Now showing items 1-10 of 27
Cyber law development and the United States Law of War Manual
Sean Watts, Cyber Law Development and the United States Law of War Manual, in International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives 49 (Anna-Maria Osula and Henry Rõigas eds., 2016).
This chapter examines the recently released United States Department of Defense (DoD) Law of War Manual to sample sovereign views on the current state of international law applicable to cyberspace operations and to assess ...
Law-of-war precautions: A cautionary note
Sean Watts, Law-of-War Precautions: A Cautionary Note, in The Impact of Emerging Technologies on the Law of Armed Conflict (Eric Talbot Jensen & Ronald T. P. Alcala eds., 2019).
Beyond state-centrism: International law and non-state actors in cyberspace
Michael N. Schmitt & Sean Watts, Beyond State-Centrism: International Law and Non-state Actors in Cyberspace, 21 J. Conflict & Security L. (2016).
Classically, States and non-State actors were differentiated not only by disparities in legal status but also by significant imbalances in resources and capabilities. Not surprisingly, international law developed a ...
Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare
Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (Michael N. Schmitt ed., 2013) (prepared by the International Group of Experts) (member of the International Group of Experts).
The product of a three-year project by twenty renowned international law scholars and practitioners, the Tallinn Manual identifies the international law applicable to cyber warfare and sets out ninety-five 'black-letter ...
A cyber duty of due diligence: Gentle civilizer or crude destabilizer?
Eric Talbot Jensen & Sean Watts, A Cyber Duty of Due Diligence: Gentle Civilizer or Crude Destabilizer?, 95 Texas L. Rev. 1555 (2017).
Rethinking the security architecture of North East Asia
Michael J. Kelly & Sean Watts, Rethinking the Security Architecture of North East Asia, 41 Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. 273 (2010).
In the aftermath of the Cold War, many questioned the continuing efficacy of collective security structures such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations Security Council. Yet North East Asia never ...
Notion of combatancy in cyber warfare
Sean Watts, The Notion of Combatancy in Cyber Warfare, in 2012 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Proceedings 235 (Christian Czosseck, Rain Ottis & Katharina Ziolkowski eds., 2012).
This paper proposes an alternate test for combatant status in cyber warfare focused on State affiliation. Long an important, yet overlooked criterion for combatant status, State affiliation enjoys solid textual support in ...
Drones, cyber, and more: International humanitarian law and the path ahead
Sean Watts, Video file: Drones, Cyber, and More: International Humanitarian Law and the Path Ahead, in 2014 LENS Conference: LAWshaping in National Security: The Past, the Progress, and the Path Ahead, held by the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School (Feb. 28-Mar. 1, 2014).
Fifteen minute excerpt of Sean Watts, one of a panel of three experts at the 20th annual LENS Spring Conference at Duke Law School, discussing how humanitarian law and the law of war is impacted by the increased use of ...
Low-Intensity Cyber Operations and the Principle of Non-Intervention
Sean Watts, Low-Intensity Cyber Operations and the Principle of Non-Intervention, 14 Baltic Y.B. Int'L L. 137 (2014), reprinted in Cyberwar: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts 249 (Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern & Claire Finkelstein eds., 2015).
The advent and proliferation of State-sponsored cyber operations, especially low-intensity cyber campaigns producing effects short of destruction and injury, seem likely to augment the importance of non-intervention as a ...
Who is a prisoner of war?
Sean Watts, Who Is a Prisoner of War?, in The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta & Marco Sassòli eds., 2015).
This paper examines the qualification provisions for prisoner of war (POW) status under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (GC III). It argues that Article 4 of GC III should be understood merely to identify groups whose ...