Foreign Interference in Elections Under The Non-Intervention Prin
Foreign Interference in Elections Under The Non-Intervention Prin
This article looks at the problem of foreign state cyber and influence
operations targeting democratic elections through the lens of the non-
intervention principle. The work focuses on the meaning of “coercion”
following the 1986 Nicaragua case, wherein the International Court of
Justice concluded that “[i]ntervention is wrongful when it uses methods of
coercion.” The analysis shows that coercion describes a situation where (1)
the foreign power wants the target state to do something and wants to be
certain this will happen; (2) the outside power then takes some action, either
by issuing a coercive threat, using coercive force, or engaging in the
coercive manipulation of the target’s decision-making process; and (3) the
target then does that something. The application of this understanding to the
problem of cyber and influence operations targeting elections leads to the
following conclusions: the hacking of the information and communications
technologies used in elections is always coercive, and therefore wrongful,
because the foreign power is trying to get the target state to do something it
would not otherwise do; fake news operations are coercive, and therefore
prohibited, where they are designed to get the electorate to vote differently;
disinformation campaigns intended to cause policy paralysis or manipulate
the views of the population also constitute coercion, and, therefore, violate
the non-intervention rule. By explaining the meaning of “coercion,” this
article demonstrates that the long-established principle of non-intervention
can regulate the new problem of cyber and influence operations targeting
elections.
Key words: Intervention • Democracy • Elections • Cyber • Coercion •
Manipulation
161
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
I. INTRODUCTION
This article examines the legality of foreign state cyber and influence
operations targeting democratic elections. Whilst there are several ways the
issue can be framed,1 this work looks at the subject from the perspective of
the non-intervention principle, which prohibits states from intervening in the
internal affairs of other states. There are four reasons for this lens. First, the
non-intervention principle (also referred to as the principle of non-
intervention, and non-intervention rule) is well established in international
law. Second, the international law that applies to the cyber domain are the
same ones that apply in the physical world. Third, democratic states have
framed the issue in these terms. Finally, non-intervention is the dominant
way that international lawyers think about the problem of foreign
interference in elections.2
The dangers of foreign state cyber and influence operations targeting
elections first emerged following complaints that Russia meddled in the
2016 U.S. presidential election.3 Later, in 2018, a meeting of Foreign and
1. See Barrie Sander, Democracy Under the Influence: Paradigms of State Responsibility for
Cyber Influence Operations on Elections, 18 CHINESE J. INT’L L. 1, 1 (2019).
2. See Jens David Ohlin, Election Interference: The Real Harm and The Only Solution 6 (Cornell
Legal Stud. Res. Paper Series, Res. Paper No. 18-50, 2018) (stating that “the basic rubric for evaluating
legal election interference involves a resort to the basic standards for non-intervention.”).
3. The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that Russian cyber and
influence operations during the 2016 Presidential election were motivated by a desire to support the
candidacy of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and to undermine the faith of the American public in
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
the democratic process. OFF. OF THE DIR. OF NAT’L INTELLIGENCE, ASSESSING RUSSIAN ACTIVITIES AND
INTENTIONS IN RECENT U.S. ELECTIONS, (Jan. 6, 2017). After the vote, the U.S. announced that it was
introducing a range of sanctions against Russian nationals and entities, with President Obama stating that
these were “a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of
established international norms of behavior.” THE WHITE HOUSE, OFF. OF THE PRESS SEC’Y, STATEMENT
BY THE PRESIDENT ON ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN MALICIOUS CYBER ACTIVITY AND
HARASSMENT (Dec. 29, 2016) (emphasis added), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/
2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity. President Obama’s
choice of words led some to decide that the United States did not view the alleged Russian activities as
violations of international law, although others took the opposite view, concluding that the responses
amounted to countermeasures in reaction to a prohibited intervention in domestic political affairs.
4. Defending Democracy—Addressing Foreign Threats, GOV’T OF CAN. (Aug. 1, 2019), https://
www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relationsinternationales/g7/documents/
2018-04-22-defending_democracy-defendre_democratie.aspx?lang=eng.
5. Jeremy Hunt, Foreign Sec’y, U.K., Address at the University of Glasgow: Deterrence in the
Cyber Age (Mar. 7 2019).
6. See Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment,
1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶ 205 (June 27) (“Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion . . . .”).
7. See Katharina Ziolkowski, Peacetime Cyber Espionage: New Tendencies in Public
International Law, in PEACETIME REGIME FOR STATE ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE: INTERNATIONAL
LAW, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY 425, 433 (Katharina Ziolkowski ed., 2013).
8. See Int’l Law Comm’n, Rep. on the Work of its Eighteenth Session, reprinted in [1966] 2 Y.B.
Int’l L. Comm’n 246, U.N. Doc. A/6309/Rev.1.
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
sovereignty of another state.15 The Tallinn Manual explains that the principle
of sovereignty differs from the non-intervention principle because
“intervention requires an element of coercion.”16
The drawbacks with arguments that we should avoid or evade the
“problem of coercion” are threefold. First, the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) did not err when it concluded that the element of coercion “defines,
and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention.”17 Coercion,
or its functional equivalent, such as dictatorial interference, has been an
element in the non-intervention principle since the end of the nineteenth
century.18 Secondly, the role of sovereignty in the regulation of state cyber
operations is the subject of significant disagreement between international
lawyers,19 and, moreover, the rule has nothing to say about influence
operations.20 Finally, the principle of non-intervention provides the
established basis on which states and international lawyers, from all parts of
the world, frame foreign state interference in domestic political affairs.
To make sense of the cyber non-intervention principle, states and
international lawyers need to be clear about the meaning of “coercion,” given
the ICJ’s conclusion in the Nicaragua case that, “Intervention is [only]
wrongful when it uses methods of coercion.”21 This article fills a significant
gap in the existing literature by explaining this meaning of coercion, and by
applying the understanding of coercion to the problem of cyber and influence
operations targeting elections.
22. Dov H. Levin, Partisan Electoral Interventions by the Great Powers: Introducing the PEIG
Dataset, 36 CONFLICT MGMT. & PEACE SCI. 88, 94 (2019). See also, Dov H. Levin, When the Great
Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results, 60 INT’L
STUD. Q. 189, 189 (2016).
