請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/91245完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 姜皇池 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Huang-chih Chiang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 楊舒晴 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Shu-Ching Yang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-12-12T16:22:59Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-12-13 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2023-12-12 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2023-10-02 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | BOOKS
ARMISTEAD, LEIGH (2004), INFORMATION OPERATIONS: THE HARD REALITY OF SOFT POWER. BLAHUT, RICHARD E. (2014), CRYPTOGRAPHY AND SECURE COMMUNICATION. BROWNLIE, IAN (1963), INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES. BROWNLIE, IAN (1998) PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW. BUCHANAN, BEN (2020), THE HACKER AND THE STATE: CYBER ATTACKS AND THE NEW NORMAL OF GEOPOLITICS. CASSESE, ANTONIO (1995), SELF-DETERMINATIONS OF PEOPLES: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL. CRAWFORD, JAMES (2006) CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. CRAWFORD, JAMES (2019), BROWNLIE’S PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW. CULL, NICHOLAS JOHN (1996), SELLING WAR: THE BRITISH PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN AGAINST AMERICAN “NEUTRALITY”. DE VATTEL, EMER (1758), THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE, APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS. DELERUE, FRANCOIS (2020), CYBER OPERATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW. DINNISS, HEATHER HARRISON (2012), CYBER WARFARE AND THE LAWS OF WAR. FISCH, JÖRG (2015), THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES: THE DOMESTICATION OF AN ILLUSION. GRAY, CHRISTINE (2004), INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE. HAATAJA, SAMULI (2019), CYBER ATTACKS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE: THE TURN TO INFORMATION ETHICS. JAMIESON, KATHLEEN HALL (2018), CYBERWAR: HOW RUSSIAN HACKERS AND TROLLS HELPED ELECT A PRESIDENT: WHAT WE DON’T, CAN’T, AND DO KNOW. JENNINGS, ROBERT & ARTHUR WATTS (eds.) (2008), OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW: PEACE. KITTICHAISAREE, KRIANGSAK (2017), PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW OF CYBERSPACE. KITTRIE, ORDE F. (2016), LAWFARE: LAW AS A WEAPON OF WAR. MCCOUBREY, HILAIRE & NIGEL D. WHITE (1992), INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ARMED CONFLICT. NYE, JOSEPH S. JR. (2010), CYBER POWER. OHLIN, JENS DAVID ET AL. (ed.) (2015), CYBER WAR: LAW AND ETHICS FOR VIRTUAL CONFLICTS. OHLIN, JENS DAVID ET AL. (eds.) (2021) DEFENDING DEMOCRACIES COMBATING FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE IN A DIGITAL AGE. ROSCINI, MARCO (2014), CYBER OPERATIONS AND THE USE OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. SCHMITT, MICHAEL N. ET AL. (2017) TALLINN MANUAL 2.0 ON THE INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE TO CYBER OPERATIONS. ZIOLKOWSKI, KATHARINA (2013), PEACETIME REGIME FOR STATE ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE. ARTICLES Atieh, J. (2010), Foreign Agents: Updating Fara to Protect American Democracy, 31(4) UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1051-1088. Barkham, J. (2001), Information Warfare and International Law on the Use of Force, 34 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 57-113. Bellows, T. J. (1996), The March 1996 Elections in the Republic of China on Taiwan, 3(2) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CHINESE STUDIES 235-249. Benatar, M. (2009), The Use of Cyber Force: Need for Legal Justification?, 1 GOETTINGEN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 375-396. Boothby, W. H. (2013), Methods and Means of Cyber Warfare, 89 INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDIES, 387-405. Boothby, W. H., et al. (2012), When Is a Cyberattack a Use of Force or an Armed Attack?, 45(8) COMPUTER 82-84. Brown, G. (2011), Why Iran Didn’t Admit Stuxnet Was an Attack, 63 