以属地管辖为基础、以法益受到损害的关联性为补充的有限扩张原则;同时,应通过参加或缔结网络犯罪刑事管辖的多边或双边国际条约来解决网络犯罪刑事管辖权的冲突问题。     

管辖选择权：行政案件管辖制度改革之一剂良方——基于行政诉讼中“官官相护”滋生“告状难”现象的分析

从行政诉讼原被告及法官三方力量博弈的角度看,受制于现行行政案件管辖制度,"当地法院管辖"、"法院裁定管辖"使得强势的行政权与次强势的司法权强强联合成为现实,进而导致弱势的原告"告状难"。司法权行使去当地化,阻断行政权对司法权的不当干扰;司法权行使去裁定化,杜绝司法权不当行使;赋予原告充分的案件管辖选择权,提升其对抗行政权、司法权的能力,促成三方力量平衡,是解决民告官"告状难"的一剂良方。     

论海盗罪普遍管辖权机制的局限性与变革

对国际社会来说,海盗仍然是一种严重威胁,尤其是在索马里地区,海盗异常猖獗。由于海盗对国际贸易和世界安全的破坏,对海盗罪的普遍管辖权已得到各国的普遍承认,但现行国际法关于海盗罪的规定却存在许多＂空白＂,普遍管辖权不能涵盖所有的海盗行为,因此,国际法应该进行相应的变革以应对海盗的威胁。这些变革应包括对海盗罪重新定义,建立危险海域的护航机制,推动区域性打击海盗机制的建立及由安理会提供必要的授权。     

论网络空间自卫权的行使对象问题

网络攻击往往由非国家行为体发起,实践中亦罕见有国家主动承认对网络攻击负责的实例。相应地,由于网络攻击的溯源存在技术、政治和法律方面的难题,受害国很难在传统自卫权的框架下对来自他国的网络攻击行使自卫权。非国家行为体尚不能构成传统武力攻击情境下的自卫权行使对象,更不宜成为网络空间自卫权的行使对象。作为替代,近年来将"不能够或不愿意"理论适用于网络空间自卫权的主张"甚嚣尘上"。"不能够或不愿意"理论表面上具有一定的正当性,但从既有国家归因标准和常规的自卫必要性的角度来看,该理论本质上缺乏实然法层面的法律依据,而且在适用时将面临一系列的法律不确定性。中国在参与网络空间国际造法的进程中,应当警惕将非国家行为体作为网络空间自卫权行使对象的主张,并应努力防止"不能够或不愿意"理论的引入和滥用,以遏制网络空间的军事化。     

The Threat Environment Created by International Terrorism from the German Police Perspective

International terrorism motivated by Islamist ideology poses completely new challenges to the security authorities of the affected states in terms of manner of commission and impact. The present contribution describes the threat created by international terrorism from the German police perspective. It begins by describing the threat represented by the terrorist crime phenomenon in terms of motivation, perpetrator and crime profiles, and organisational structure. This is followed by comments on how and to what extent international terrorism threatens German interests, as well as how German legislators have reacted. However, the main emphasis is placed on the counter-strategies of the German security authorities, in particular on mutual networking and intensified efforts to close ranks with other actors engaged in the battle against international terrorism.     

Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook

Global terrorist networks are dependent on receiving financial support from a variety of sources, including individuals, charities and corporations. Also known as terrorist financing, the potential of terrorism finance to resemble a global threat has been recognised and also its closeness to other international crimes such as money laundering and organized crime. As a result, possible responses have to constitute co-ordinated, multi-lateral and multi faceted actions under the umbrella of a wide range of international stakeholders such as the United Nations Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force. Combating terrorism requires a ??holistic?? approach which allows for a mix of possible responses. Besides ??kinetic?? security operations (such as targeted killings) and the adoption of criminal prosecution measures another possible response could be the use of US styled transnational civil litigation by victims of terrorism against both, terrorist groups and their sponsors. Corporations, both profit and non profit, such as banks and other legal entities, as well as individuals, are often complicit in international terrorism in a role of aiders and abettors by providing financial assistance to the perpetrators (cf. UN Al-Qaida Sanctions List: The List established and maintained by the 1267 Committee with respect to individuals, groups, undertakings and other entities associated with Al-Qaida). Such collusion in acts of terrorism gains additional importance against the background of so called ??Hybrid Threats??, NATO??s new concept of identifying and countering new threats arising from multi-level threat scenarios. This article discusses the potential impact of US terrorism lawsuits for the global fight against terrorism.     

The role of prosecutors in ensuring human rights compliant responses to terrorism

Since 9/11 the threat from terrorism has been regarded as ‘exceptional’, a threat that requires military and sometimes even extra-judicial responses. But experience has shown that these responses can have unintended and counterproductive results. Many experts now believe that criminal justice and rule of law-based responses to terrorism are often more legitimate, effective and sustainable. The paper argues that prosecutors have a vital role to play in promoting appropriate criminal justice responses to terrorism. Yet with no international court with jurisdiction over terrorist crimes, prosecutors carry the primary responsibility to work with their local law enforcement agencies to bring terrorist suspects to justice before national courts, while ensuring that no misuses or abuses of authority have occurred. To deliver on this mandate, prosecutors must remain vigilant and ensure that the counter-terrorism actions of police, corrections and other law enforcement authorities are lawful and respectful of human rights. This will often require immense courage under fire.     