23. Mark Clayton, Ukraine Election Narrowly Avoided ‘Wanton Destruction’ from Hackers,
CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR (June 17, 2014), https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/World/Passcode/
2014/0617/Ukraine-election-narrowly-avoided-wanton-destruction-from-hackers. See also LAURA
GALANTE & SHAUN EE, ATLANTIC COUNCIL, DEFINING RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE: AN
ANALYSIS OF SELECT 2014 TO 2018 CYBER ENABLED INCIDENTS 7–8 (2018).
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
24. Huge Hack Attack on Bulgaria Election Authorities ‘Not to Affect Vote Count’, NOVINITE.COM:
SOFIA NEWS AGENCY (Oct. 27, 2015, 1:14 PM), https://bit.ly/35vZQbE. A U.K. Parliamentary
Committee expressed concern that the crashing of a voter registration website before the Brexit vote could
have been caused by a DDoS launched by foreign powers. See PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EU REFERENDUM, REPORT,
2016-17, HC 496, ¶ 102–03 (UK). There is also the risk that the website of a political party could be hit
by a DDoS. In 2018, a United States official blamed Russia for an attack on the website of an opposition
party in Mexico during a televised presidential debate, after the website had published documents critical
of another candidate. See David Alire Garcia & Noe Torres, Russia Meddling in Mexican Election: White
House Aide McMaster, REUTERS (Jan. 7, 2018, 4:31 PM), https://www.investing.com/news/world-
news/russia-meddling-in-mexican-election-white-house-aide-mcmaster-1073182; see also Daina Beth
Solomon, Cyber Attack on Mexico Campaign Site Triggers Election Nerves, REUTERS (June 13, 2018,
4:42 PM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-election-cyber/cyber-attack-on-mexico-campaign-
site-triggers-election-nerves-idUSKBN1J93BU.
25. See Scott Shackelford et al., Making Democracy Harder to Hack, 50 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM
629, 636–38 (2017) (describing how foreign powers can influence an election through computer
networks).
26. See generally Philip Bump, When We Talk About Russian Meddling, What Do We Actually
Mean?, WASH. POST (Feb. 13, 2018, 10:37 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/
wp/2018/02/13/when-we-talk-about-russian-meddling-what-do-we-actually-mean/ (explaining what
Russian interference consisted of in the 2016 election); see also Isabella Hansen & Darren J. Lim, Doxing
Democracy: Influencing Elections via Cyber Voter Interference, 25 CONTEMP. POL. 150 (2018)
(examining the influence of state-sponsored cyber voting operations).
27. NICHOLAS CHEESEMAN & BRIAN P. KLAAS, HOW TO RIG AN ELECTION 131 (Yale Univ. Press
2018). The Election Commission noticed the hack and managed to avoid naming the wrong winner. Id.
28. Joseph R.A. Ayee, Ghana’s Elections of 7 December 2016: A Post-Mortem, 24 S. AFR. J. INT’L
AFF. 311, 314 (2017); see also Michael Amoah, Sleight is Right: Cyber Control as a New Battleground
for African Elections, 119 AFR. AFF. 68 (2019) (discussing how the growth of hacking has turned
electronic data management into a key battleground in African elections).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
29. See Duncan B. Hollis, The Influence of War; the War for Influence, 32 TEMP. INT’L & COMP.
L. J. 31, 35 (2018) (explaining how influence operations involve the deployment of informational
resources through e-mail and social media postings and the virtual collection of data).
30. LINDA ROBINSON ET AL., MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE: CURRENT PRACTICES AND POSSIBLE
RESPONSES 19–20 (2018). States still engage in the practice today. Justin McCurry, Kim Yo-jong Warns
South Korea to Tackle ‘Evil’ Propaganda Balloons, GUARDIAN (June 3, 2020, 11:29 PM), https://
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/kim-yo-jong-warns-south-korea-to-tackle-evil-propaganda-
balloons.
31. The notion of “cyberspace” helps us make sense of the fact that we can communicate in a
meaningful way via the Internet. Julie E. Cohen, Cyberspace as/and Space, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 210,
212 (2007). Whilst the idea of cyberspace as place is compelling, no one, as Mark Lemley points out, is
actually “in” cyberspace. Mark A. Lemley, Place and Cyberspace, 91 CALIF. L. REV. 521, 523 (2003).
Cyberspace is an imagined domain, made possible by a physical infrastructure of servers and computer
hardware, connected by the Internet Server Protocols. Contra Lawrence Lessig, The Zones of Cyberspace,
48 STAN. L. REV. 1403, 1403 (1996) (“Cyberspace is a place. People live there. They experience all the
sorts of things that they experience in real space, there.”).
32. ADRIAN SHAHBAZ & ALLIE FUNK, FREEDOM ON THE NET 2019: THE CRISIS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
6 (2019).
33. Diego A. Martin et al., Recent Trends in Online Foreign Influence Efforts, 18(3) J. INFO.
WARFARE 15 (2019).
34. KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON, CYBERWAR: HOW RUSSIAN HACKERS AND TROLLS HELPED
ELECT A PRESIDENT: WHAT WE DON’T, CAN’T, AND DO KNOW 39 (2018); see also Rod Thornton &
Marina Miron, Deterring Russian Cyber Warfare: The Practical, Legal and Ethical Constraints Faced
by the United Kingdom, 4 J. CYBER POL’Y 257 (2019).
35. CHEESEMAN & KLAAS, supra note 27, at 100–01.
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
36. EMER DE VATTEL, Of the Right to Security, and the Effects of the Sovereignty and Independence
of Nations, in THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE, APPLIED TO THE
CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS § 54, at 154–55 (Joseph Chitty ed., 1870) (1758).
De Vattel asserts that “affairs being solely a national concern, no foreign power has a right to interfere in
them”. Id. at ch. III § 37.
37. Lawrence Preuss, International Responsibility for Hostile Propaganda Against Foreign States,
28 AM. J. INT’L. L. 649, 654 (1934) (quoting Decree of Nov. 19, 1792, Archives parlamentaires, LIII
(1ère sér.), p. 474).
38. Id. (quoting Moniteur, April 16, 1793).
39. P. H. Winfield, The History of Intervention in International Law, 3 BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. 130,
138 (1922-1923).
40. MOUNTAGUE BERNARD, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION: A LECTURE DELIVERED
IN THE HALL OF ALL SOULS’ COLLEGE 10 (J. H. & J. Parker eds., 1860) (noting that there is “general
agreement among writers on international law . . . that non-intervention is the general rule.”); see also
KENT’S COMMENTARY ON INTERNATIONAL LAW 40 (J.T. Abdy ed., 1878); THOMAS ALFRED WALKER,
A MANUAL OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 19 (1895).