JOINT FORCE QUARTERLY 70-73. Buchan, R. (2012) Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions?, 17(2) JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW 211-227. Casals, M. (2019), Against a Continental Threat: Transnational Anti-Communist Networks of the Chilean Right Wing in the 1950s, 51(3) JOURNAL OF LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES 523-548. Chang, I. C. (2007), The PRC’s Naval Blockade Against during the Taiwan Straits Crises: A Theoretical Analysis of International Law, 5(2) PROSPECT & EXPLORATION 40-59. Chiang, H. C. (2001), Taiwan Guo Ji Fa Lyu Di Wei Jhih Yan Hua (台灣國際法律地位之演化), 15 Xin Shi Ji Zhi Ku Lun Tan (新世紀智庫論壇) 98-118. Chiu, H. D. (1998-1999), The International Legal Status of the Republic of China, 8 CHINESE YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1-19. Daskal, J. (2015), The Un-Territoriality of Data, 125(2) YALE LAW JOURNAL 326-559. DeLuca, C. (2013), The Need for International Laws of War to Include Cyber Attacks Involving State and Non-State Actors, 3(9) PACE INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 278-315. Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy, 65(2) JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 135-150. Eady, G. & T. Paskhalis et al. (2023), Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior, 14(62) NATURE COMMUNICATION 1-14. Efrony D. & Y, Shany (2018), A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyber operations and Subsequent State Practice, 112(4) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 583-657. Fidler, D. P. (2011), Was Stuxnet an Act of War? Decoding a Cyberattack, 9(4) IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine 56-59. Foltz, A. C. (2012), Stuxnet, Schmitt Analysis, and the Cyber “Use-of-Force” Debate, 67(4) JOINT FORCE QUARTERLY 40-48. Gasiorowski, M. J. (1987), The 1953 Coup D’etat in Iran, 19(3) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL MIDDLE EAST STUDIES 261-286 Gervais, M. (2012), Cyber Attacks and the Laws of War, 30(2) BERKELEY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 525- 579. Graham, D. E. (2010), Cyber Threats and the Law of War, 4(1) JOURNAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW & POLICY 87-102. Haataja, S. & A. Akhtar-Khavari (2018), Stuxnet and International Law on the Use of Force: An Informational Approach, 7(1) CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, 1-18 (2018). Hakimi, M. (2019), Introduction to the Symposium on Cyber Attribution, 113 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW UNBOUND 189-190. Hathaway, O. et al. (2012), The Law of Cyber-Attack, 100(4) CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 817-885. Head, J. W. (1998), Selling Hong Kong to China: What Happened to the Right of Self-Determination?, 46 KANSAS LAW REVIEW 283-304. Hollis, D. B. (2007), Why States Need an International Law for Information Operations, 11 LEWIS & CLARK LAW REVIEW 1023-1061. Hrnjaz, M. (2019), Yugoslavia and self-determination of peoples: The power to create and the power to destroy, 14(2) JOURNAL OF REGIONAL SECURITY 3-39. Hsiao, H. A. (2007), Non-Use of Force Principle under International Law and the Cross-Strait Relations, 46(1) ISSUES & STUDIES 147-169. Huang, Z. Y. (2000), Liang Guo Lun de Xian Fa Fen Xi – Xian Fa Jie Shi de Tiao Zhan Yu Tu Po (兩國論的憲法分析—憲法解釋的挑戰與突破), in Liang Guo Lun Yu Taiwan Guo Jia Di Wei (兩國論與台灣國家地位) 3- 33. Jensen, E. T. (2017), The Tallinn Manual 2.0: Highlights and Insights, 48 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 735-778. Jensen, M. (2018), Russian Trolls and Fake News: Information or Identity Logics?, 71(1.5)(special issue) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 115-124. Johnson, D. (2019), Russian Election Interference and Race-Baiting, 9(2) COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF RACE AND LAW 191-264. Johnson, D. R. & D. G. Post (1996), Law and Borders—The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 1367-1401. Joyner, C. C.