Globalization of criminal justice in the corporate context

Globalization, the rising of an economy outside the paradigm of government by nation-states, has created new opportunities for transnational corporate crime, defined broadly here as avoidable harms inflicted across national borders for purposes of economic gain. The authors reexamine theories of corporate criminal liability in the transnational context and applaud the recent French codification of corporate criminal liability in terms broad enough to encompass the new economic realities. Finally, they examine the inability of current adjudicative fora to effectively assert jurisdiction over transnational corporations and suggest that the harms associated with toxic waste spills, unethical marketing practices, and other corporate misconduct are more ubiquitous and dangerous than the harms of terrorism and war crimes that have captured the attention of the emerging global civil society.     

Whose 'Conduct Unbecoming'?: The Shooting of a Handcuffed, Blindfolded Palestinian Demonstrator

The article focuses on the decision of the Israeli MilitaryAdvocate General (MAG) to charge an officer who ordered theshooting of a handcuffed, blindfolded Palestinian demonstrator,and the soldier who executed the order, for ‘conduct unbecoming’.It advances the following propositions: (i) from the perspectiveof the applicable international law, the facts of the case qualifythe shooting as a war crime; (ii) said decision of the IsraeliMAG is indicative of a policy of tolerance towards violenceagainst non-violent civilian protest against the constructionof the Separation Wall; (iii) the implication of such policyis twofold: first, it might transform ‘conduct unbecoming’— which as a matter of law is a war crime — intoa crime against humanity; second, it may well be construed asan invitation to the international community to intervene throughthe exercise of universal jurisdiction.     

位于他国内水外国船舶上犯罪之管辖权

针对位于他国内水的外国船舶上的犯罪之管辖权问题,指出船旗国不能根据领土原则行使管辖权。沿海国对在本国内水的外国船舶上的犯罪拥有排他性的领土管辖权。一般而言,沿海国对于下列犯罪行使管辖权：一是沿海国国民犯罪或使该沿海国国民受到损害的犯罪;二是破坏沿海国安宁和安全的犯罪;三是违反沿海国有关检疫、入出境、海上安全、海关事务、水域污染或禁止贩毒的法律的行为或犯罪;四是其他性质严重犯罪。根据国际习惯法规则或双边领事条约的规定,对于轻微的不影响船舶以外秩序的犯罪,沿海国一般不行使管辖权,由船旗国管辖。     

国际恐怖主义与国家自卫

国际恐怖主义的共同特征是 :行为关涉两个或两个以上国家 ;目标具有明确政治性 ,指向外国国家 ;主体多元 ,既有个人也有国家。国际恐怖主义属国际犯罪。国家对国际恐怖主义可以行使自卫 ,但必须有充分理由证明国际恐怖主义是由一个国家实施的或在国家支持下进行的。美国对阿富汗的军事行动可认为是自卫。     

我国面临的国际恐怖犯罪现状与应对策略

国际恐怖主义犯罪是威胁当今国际社会安全的非传统安全因素,近年来,国际恐怖组织、个人,以及境内外“东突”恐怖势力、“藏独”恐怖势力、邪教恐怖势力,尤其是境内外“东突”及“藏独”势力的恐怖主义犯罪已经对我国构成了现实威胁。针对威胁,公安机关应积极推动我国反恐立法,完善反恐工作机制,参与国际反恐合作,重视情报、舆论引导和群众工作,加强安全防范和预案演练,以有效遏制和消除国际恐怖主义犯罪。     

A study on the forensic mechanisms of VoIP attacks: Analysis and digital evidence

This paper discusses the use of communication technology to commit crimes, including crime facts and crime techniques. The analysis focuses on the security of voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), a prevention method against VoIP call attack and the attention points for setting up an Internet phone. The importance of digital evidence and digital forensics are emphasised. This paper provides the VoIP digital evidence forensics standard operating procedures (DEFSOP) to help police organisations and establishes an experimental platform to simulate phone calls, hacker attacks and forensic data. Finally, this paper provides a general discussion of a digital evidence strategy that includes VoIP for crime investigators who are interested in digital evidence forensics.     

论内地与香港特区间刑事诉讼转移制度的构建

针对同一起跨境犯罪,内地与香港特区在双方根据各自刑事法律均享有刑事管辖权,且均已启动刑事诉讼程序时,可进行区际刑事诉讼转移,即就该案件刑事管辖权的实际行使达成共识,由一方来行使刑事管辖权,对犯罪予以追究,他方承认实际管辖方所做出的刑事判决。在"一国两制"原则的指导下,中国内地与香港特区间开展刑事诉讼转移的刑事司法合作活动,须遵循"双重犯罪原则"、"有限的犯罪地管辖原则"和"一事不二审原则"。内地与香港特区刑事诉讼转移制度的构建,可以从包括原则、条件、程序和刑事诉讼转移的拒绝4个方面入手予以考虑。