41. HENRY WHEATON, ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, WITH A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF
THE SCIENCE 97 (1836).
42. See, e.g., Winfield, supra note 39, at 140; see also ELLERY C. STOWELL, INTERVENTION IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW 321 (1921).
43. LASSA FRANCIS LAWERENCE OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE 181 (1st ed.
1905).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
53. G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), annex, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning
Friendly Relations, at art. 1 (Oct. 24, 1970) [hereinafter Declaration on Friendly Relations]. According
to the International Court of Justice, the Declaration on Friendly Relations “reflects customary
international law.” Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in
Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010 I.C.J 403, ¶ 80 (July 22).
54. G.A. Res. 3281 (XXIX), Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (Dec. 12, 1974); see
also G.A. Res. 31/91, at 42 (Dec. 14, 1976); see also G.A. Res. 36/103, Declaration on the Inadmissibility
of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (Dec. 9, 1981).
55. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J. ¶ 202.
56. Id.
57. Id. ¶ 205.
58. See id. ¶ 263 (“The Court cannot contemplate the creation of a new rule opening up a right of
intervention by one State against another on the ground that the latter has opted for some particular
ideology or political system.”).
59. Id. ¶ 205. Although the International Court of Justice noted that it was only dealing with those
aspects of non-intervention relevant to the dispute before it (i.e. support for subversive or terrorist armed
activities in another state), there is no doubt that coercion is an element in the non-intervention rule. The
1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention, supra note 51, at art. 2 establishes, inter alia,
that “[n]o State may use [any] measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination
of the exercise of its sovereign rights . . . .” (emphasis added). The 1970 Declaration on Friendly
Relations, supra note 53, at pmbl. reaffirms “the duty of States to refrain in their international relations
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
another state violates international law, unless the action can be justified as
a lawful countermeasure.60
from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence
or territorial integrity of any State . . . .” (emphasis added).
60. See Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J. ¶ 249 (confirming that the law on countermeasures applied to
the non-intervention principle). Article 22 of the International Law Commission’s articles on state
responsibility establishes that the “wrongfulness of an act . . . is precluded if and to the extent that the act
constitutes a [lawful] countermeasure.” G.A. Res. 56/83, annex, Responsibility of States for
internationally wrongful acts, art. 22 (Jan. 28, 2002) [hereinafter Responsibility of States].
61. There was some initial (mostly theoretical) debate about whether domestic laws and
international law applied to the new domain of “cyberspace”, notably in the form of the 1996 Declaration
of the Independence of Cyberspace. See John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of
Cyberspace, ELEC. FRONTIER FOUND. (Feb. 8, 1996), https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
(discussing the lack of governance in the cyber sphere). States have, perhaps unsurprisingly, concluded
that the Internet is not a law-free zone. Kristen E. Eichensehr, The Cyber-Law of Nations, 103 GEO. L. J.
317, 327 (2015).
62. Russell Buchan, Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions?, 17 J.
CONFLICT & SEC. L. 211, 221 (2012).
63. Rep. of the Group of Gov. Experts on Devs. in the Field of Info. and Telecomm. in the Context
of Int’l Sec., ¶ 19, U.N. Doc. A/68/98 (June 24, 2013).
64. Rep. of the Group of Gov. Experts on Devs. in the Field of Info. and Telecomm. in the Context
of Int’l Sec., ¶ 28, UN Doc. A/70/174 (July 22, 2015).
65. G.A. Res. 71/28, Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the
Context of International Security (Dec. 9, 2016), adopted by 181 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.
66. Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of
International Security, U.N. OFF. FOR DISARMAMENT AFF., https://www.un.org/disarmament/ict-security
(last visited June 19, 2020).
67. Article 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lists as one of the sources of
international law, “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.” To show the
existence and content of custom, there must be evidence of a general practice, and evidence of a belief
the practice is required by international law (the opinio juris element). This two-element approach has
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
been confirmed by the International Court of Justice in North Sea Continental Shelf (Ger. v. Den.; Ger.
v. Neth.), Judgment 1969 I.C.J. 3, ¶ 77 (Feb. 20). See generally Int’l Law Comm’n, Rep. on the Work of
Its Seventieth Session, UN Doc. A/73/10, at 119 (2018) (assessing the identification of customary
international law).
68. Digital & Cyberspace Pol’y Program, Cyber Operations Tracker, COUNCIL FOREIGN REL.,
www.cfr.org/interactive/cyber-operations (last visited June 19, 2020).
69. Dan Efrony & Yuval Shany, A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyber
Operations and Subsequent State Practice, 112 AM. J. INT’L L. 583, 586 (2018).
70. 2019 International Law Supplement, AUSTL.’S INT’L CYBER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY,
https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/international-relations/international-cyber-engagement-strategy/
aices/chapters/2019_international_law_supplement.html (last visited June 19, 2020) (“[T]he use by a
hostile State of cyber operations to manipulate the electoral system to alter the results of an election in
another State . . . would constitute a violation of the principle of non- intervention.”).
71. Letter from Stef Blok, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Neth., to the President of the House of
Representatives on the Int’l Legal Order in Cyberspace: Appendix: International Law in Cyberspace (July
5, 2019) (on file with the government of the Netherlands) [hereinafter Letter on Int’l Legal Order in
Cyberspace] (“Attempts to influence election outcomes via social media are [covered by] the non-
intervention principle.”).
72. Jeremy Wright, Attorney General QC MP, Cyber and International Law in the 21st Century
(May 23, 2018) (“[The] use by a hostile state of cyber operations to manipulate the electoral system to
alter the results of an election in another state . . . must surely be a breach of the prohibition on
intervention in the domestic affairs of states.”).
73. In 2016, the U.S. State Department Legal Adviser, Brian Egan argued that “a cyber operation
by a State that interferes with another country’s ability to hold an election or that manipulates another
country’s election results would be a clear violation of the rule of non-intervention.” Brian J. Egan,
International Law and Stability in Cyberspace, 35 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 169, 175 (2017). In 2020, the
United States reaffirmed this position, with the Department of Defense General Council saying that “a
cyber operation by a State that interferes with another country’s ability to hold an election” or that tampers
with “another country’s election results would be a clear violation of the rule of non-intervention.” Paul
C. Ney, Jr., DOD General Counsel, Remarks at U.S. Cyber Command Legal Conference (Mar. 2, 2020).
74. Przemyslaw Roguski, France’s Declaration on International Law in Cyberspace: The Law of
Peacetime Cyber Operations, Part I, OPINIO JURIS (Sept. 24, 2019),
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
https://www.opiniojuris.org/2019/09/24/frances-declaration-on-international-law-in-cyberspace-the-
law-of-peacetime-cyber-operations-part-i/.
75. Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, France, Cybersecurity: Paris Call of 12 November
2018 for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, FRANCE DIPLOMACY, https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/
en/french-foreign-policy/digital-diplomacy/france-and-cyber-security/article/cybersecurity-paris-call-
of-12-november-2018-for-trust-and-security-in (last visited June 19, 2020) (Fr.).
76. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J. ¶ 205.
77. G.A. Res. 217(III)A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ¶ 21 U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III)
(Dec. 10, 1948) (“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall
be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall
be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”); see also International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, art. 25(b), Dec. 16, 1966, S. Exec. Rep. 102-23, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (“Every citizen
shall have the right and the opportunity . . . To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which
shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression
of the will of the electors . . . .”).
78. Matthias Herdegen, Interpretation in International Law, in MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPEDIAS OF
PUB. INT’L L. ¶ 61, (Rudiger Wolfrum ed., 2012) (“It is evident that customary principles and rules also
call for clarification of their scope and legal implications.”).
79. See generally, Philip Allott, Interpretation: An Exact Art, in INTERPRETATION IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW 373, 384–85 (Andrea Bianchi et al. eds., 2015) (demonstrating how customary
international law is normally interpreted); Frederick Schauer, Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Customary
Law, in THE NATURE OF CUSTOMARY LAW: LEGAL, HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES 13,
17 (Amanda Perreau-Saussine & James Bernard Murphy eds., 2007) (exploring the interpretive questions
facing customary international law); Panos Merkouris, Interpreting the Customary Rules on
Interpretation 19 INT’L CMTY. L. REV. 126, 137 (2017) (discussing the place of interpretation in the life-
cycle of customary international law).
80. Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia
Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicar. v. Colom.), Judgment, 2016 I.C.J 100, ¶
33 (Mar. 17) (applying Article 31(1)’s general rule of interpretation to a dispute over treaty interpretation).
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
81. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31(1), opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155
U.N.T.S. 331.
82. Albert Bleckmann, Zur Feststellung and Auslegung von Völkergewohnheitsrecht, 37 ZAÖERV
504, 526–28 (1977) (Ger.).
83. See, e.g., Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), Judgement, 1986 I.C.J. 554, ¶ 20 (Dec. 22);
Arrest Warrrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. 3, ¶ 53 (Feb. 14);
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Judgment 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶ 57
(Feb. 3). See generally, Peter Staubach, The Interpretation of Unwritten International Law by Domestic
Judges, in THE INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DOMESTIC COURTS 113, 125–26 (Helmut
Philipp Aust & Georg Nolte eds., 2016) (examining domestic courts’ approaches to customary
international law); PETER G. STAUBACH, THE RULE OF UNWRITTEN INTERNATIONAL LAW: CUSTOMARY
LAW, GENERAL PRINCIPLES, AND WORLD ORDER 153–54 (1st. ed. 2020) (explaining the continued
relevance of customary international law from philosophical and theoretical standpoints).
84. Coercion, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ONLINE, https://www.oed.com (search “coercion” in
search bar).
85. Vienna Convention, supra note 81, art. 52. Provides that “a treaty is void if its conclusion has
been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in
the Charter of the United Nations.” Article 52 has a limited conception of coercion, resulting from “the
threat or use of force,” although there is some debate as to whether this extends to violations of the non-
intervention principle. Olivier Corten, Article 52, in THE VIENNA CONVENTIONS ON
THE LAW OF TREATIES: A COMMENTARY 1201, 1210 (Olivier Corten & Pierre Klein eds., 2011).
86. Vienna Convention supra note 81, art. 51. Provides that “the expression of a State’s consent to
be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats
directed against him shall be without any legal effect.” Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, supra note 8, at 246
(explaining that coercion covers “any form of constraint of or threat against a representative.”).
87. Responsibility of States, supra note 60, art. 18 (stating that “a State which coerces another State
to commit an act is internationally responsible for that act if: (a) the act would, but for the coercion, be
an internationally wrongful act of the coerced State; and (b) the coercing State does so with knowledge
of the circumstances of the act.”).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
its instrument.”88 Finally, we must account for the object and purpose of the
principle of non-intervention, which differentiates between unwelcome
interferences by foreign powers and prohibited intermeddling in internal
affairs.89 The ban is on coercive interferences and not interferences per se.90
In other words, the element of coercion establishes a high threshold,
requiring evidence of control of the target state by the outside power.
Applying the basic rules for the interpretation of the word coercion
provides limited guidance for the application of non-intervention to the cyber
domain. The government of the Netherlands explains the point this way:
The precise definition of coercion, and thus of unauthorised intervention,
has not yet fully crystallised in international law. In essence it means
compelling a state to take a course of action (whether an act or an
omission) that it would not otherwise voluntarily pursue. The goal of the
intervention must be to effect change in the behaviour of the target state.91
The Dutch government’s position makes the point that coercion
involves getting the target state to do something that it would not otherwise
do voluntarily. But there is no discussion as to how the outside power can
get the target to act differently. In other words, there is no detailed
explanation of what constitutes coercion.
88. Int’l L. Comm’n, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,
with Commentaries, U.N. Doc. A/56/10, at 65 (2001) [hereinafter Draft Articles on Responsibility of
States].
89. See MOUNTAGUE BERNARD, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION 7–8 (J. H. & J. Parker
eds., 1860) (illustrating the principle of non-intervention). Whilst it may be legitimate for one state to try
to influence the decision-making of another, the foreign power cannot attempt to supplant the right of a
state to come its own conclusions on questions of internal and external affairs, because this would
undermine the sovereignty of the target state.
90. See Maziar Jamnejad & Michael Wood, The Principle of Non-Intervention, 22 LEIDEN J. INT’L
L. 345, 348 (2009) (explaining the concept of interference under the non-intervention principle).
91. Letter on Int’l Legal Order in Cyberspace, supra note 71. Australia has adopted a similar
position, “[a] prohibited intervention is one that interferes by coercive means (in the sense that they
effectively deprive another state of the ability to control, decide upon or govern matters of an inherently
sovereign nature).” 2019 International Law Supplement, supra note 70.