& C. Lotrionte (2001), Information Warfare as International Coercion: Elements of a Legal Framework, 12(5) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 825-865. Kilovaty, I. (2018), Doxfare: Politically Motivated Leaks and the Future of the Norm on Non-Intervention in the Era of Weaponized Information, 9 HARVARD NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL 146-179. Kilovaty, I. (2021), Cybersecurity Abroad: Election Interference and the Extraterritoriality of Human Rights Treaty Obligations. In J. D. Ohlin & D. B. Hollis (eds.) Defending Democracies: Combating Foreign Election Interference in a Digital Age, 197-214. Koh, H. H. (2017), The Trump Administration and International Law, 56 WASHBURN LAW JOURNAL 413-469. Levin, D. H. (2019), Partisan Electoral Interventions by the Great Powers: Introducing the PEIG Dataset, 36(1) CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND PEACE SCIENCE, 88-101. Levin, D. H. (2021), Should We Worry about Partisan Electoral Interventions? The Nature, History, and Known Effects of Foreign Interference in Elections. In J. D. Ohlin & D. B. Hollis (eds.) Defending Democracies: Combating Foreign Election Interference in a Digital Age, 20-39. Lin, H. & J. Kerr (2019), On Cyber-Enabled Information/Influence Warfare and Manipulation. In P. Cornish (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Cybersecurity 1-24. Margulies, P. (2014), The NSA in Global Perspective: Surveillance, Human Rights, and International Counterterrorism, 82(5) FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 2137-2167. Massaro, T. M. (2011), Foreign Nationals, Electoral Spending, and the First Amendment, 34(2) HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 1-41. Mayer-Mruwat, E. (1998), UNITED NATIONS: CRITIQUES AND REFORMS, JOURNAL OF THIRD WORLD STUDIES 221-237. McDougal, M. S. & F. P. Feliciano (1958), International Coercion and World Public Order: The General Principles of the Law of War, 67(5) YALE LAW JOURNAL 771-845. Meron, T. (1995), Extraterritoriality of Human Rights Treaties, 89(1) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 78-82. Milanovic, M. (2023) (Forthcoming), Revisiting Coercion as an Element of Prohibited Intervention in International Law, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1-77. Mohan, V. &A. Wall (2019), Foreign Electoral Interference: Past, Present, and Future, 20 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 110-119. Moore, A. (2015), Stuxnet and Article 2(4)’s Prohibition Against the Use of Force: Customary Law and Potential Models’, 64 NAVAL LAW REVIEW 1-27. Ohlin, J. D. (2017), Did Russian Cyber Interference in the 2016 Election Violate International Law?, 95 TEXAS LAW REVIEW, 1579-1598. Ohlin, J. D. (2021), A Roadmap for Fighting Election Interference, 115 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW UNBOUND 69-73. Ohlin, J. D. (2021), Election Interference: A Unique Harm Requiring Unique Solutions, in Defending Democracies: Combating Foreign Election Interference in a Digital Age 239-262. Quirk, S. P. (2021), Lawfare in the disinformation age: Chinese interference in Taiwan’s 2020 elections, 62(2) HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 525-568. Pomson, O. (Forthcoming, 2023), Methodology of identifying customary international law applicable to cyber activities, LEIDEN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1-25. Robinson, N. (2020), “Foreign Agents” in an Interconnected World: FARA and the Weaponization of Transparency, 69 DUKE LAW JOURNAL 1075-1147. Rona, G. & L. Aarons (2016), State Responsibility to Respect, Protect and Fulfill Human Rights Obligations in Cyberspace, 8 JOURNAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW & POLICY 503-530. Schmitt, M. N. & L. Vihul (2017), Respect for Sovereignty in Cyberspace, 95 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 1639-1670. Schmitt, M. N. (1999), Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative Framework, 37 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW 885-937. Schmitt, M. N. (2010), Cyber Operations in International Law: The Use of Force, Collective Security, Self-Defense, and Armed Conflict. In PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP ON DETERRING CYBERATTACKS: INFORMING STRATEGIES AND DEVELOPING OPTIONS FOR U.S. POLICY 151-178. Schmitt, M. N. (2011), Cyber Operations and the Jud Ad Bellum Revisited, 56(3) VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW 569-606. Schmitt, M. N. (2012), Attack: as a Term of Art in International Law: The Cyber Operations Context, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict 283-293. Schmitt, M. N. (2015), In Defense of Due Diligence in Cyberspace, 125 YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM 68-81. Shinkaretskaya, G. G. & V. B. Ryzhov (2014), Content and Limits of ‘Domaine Reserve’, 2 SENTENTIA. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 134-140. Sullivan, C. (2016), The 2014 Sony Hack and the Role of International Law, 8(3) JOURNAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW & POLICY 437-468. Teachout, Z. (2009), Extraterritorial Electioneering and the Globalization of American Elections, 27 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 162-191. Trautman, L. J. & P. C. (2018), Ormerod, Industrial Cyber Vulnerabilities: Lessons from Stuxnet and the Internet of Things, 72(3) UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEW 761-826. Tsagourias, N. (2012), The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare: A Commentary on Chapter II — The Use of Force, 15 YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 19-40. Van De Velde, J. (2021), The Dangers of Forceful Countermeasures as a Response to Cyber Election Interference, In J. D. Ohlin & D. B. Hollis (eds.) Defending Democracies: Combating Foreign Election Interference in a Digital Age, 215-238. Van de Velde, J. (2021), When Does Election Interference via Cyberspace Violate Sovereignty?: Violations of Sovereignty, “Armed Attack,” Acts of War, and Activities “Below the Threshold of Armed Conflict” via Cyberspace, in Defending Democracies: Combating Foreign Election Interference in a Digital Age 163-175. Wang, T. S. (2000), Xian Fa de Taiwan Hua (憲法的台灣化), in Liang Guo Lun Yu Taiwan Guo Jia Di Wei (兩國論與台灣國家地位)173-201. Watt, E. (2017), The Role of International Human Rights Law in the Protection of Online Privacy in the Age of Surveillance, 9th International Conference on Cyber Conflict 1-14. Watts, S. (2015), Low-Intensity Cyber Operations and the Principle of Non-Intervention, in Cyber War: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts (Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern & Claire Finkelstein eds.) 249-270. Wilson, K. L. (2022), Strategic Responses to Chinese Election Interference in Taiwan’s Presidential Elections, 46(2) ASIAN PERSPECTIVE 255-277. Wu, J. M. &M. Liao (2015), From unification-independence divide to the China factor: How changing political identity influences voting behavior (從統獨到中國因素：政治認同變動對投票行為的影響), 29 TAIWANESE SOCIOLOGY 89-132. Xu, Z. L. (2000), Defining the Legal Relationship between the Two Sides of the Taiwan Strait, in Liang Guo Lun Yu Taiwan Guo Jia Di Wei (兩國論與台灣國家地位) 147-157. TREATIES Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, 171. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, 3. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 729 UNTS 161, 7 ILM 8809 (1968), [1973] ATS 3, 21 UST 483. CASES Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14; General List No. 70. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania); Assessment of Compensation, 15 XII 49. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands) I.C.J. Reports 1969, 3. Oil Platforms (Iran v. USA), ICJ Rep. 2003. Trail Smelter (United States, Canada), 3 UNRIAA, p. 1905, 1952. United States v. Internet Rsch. Agency LLC et al., Indictment, 18-CR-32 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2018). United States v. Ionov (8:22-cr-00259) District Court, M.D. Florida. UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms G.A. Res. 53/144 (Mar. 8, 1999). Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, Human Rights Council Res. 25/3 (Mar. 24 2014). Group of Governmental Experts on advancing responsible state behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security GA. Res. 73/266 (July 13, 2021). Official compendium of voluntary national contributions on the subject of how international law applies to the use of information and communications technologies by States submitted by participating governmental experts in the Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security established pursuant to General Assembly resolution G.A. Res. 76/136 (Dec. 16, 2021) Principles Which Should Guide Members in Determining Whether or Not an Obligation Exists to Transmit the Information Called for Under Article 73e of the Charter, G.A. Res. 1541 (Dec. 15, 1960). Expresses Concern at the Intentions of Iran’s Nuclear Programme and Demands that Iran Halt its Uranium Enrichment Programme S.C. Res. 1696, (July 31, 2006). Establishes a Security Council Sanctions Committee (1737 Committee); imposes sanctions on Iran for failing to stop its uranium enrichment programme following resolution 1696 (2006); imposes a ban the supply of nuclear-related technology and materials and imposes assets freeze on key individuals and companies related to the enrichment programme S.C. Res. 1737 (Dec. 23, 2006). Requires Iran to cease and desist from any and all uranium enrichment. It also requires Iran to stop any research and development associated with centrifuges and uranium enrichment S.C. Res. 1803 (Mar. 3, 2008). The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, U.N. Res. 2625 (XXV), (Oct. 24, 1970). Definition of Aggression G.A. Res. 3314 (Dec. 14, 1974). Universal Declaration of Human Rights G.A. Res. 217 (III) (Dec. 10, 1948). ELECTRONIC SOURCES Asha Rangappa, The April 2023 Indictment for Russian Election Interference and Threats to U.S. Democracy, Just Security (May. 3, 2023), https://www.justsecurity.org/86424/the-april-2023-indictment-for-russian-election-interference-and-threats-to-u-s-democracy/. Ashley Deeks, Does the ICCPR Establish an Extraterritorial Right to Privacy?, Lawfare (Nov. 14, 2013), https://www.lawfareblog.com/does-iccpr-establish-extraterritorial-right-privacy. David W. Chen, Taiwan’s President Tiptoes Around Politics at Cornell, N.Y. Times (June 10, 1995), https://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/10/world/taiwan-s-president-tiptoes-around-politics-at-cornell.html. Kathrin Hille, Taiwan primaries highlight fears over China’s political influence, Finantial Times (July 17, 2019), https://www.ft.com/content/036b609a-a768-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04. Marko Milanovic, Revisiting Coercion, EJIL:Talk! (July 17, 2023), https://www.ejiltalk.org/revisiting-coercion/ Patrick E. Tyler, China Signaling U.S. That It Will Not Invade Taiwan, N.Y. Times (Mar. 13, 1996), https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/13/world/china-signaling-us-that-it-will-not-invade-taiwan.html. Paul Huang, Chinese Cyber-Operatives Boosted Taiwan’s Insurgent Candidate, Foreign Policy (June. 26, 2019), https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/26/chinese-cyber-operatives-boosted-taiwans-insurgent-candidate/. Timothy S. Rich et.al., What Does Taiwan’s Public Think About Election Interference From China?, The Diplomat (Jan. 10, 2020), https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/what-does-taiwans-public-think-about-election-interference-from-china/. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/91245 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 網路選舉干預近年來成為世界各國無論有無意識皆經歷的現象。網路時代的到來使對於國家的攻擊不再須要透過傳統武力或威脅。這意味著，受害國將面臨訊息和網絡勢力的全新挑戰。本論文將借助國際法原則，包括禁止武力使用、不干預原則、主權原則以及民族自決原則進而探討網路選舉干預在國際法上的合法性。將在釐清「網路攻擊」與「網路干預」之前提下，以網路攻擊為前提進行合法性之檢驗。
本文在討論國際法之系爭原則時，將透過研究2007年愛沙尼亞遭受俄羅斯的網路攻擊導致網絡癱瘓、2010年震網（Stuxnet）攻擊伊朗納坦茲（Natanz）核設施，以及2016年俄羅斯干預美國總統大選的案例疏理目前國際法於網路上之適用。在嘗試闡明這些國際法原則在網路之適用範圍的同時，將以美國遭受選舉干預為借鏡，並以其法理探討中國針對臺灣長期的干預是否為國際法廣義上之「網路攻擊」。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This thesis examines the consistency of cyber election interference under international law, with a focus on the events that Taiwan has been subject to during its recent elections. By exploring various international norms, this thesis aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the considerations surrounding cyber election interferences within the framework of cyber-attacks under international law.
