With the rise of human rights law and the general expansion of the scope of international law, however, the number of matters not addressed by public international law has decreased significantly and with it, a state’s domaine réservé has arguably shrunk. Whether the domaine réservé, an area that is in principle not regulated by international law, was targeted is often considered to be the easier analysis of the two-step assessment to establish unlawful intervention. Instead, focus lies on the two requirements that have to be met in order for an activity to qualify as a prohibited intervention: the act in question which is conducted by one state against another must target the domaine réservé of another state and it must have been conducted in a coercive manner.ĭoes Rerouting Internet Traffic Target a State’s Domaine Réservé
Rerouting internet traffic could further amount to violations of human rights law, such as the freedom of speech, or the principle of state sovereignty, but these will not be examined in this post. Next to the assessment of the act in a larger context, a separate legal question arises of whether the act of rerouting internet traffic – assuming such an act has been committed by a state or can be attributed to one – in of itself violates the principle of non-intervention irrespective of any preceding use of force which may have already violated the principle of non-intervention. The British Ministry of Defence stated that recent developments form part of “ Russian intent to exert strong political and economic influence in Kherson over the long term”.ĭoes Rerouting Internet Traffic Constitute an Unlawful Intervention? according to Russia-appointed authorities. The region of Kherson is also said to be using the Russian rouble from 1 May. The rerouting of internet traffic in combination with annexation strategies certainly brings to mind developments seen in Crimea in 2014-2017. Further, the attempt to reroute internet traffic might also be part of Russia’s strategy to annex further parts of Ukraine like Kherson and potentially establishing a “Kherson People’s Republic”. prohibition on the use of force but also has seen the unlawful recognition of the “separatist republics” next to alleged war crimes and human rights violations. The re-routing of some of Ukrainian’s networks must of course be seen in a larger context of a military intervention that clearly violates many norms of international law, i.e. Extensive further restrictions have recently been imposed by the Russian government in the context of the invasion of Ukraine, including measures such as banning social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram but also other websites such as Human Rights Watch or Euronews.
in the form of online censorship and routing traffic through state-controlled infrastructure. Before the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia restricted internet use via its networks, e.g. The head of Ukraine’s State Service of Special Communications and Information Protection, Yurii Shchyhol, claimed that Russia’s rerouting activities were a violation of international law.Įven though the rerouting was temporary, such action has a number of consequences as internet traffic through Russian networks is likely to be subject to Russian internet regulations. Two days later, on the 4 th of May, it was confirmed that the disruption occurred due to shelling damaging Kherson’s fibre optic network and that the connection was restored and had been reconnected to Ukrainian infrastructure. NetBlocks, a London-based monitor of internet service disruption, said that the internet traffic in the region was rerouted via Russian communications infrastructure. On the 2 nd of May 2022, several news outlets reported that part of the Ukrainian internet connection in the occupied Ukrainian region of Kherson almost completely broke down, only to be re-installed hours later.
Temporary Rerouting of Internet Traffic in Kherson, Ukraine
0 kommentar(er)