92. The focus here is the relationship between voluntary agents—we are not concerned with the
exercise of coercive power by the state over its citizens. In this context, the sociologist, Max Weber draws
a distinction between physical coercion in the application of the law, involving arrest and detention, etc.,
and psychological coercion, whereby subjects feel compelled to comply with the law, without formal
enforcement. See 1 MAX WEBER, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 34 (G. Roth & C. Wittich trans., Univ. of Cal.
Press 1978) (1921).
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
A. Coercive Threats
Coercion is often understood in terms of a coercive threat, typically in
the form of “your money, or your life.” In his 1969 essay on the subject, the
philosopher, Robert Nozick explains that coercion involves a threat by one
voluntary agent (“P”) to another (“Q”) where if Q does not do a certain action
(“X”), then deleterious consequences will follow for Q.93 Coercion involves,
then, a self-interested act by P,94 which is intended to bring about a change
in the behaviour of Q, by threatening deleterious consequences for Q.95
Unlike the certain action (X), it is thus within P’s control to ensure the
threatened consequences come about. Q is aware of the threat. The threat
spurs the change in Q’s behaviour. Thus, coercion involves a conscious but
unwilling act on the part of the Victim. In the case of the threat by the
Robber, the Victim acts consciously when they hand over the cash, in that
they know what they are doing, but do so unwillingly.96
B. Coercive Force
Nozick’s essay triggered a flurry of articles throughout the 1970s and
1980s in the disciplines of philosophy and jurisprudence on the meaning of
coercion.97 While his account focused on coercive threats, where the victim
acts for themselves but is not given a meaningful choice, other writers
concluded that the term could also be applied to circumstances of physical
93. See Robert Nozick, Coercion, in PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE, AND METHOD: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF
ERNEST NAGEL 440, 441–45 (Sidney Morgenbesser et al. eds., 1969).
94. Threats are distinguished from warnings on the ground that warnings may not be self-interested;
or might be advisory; or it might not be within P’s power to ensure the deleterious consequences. Id. at
444–45.
95. Threats are distinguished from offers on the basis that, although negative consequences might
arise in the imagined, unrealized future, if Q does not take up the offer, the consequences are not
deleterious compared to the normal or expected course of events (those that would have happened had
the offer not been made). See id. at 447.
96. See H. J. McCloskey, Coercion: Its Nature and Significance, 18 S. J. PHIL. 335, 336 (1980)
(“When one is coerced, one still acts.”).
97. Hiba Hafiz, Beyond Liberty: Toward a History and Theory of Economic Coercion, 83 TENN.
L. REV. 1071, 1085–86 (2016).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
coercion. The philosopher, Michael Bayles, for example, maintains that there
is no difference between a situation where someone says “sign this contract,
or I will kill you,” and where they grab your hand and force your signature.98
This is echoed in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which
establishes that the representative of the state can be coerced “through acts
or threats directed against him.”99 Oliver Dörr and Kirsten Schmalenbach
explain the difference in the Roman law terms of vis absoluta (physical
coercion), where the representative’s hand is held and guided when signing
the agreement, and vis compulsive (moral coercion), where the representative
is blackmailed into signing the treaty.100 Giovanni Distefano notes that when
physical force is used to get someone to sign a treaty, “what is at stake is
almost emptying the body of the coerced person of all its free will, and
substituting this for another’s will.”101
However, physical force is not coercive simply because P does
something to Q.102 If P pushes Q into the swimming pool, we say that Q has
been forced into the water, not that they have been coerced into the pool.103
Physical force is only coercive where P uses force to get Q to do
something.104 Thus, when P pushes Q into the pool, P forces Q into the water,
but when P grabs Q’s hand and forces them to sign a treaty, then P coerces
Q. In other words, we speak about coercion when P exercises power over Q,
by getting Q to do something they would not otherwise do.105
C. Coercive Manipulation
Coercion is wrong because the Victim is made to do something, without
a choice in the matter. A coercive threat, for example, “is designed so that
98. See Michael D. Bayles, A Concept of Coercion, in COERCION: NOMOS XIV 16, 18 (J. Roland
Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 1972); see also Martin Gunderson, Threats and Coercion, 9 CAN. J.
PHIL. 247, 248 (1979).
99. Vienna Convention, supra note 81, art. 51.
100. VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A COMMENTARY 862 (Oliver Dörr & Kirsten
Schmalenbach eds., 2012); see also H.G. de Jong, Coercion in the Conclusion of Treaties: A
Consideration of Articles 51 and 52 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, 15 NETH. Y.B. INT’L.
L. 209, 224 (1984).
101. Giovanni Distefano, Article 51, in THE VIENNA CONVENTIONS ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A
COMMENTARY 1179, 1192 (Olivier Corten & Pierre Klein eds., 2011).
102. See Craig L. Carr, Coercion and Freedom, 25 AM. PHIL. Q. 59, 59 (1988).
103. See Peter Westen, “Freedom” and “Coercion”—Virtue Words and Vice Words, 1985 DUKE L.
J. 541, 565 (1985).
104. See Gunderson, surpa note 98, at 250 (defining physical coercion in terms of P forcing Q to
“do X,” so that X “is not an action of Q”).
105. See Robert A. Dahl, The Concept of Power, 2 BEHAV. SCI. 201, 203 (1957).
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
106. Grant Lamond, Coercion and the Nature of Law, 7 LEGAL THEORY 35, 40 (2001); see also
ALAN WERTHEIMER, COERCION 172 (1988).
107. E. ALLEN FARNSWORTH, FARNSWORTH ON CONTRACTS § 4.16 (1982).
108. See JOSEPH RAZ, THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM 373 (1986); see also T. M. Wilkinson, Nudging
and Manipulation, 61 POL. STUD. 341, 351 (2013).
109. See Michael Kligman & Charles M. Culver, An Analysis of Interpersonal Manipulation, 17 J.
MED. & PHIL. 173, 187 (1992).
110. See Gideon Yaffe, Indoctrination, Coercion, and Freedom of Will, 67 PHIL. &
PHENOMENOLOGICAL RES. 335, 342 (2003).