The thesis addresses these questions by delving into four key aspects of international law. First, it explores the prohibition on the use of force in the context of cyberspace. Second, it examines the principle of nonintervention, considering elements like coercion. Third, it scrutinizes the principle of domaine réservé. Lastly, it assesses the potential violation of self-determination. To support this analysis, the thesis employs case studies of notable cyber-attacks, primarily focusing on the Estonia cyberattacks, the Stuxnet incident, and the 2016 U.S. election interferences. Although activities in cyberspace are relatively new and require thorough discussion, this thesis investigates the implications of election interference from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Taiwan’s elections. The various forms of interference, ranging from missile launches in the Taiwan Strait to propaganda and disinformation campaigns during critical election periods. This thesis will conclude that while current cyber election interference operations may not unequivocally violate international law, the unique circumstances of Taiwan’s relationship and interactions with the PRC cast a new light on the existing principles of international law. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-12-12T16:22:59Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-12-12T16:22:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Chapter 1: Introduction to Cyber Election Interferences 1
I. Background 1 II. Cyber Interference and Cyber-Attacks 2 III. What is Cyber Election Interference? 3 A. Features of Cyber Election Interference 4 B. Categorizing Cyber Election Interference 6 1. Interference with Kinetic Effect 6 2. Degradation/Manipulation of the Availability/Integrity of Electoral Processes 6 3. Unauthorized or Denied access to Election Related Data 7 4. Information Operations 7 IV. Research purpose, scope of research and the thesis structure 9 A. Research Purpose 9 B. Scope of Research 10 C. Thesis Structure 11 Chapter 2: Cyber Interferences in Elections under International Law 13 I. International Law and Cyberspace 13 II. The Tallinn Manuals 14 III. Prohibition of the Use of Force 16 A. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter 16 B. Article 2(4) and its Application in Cyberspace 18 (1) 2007 Estonia Cyberattacks 21 (2) 2010 Stuxnet 25 C. States Position on Article 2(4) in Cyberspace 31 D. Article 2(4) and its Application in Election Interference 32 IV. Human Rights 34 A. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 34 B. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 36 C. Extra-Territorial Application in Cyberspace 42 1. U.S. Interpretation 43 2. European Court of Human Rights Interpretation 44 D. Extraterritoriality and Election Interference 47 V. The Norm of Non-Intervention 53 A. Traditional Framework of Non-Intervention in International Law 54 B. Non-Intervention and its Application in Cyberspace 57 (1) Estonia 58 (2) U.S. DNC Hack 60 (3) Concluding Remarks of the Two Cases 63 C. States Position of Non-Intervention in Cyberspace 63 D. Non-Intervention and its Application in Election Interferences 65 VI. Domaine Réservé (Sovereignty) 68 A. Traditional Framework of Domaine Réservé in International Law 68 B. Domaine Réservé’s Application in Cyberspace 70 C. States Position of Domaine Réservé in Cyberspace 72 D. Domaine Réservé and its Application in Election Interferences 74 VII. Due-Diligence 75 A. Traditional International Law Framework on Due Diligence 76 B. Due Diligence’s Application in Cyberspace 76 1. State actors 77 2. Non-State actors 79 3. Concluding Remarks 80 C. States Position of Due Diligence in Cyberspace 81 D. Due Diligence and its Application in Election Interferences 83 VIII. Self-Determination 84 A. Traditional Framework of Self-Determination in International Law 85 B. Self-Determination and its Application with Election Interference 90 C. The Unique Harm of Self-Determination in Election Interferences 93 D. Evidence 94 IX. Conclusion 96 Chapter 3: Cyber Interferences in Elections — Perspective of the U.S. 99 I. Election Interferences Prior the Cyber Age 99 II. Election Interferences in the Cyber Age 100 III. Russia’s Motive for Election Interference against the U.S. 102 IV. Actors Involved 104 A. Foreign Governments 104 B. Non-State Actors 105 1. The IRA 106 2. WikiLeaks 108 3. Others 110 V. Methods and Forms of Interference 111 A. Leaking documents 111 B. Disinformation/Propaganda via social media 112 C. Illegal Campaigning Effort and the 2023 Indictment 113 VI. Impacts of the Interference 117 VII. Not in Breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter 121 A. Use of force in the context of Article 2(4) 121 B. Tallin Manual 2.0 Rule 68 122 VIII. Human Rights Law 124 IX. Nonintervention 126 A. Coercion 127 1. The Target 128 2. Scale and Effects Approach 129 3. Truth or False? 130 B. Tallin Manual 2.0 Rule 66 132 X. Domaine Réservé 132 A. Infringement of Territorial Integrity 134 B. Usurpation 134 XI. Self-Determination 136 A. The Covert Nature of Russian Trolls 136 B. The Unique Harm 137 XII. U.S. Responses and mitigation strategies 139 A. Strengthening domestic law in the U.S. combating election interference 139 1. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) 139 2. The Secure Elections Act 140 3. The Honest Ads Act 140 4. The Foreign Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement Act (FARA) 141 B. Strengthening Resilience on the electoral systems 141 1. Make Unambiguous Public Statements that Foreign Election Interference Violates International Law. 141 2. Impose Economic Sanctions on Foreign Actors that Engage in Election Interference. 143 3. Clarify Federal Authority to Stop Election Interference. 143 4. Encourage the Justice Department to Issue More Indictments and Criminalize Solicitation of Foreign Interference. 144 5. Encourage Social Media Firms to Label Foreign Conduct. 146 C. Remarks on U.S. Responses 147 IV. Conclusion and Observation 148 Chapter 4: Cyber Interferences in Elections — Perspective of Taiwan 150 I. Backgrounds 150 A. 1949 — Retreating to Taiwan 150 B. The Political Parties 151 1. Nationalist Party Kuomintang (KMT，國民黨) 151 2. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP，民進黨) 152 C. PRC’s Strategy to Target Taiwan 152 II. Election Interference in the First Presidential Election 154 III. Recent Years and Cyber Election Interference 156 A. 2016 Presidential Election 156 B. 2018 Kao-Shiung Mayor Election 157 C. 2020 Presidential Election 159 1. Hong Kong 160 2. Efforts on Disinformation 161 IV. Taiwan’s Legal Status in International Law 163 V. Use of Force Article 2(4) of the UN Charter 165 A. Threat of Use of Force 165 B. Missiles fired around the waters in the vicinity of Taiwan 166 VI. Human Rights Law 168 VII. Non-Intervention 169 A. Coercion 169 (1) 1996 170 (2) 2018 170 (3) 2020 171 B. Scale and Effects Approach 171 VIII. Domaine Réservé 172 IX. Self-Determination 173 X. Taiwan’s Response 175 A. Public Sector 175 B. Private Sector 176 1. Fact Checking Tools–Line: Auntie MeiYu (美玉阿姨) 176 2. The Technology Industry 177 C. Legislative Response- Fake News Regulation 179 D. Remarks on Taiwan Responses 181 XI. Conclusion and Outlook 182 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Prospects 183 REFERENCES 188 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 網路攻擊 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 民族自決 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 主權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 不干預 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 選舉 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 網路攻擊 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 民族自決 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 主權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 不干預 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 選舉 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | cyber-attack | en |
| dc.subject | self-determination | en |
| dc.subject | cyber-attack | en |
| dc.subject | elections | en |
| dc.subject | intervention | en |
| dc.subject | sovereignty | en |
| dc.subject | self-determination | en |
| dc.subject | sovereignty | en |
| dc.subject | intervention | en |
| dc.subject | elections | en |
| dc.title | 網路選舉干預於國際法之合法性—以網路攻擊為中心 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Cyber Election Interference Under International Law: With Special Reference to Cyber-Attacks | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張文貞;陳貞如 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Wen-Chen Chang;Chen-Ju Chen | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 網路攻擊,選舉,不干預,主權,民族自決, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | cyber-attack,elections,intervention,sovereignty,self-determination, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 200 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202304266 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2023-10-04 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學系 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 法律學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-1.pdf | 2.35 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。