111. JOEL FEINBERG, HARM TO SELF 189 (1986).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
does to a person’s lungs. But this is not wrongful, because it does not
undermine Q’s agency. The constitutional lawyer, Cass Sunstein, notes that
an “action does not count as manipulative merely because it is an effort to
alter people’s behavior.”112 He explains that if P is “just providing the facts,”
in a sufficiently fair and neutral way, “it is hard to complain of
manipulation.”113
P can also try and change Q’s behaviour by warning of deleterious
consequences, if Q does not do what P wants. Here, P introduces a new piece
of information into Q’s decision-making process. For example, P might
threaten to give Q the silent treatment if Q refuses to give up smoking.114 But
there is nothing intrinsically wrongful about this. P is a voluntary agent, with
the right to have their own views and opinions about Q’s behaviours, and P
is entitled to impose costs on the voluntary actions of Q. To conclude
otherwise would be to require P to accept all the consequences of Q’s actions.
P’s warnings are only wrongful in terms of the difference between
getting someone to act and forcing them to act, where they create a forced
choice, leaving Q without a meaningful decision. The philosopher, Joel
Rudinow explains the difference in terms of resistible and irresistible
incentives, with an irresistible incentive defined as one “that no one could
reasonably be expected to resist.”115
However, this differs from P lying about the facts in order to get Q to
do something that they would not otherwise do.116 A lie is a statement made
by someone who does not believe in the truth of the statement, made with
the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it.117 By lying, P
deceives Q by changing Q’s perception of the true facts of the world and,
therefore, changes the basis on which Q makes a decision. Hugo Grotius
explains that lying is wrongful because it undermines the right of the target
to “liberty of judgment,” that is Q’s right to come to their own conclusion
based on a proper understanding of the facts.118 All lies are deceptive, in the
sense of deceiving the target about the reality of the situation. Recall our
112. Cass R. Sunstein, Fifty Shades of Manipulation, 1 J. MKTG. BEHAV. 213, 215 (2016).
113. Id.
114. The silent treatment is a recognized tactic of manipulation, often explained as emotional
blackmail. See generally David M. Buss et al., Tactics of Manipulation, 52 J. PERSONALITY & SOC.
PSYCHOL. 1219, 1221 (1987).
115. Joel Rudinow, Manipulation, 88 ETHICS 338, 341(1978).
116. See Patrick Todd, Manipulation, in THE INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ETHICS 3139,
3139 (Hugh LaFollete ed., 2013).
117. ARNOLD ISENBERG, Deontology and the Ethics of Lying, in AESTHETICS AND THEORY OF
CRITICISM: SELECTED ESSAYS OF ARNOLD ISENBERG 245, 249 (William Callaghan et al. eds., 1973).
118. HUGO GROTIUS, THE RIGHTS OF WAR AND PEACE, INCLUDING THE LAW OF NATURE AND OF
NATIONS bk. III, ch. I § XI (Walter Dunne 1901) (1625).
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
your life,” and the Victim hands over the cash, we have all three elements of
coercion. But, even if the efforts of the Robber are not successful, it is
coercive behaviour131 where an action was “intended to force someone to do
something.”132 In other words, only the first two elements of coercion
constitute coercive behavior, i.e., where (1) P wants Q to do something and
wants to be certain that this will happen; and (2) P then takes some action to
get Q to do that something. But how can we know P’s intentions given the
impossibility of knowing with certainty the motivations of others? The
simple answer is that we cannot, but voluntary actions are presumably
motivated. In the case of the utterance, “your money or your life,” the
Robber’s presumed intention is to get the Victim to give them the cash.
Otherwise, why would the Robber choose this formulation of words?
The difference between coercion and coercive behaviour is important
to the non-intervention principle because the International Court of Justice
in the Nicaragua case was not concerned with the success of the United
States’ conduct. The ICJ determined that “intervention is wrongful when it
uses methods of coercion”,133 and that where a state “with a view to the
coercion of another state, supports [an insurrectionist group], that amounts
to an intervention.”134 A violation of the non-intervention rule does not, then,
require evidence of a successful interference. Evidence that a foreign
power135 intended to interfere decisively in the internal political affairs of the
target state is sufficient. With respect to election interference, given the
expenditure of time, money and the risk of condemnation if discovered, it is
implausible to conclude that a foreign state would hack the ICTs used in an
election, or engage in a sustained influence operation, for any reason other
than to decisively influence the outcome of the vote.
The following sections apply this understanding of the notion of
coercion and the related concept of coercive behaviour, what the ICJ refers
to as “methods of coercion,”136 to the problem of foreign state cyber and
influence operations targeting elections, to explain the content of the non-
intervention principle in this context.
131. Grant Lamond, Coercion, in INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ETHICS 840, 841 (Hugh
Lafollette ed., 2013).
132. Grant Lamond, The Coerciveness of Law, 20 OXFORD J. LEGAL STUD. 39, 52 (2000).
133. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J., ¶ 205 (emphasis added).
134. Id. ¶¶ 241, 292.
135. On the problems created by the architecture of the Internet for the factual attribution of state
responsibility, see generally Nicholas Tsagourias, Cyber Attacks, Self-Defence and the Problem of
Attribution, 17 J. CONFLICT & SEC. L. 229 (2012); see also Luke Chircop, A Due Diligence Standard of
Attribution in Cyberspace, 67 INT’L & COMP. L. Q. 643 (2018) (arguing due diligence should be a
secondary rule of international law in the realm of cyber security).
136. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J., ¶ 205.
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
A. Cyber Threats
The standard notion of coercion, which is of a coercive threat (“your
money, or your life”), can be applied to international relations where an
outside power makes a demand that leaves the target without a meaningful
choice. For example, if a foreign power threatened a military invasion if the
population voted a certain way in an election,137 this constitutes a coercive
threat, and consequently, violates the non-intervention rule.
Coercion establishes the dividing line between the unwelcome
deployment of diplomatic, political, and economic pressure138 and unlawful
intervention. Thus, when President Barack Obama asked the British public
to vote against Brexit in the 2016 referendum, warning that the United
Kingdom would be at the “back of the queue” in any trade deal with the U.S.
if the U.K. chose to leave the European Union,139 this was an interference in
domestic political affairs. However, he did not violate the non-intervention
principle: it was not a threat that the electorate could not reasonably ignore.
Warning of deleterious consequences is not by itself unlawful, provided that
the targeted government or population remains free to make its own decision,
which includes awareness of the position of the foreign power.140
Express threats to the electorate or the political class in the target state
can obviously be made via social media.141 New information and
communications technologies also allow for the delivery of implied threats.
In 2007, a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on Estonia caused the
websites of the President, Prime Minister and Parliament, amongst others, to
crash, resulting in massive disruption to the political system. The attack
137. The New York Times reported that, in 1996, “China fired missiles toward Taiwan in the days
before the island’s first democratic presidential election in an attempt to intimidate voters from casting
ballots for the democratic reformer Lee Teng-hui.” Chris Horton, Specter of Meddling by Beijing Looms
Over Taiwan’s Elections, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 22, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/
world/asia/taiwan-elections-meddling.html; see also Danny Gittings, China Threatens to Attack Taiwan,
GUARDIAN (Feb. 22, 2000, 10:07 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/22/china.
138. See Quincy Wright, Subversive Intervention, 54 AM. J. INT’L L. 521, 532 (1960). Others take a
different view, for example, Maziar Jamnejad and Michael Wood conclude that intervention covers any
situation “where one state becomes involved in the internal political processes of another.” Jamnejad &
Wood, supra note 90, at 368.
139. Anushka Asthana & Rowena Mason, Barack Obama: Brexit would put UK ‘Back of the Queue’
for Trade Talks, GUARDIAN (Apr. 22, 2016, 3:30 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/
22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks.
140. See US Warns Turkey over Russian S-400 Missile System Deal, BBC (Apr. 4, 2019),
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47809827.
141. U.S. President Trump using his twitter account to warn Iran of “consequences the likes of which
few throughout history have ever suffered” if the leadership in Iran continued to threaten the United
States. Austin Ramzy, Trump Threatens Iran on Twitter, Warning Rouhani of Dire ‘Consequences,’ N.Y.
TIMES (July 22, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-
twitter.html.
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
began after the Estonian government decided to relocate the statue of the
Bronze Soldier, which represents the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazism–a
move that incensed Russia.142 There is an agreement in the literature that, if
Russia was responsible, the DDoS attack would amount to a prohibited
intervention,143 a coercive cyber threat in the form “Do not relocate the
Bronze Soldier, or else.”144 But it is important to recall that Estonia did move
the statue in the face of strong Russian protests.145 In other words, this failed
attempt to intervene in domestic political affairs was still categorized as
coercive—and a violation of the non-intervention rule—because the
intention was to get the Estonian government not to do something it would
otherwise have done.
B. Cyber Power
The term coercion describes a situation in which State P gets State Q to
do something that Q would not otherwise do. One way this can be done is by
using force. In its 1986 Nicaragua judgment, the International Court of
Justice confirmed that “the element of coercion . . . is particularly obvious in
the case of an intervention which uses force.”146 However, intervention is not
solely concerned with the use of force. Where this is the case, the
International Court of Justice uses the language of “use of force” and
“violations of sovereignty.”147 The principle of non-intervention also
protects the target state from being made to do something by the outside
power.148 In the Nicaragua case, the the U.S. was trying to “coerce the
142. See Adrian Blomfield, War of Words over Bronze Soldier, TELEGRAPH (Feb. 5, 2007, 12:01
AM), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1541641/War-of-words-over-bronze-soldier.html;
see also Damien McGuinness, How a Cyber Attack Transformed Estonia, BBC (Apr. 27, 2017),
https://www.bbc.com/news/39655415.
143. See Buchan, supra note 62; see also William Mattessich, Digital Destruction: Applying the
Principle of Non-Intervention to Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Manifesting No Physical Damage,
54 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 873, 881 (2016).
144. Nicholas Tsagourias explains the point this way: “To the extent that they were intended to put
such pressure on Estonia to change its decision . . . they would constitute prohibited intervention.”
Nicholas Tsagourias, Electoral Cyber Interference, Self-Determination and the Principle of Non-
Intervention in Cyberspace, in GOVERNING CYBERSPACE: BEHAVIOR, POWER AND DIPLOMACY 45, 48
(Dennis Broeders & Bibi van den Berg eds., 2020).
145. See Steven Lee Myers, Russia Rebukes Estonia for Moving Soviet Statue, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 27,
2007), https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/world/europe/27cnd-estonia.html.
146. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J., ¶ 205.
147. Id. ¶ 251 (“[D]irect attacks . . . not only amount to an unlawful use of force, but also constitute
infringements of the territorial sovereignty of Nicaragua.”).
148. It is therefore wrong to see non-intervention as one part of a hierarchy, with the use of force
“above the threshold” and non-intervention “below.” The notion of a threshold implies that the crucial
distinction is the amount of pressure involved, but this is a mistaken view, as Ellery Stowell pointed out
in 1921: “[To] make the actual employment of force the criterion of interference. . . . [i]s to confuse the
means with the purpose.” STOWELL, supra note 42, at 319 n.48. The crucial difference is that, in the case
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
of use of force, the target state is acted upon; in the case of intervention, the outside state achieves its
objectives by working through the target state. This distinction was recognized in 1922 by Percy Winfield,
who explained that the objective of intervention was not “the infliction of a blow upon the resources of a
state, but the usurpation of some part of its powers of government.” Winfield, supra note 39, at 142.
149. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J., ¶ 239.
150. See Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Cyber Power, BELFER CTR. SCI. & INT’L AFF. 7 (2010), available at
belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/cyber-power.pdf.
151. On the notion that the coerced state is the “mere instrument” of the outside power. See Draft
Articles on Responsibility of States, supra note 88; FARNSWORTH, supra note 107, at § 4.16.
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
1. Information Campaigns
There is widespread agreement in the literature that providing the
citizens of another country with factual information, including information
critical of the government of that state,155 does not constitute a prohibited
intervention.156 Genuine news broadcasts by state-owned and state-
controlled media do not necessarily fall within the definition of unlawful
propaganda, “for news broadcasts are the transmission of facts.” The same
holds for commentaries on the news, defined as “an intellectual appraisal or
152. John Martin explains that propaganda involves “a systematic attempt through mass
communications to influence the thinking and thereby the behavior of people.” L. JOHN MARTIN,
INTERNATIONAL PROPAGANDA: ITS LEGAL AND DIPLOMATIC CONTROL 12 (1958). He makes the point
that inter-state propaganda “involves appealing to the masses, as opposed to governments.” Id. at 16.
153. The prohibition on subversive propaganda is “a deep-rooted principle of customary
international law.” Eric de Brabandere, Propaganda, in MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUB. INT’L L.
para. 13 (2012). See, H. Lauterpacht, Revolutionary Propaganda by Governments, 13 TRANSACTIONS
GROTIUS SOC’Y 143, 146 (1927); John B. Whitton, Propaganda and International Law, 72 COLLECTED
COURSES HAGUE ACAD. INT’L L. 542, 582–83 (1948). The prohibition establishes a limited, albeit
absolute, prohibition on inter-state propaganda that calls on the population to reject an established
sovereign authority. See, for example, the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations, supra note 53, which
provides that no State shall organize “subversive . . . activities directed towards the violent overthrow of
the regime of another State.”
154. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J., ¶ 205. See, on this point, Richard A. Falk, The United States and the
Doctrine of Nonintervention in the Internal Affairs of Independent States, 5 HOW. L. J. 163, 186 (1959).
155. See Philip Kunig, Intervention, Prohibition of, in MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUB. INT’L
L. para. 24 (2008).
156. Eric de Brabandere explains that propaganda is a method of communication “aimed at
influencing and manipulating the behaviour of people in a certain predefined way. The element of
influenc[e] and manipula[tion] is at the centre of the concept [of propaganda] and distinguishes it from
mere factual information.” Brabandere, supra note 153, at para. 1.
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
157. ANN VAN WYNEN THOMAS & A. J. THOMAS JR., NON-INTERVENTION: THE LAW AND ITS
IMPORT IN THE AMERICAS 291 (1956).
158. See Sunstein, supra note 112.
159. When we speak about “factual information”, we are concerned with things that are actually the
case, i.e. things that correspond to the “truth.” The meaning of “truth” has been debated in philosophy for
hundreds of years, and there is much discussion today about the notion of “post-truth.” All of this is
beyond the scope of this paper.
160. Kilovaty, supra note 10, at 152–53. Kilovaty’s position is clearly normative, making the case
that “international law should adapt to the digital era’s threats.” Id. at 147 (emphasis added).
161. On the international law applicable to the “DNC hack”, see Logan Hamilton, Beyond Ballot-
Stuffing: Current Gaps in International Law Regarding Foreign State Hacking to Influence a Foreign
Election, 35 WIS. INT’L L. J. 179 (2017); see also Duncan B. Hollis, Russia and the DNC Hack: What
Future for a Duty of Non-Intervention?, OPINIOJURIS (July 25, 2016), http://opiniojuris.org/2016/07/25/
russia-and-the-dnc-hack-a-violation-of-the-duty-of-non-intervention/.
162. Andy Greenberg, The NSA Confirms It: Russia Hacked French Election ‘Infrastructure’,
WIRED (Sept. 5, 2017, 12:36 PM), https://www.wired.com/2017/05/nsa-director-confirms-russia-hacked-
french-election-infrastructure/. The outgoing President, François Hollande “openly warned Russia to let
up its attacks on the Macron campaign . . . .” ERIK BRATTBERG & TIM MAURER, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT
FOR INT’L PEACE, RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE: EUROPE’S COUNTER TO FAKE NEWS AND CYBER
ATTACKS 11 (2018), available at https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CP_333_Brattberg_Maurer_
Russia_Elections_Interference_Brief_FINAL.pdf. Whether Russia was responsible is unclear. See
LAURA GALANTE & SHAUN EE, ATLANTIC COUNCIL, DEFINING RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE: AN
ANALYSIS OF SELECT 2014 TO 2018 CYBER ENABLED INCIDENTS 12 (2018), available at
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Defining_Russian_Election_Interference_
web.pdf.
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
163. Michael Jensen, We’ve Been Hacked—So Will the Data be Weaponised to Influence Election
2019? Here’s What to Look for, CONVERSATION (Feb. 21, 2019, 4:54 PM), https://theconversation.com/
weve-been-hacked-so-will-the-data-be-weaponised-to-influence-election-2019-heres-what-to-look-for-
112130.
164. Yuichiro Kanematsu, Fears of Chinese Cybermeddling Grow After Cambodia Election, NIKKEI
(Aug. 18, 2018, 6:01 AM), https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Fears-of-Chinese-
cybermeddling-grow-after-Cambodia-election.
165. Janosch Delcker, Germany Whacked by Big Data Hack, POLITICO (Jan. 4, 2019, 5:09 PM),
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-data-hack-merkel-whacked/.
166. Oliver Moody, Merkel Anger over Russian Hacking, TIMES (May 14, 2020, 12:01 AM),
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/merkel-anger-over-russian-hacking-lkhwnn05w.
167. B.S. MURTY, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PROPAGANDA: THE IDEOLOGICAL INSTRUMENT
AND WORLD PUBLIC ORDER 28 (1989).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
largely the case today. But as more people get their news and commentaries
from social media, the dangers of a foreign power inundating the information
environment with a single political narrative increase. The Washington Post
reports, for example, that, during Taiwan’s 2018 local elections, “citizens
were bombarded with anti-[Government] content through Facebook, Twitter
and online chat groups . . . .”168 The presumed objective of the People’s
Republic of China, the assumed source of the information operation, was to
undermine the governing Democratic Progressive Party, which supports
Taiwanese independence from mainland China.169 Each individual
communication might fall into the category of factual information or fair
comment. But bombarding citizens with news stories and commentaries to
develop a dominant political narrative violates the non-intervention rule,
where the objective is to drown out all other voices, and therefore constrain
the choices available to voters.
168. Josh Rogin, China’s Interference in the 2018 Elections Succeeded—In Taiwan, WASH. POST
(Dec. 18, 2018, 8:25 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/18/chinas-interference-
elections-succeeded-taiwan/.
169. Horton, supra note 137.
170. See SAMANTHA BRADSHAW & PHILIP N. HOWARD, OXFORD, CHALLENGING TRUTH AND
TRUST: A GLOBAL INVENTORY OF ORGANIZED SOCIAL MEDIA MANIPULATION 6 (2018). Studies have
shown that people often struggle to distinguish fact from fiction on the Internet and in social media.
Anthony J. Gaughan, Illiberal Democracy: The Toxic Mix of Fake News, Hyperpolarization, and Partisan
Election Administration, 12 DUKE J. CONST. L. & PUB. POL’Y 57, 66 (2017).
171. Björnstjern Baade, Fake News and International Law, 29 EUR. J. INT’L L. 1357, 1358 (2019).
172. David M. J. Lazer et al., The Science of Fake News: Addressing Fake News Requires a
Multidisciplinary Effort, 359 SCI. MAG. 1094, 1094 (Mar. 9, 2018).
173. The use of “bots”—short for “robots,” software applications that pretend to be human and
reproduce content in social media on a massive scale—ensures that fake news spreads quickly. The head
of the U.K.’s domestic counter-intelligence and security agency complained that, “[a]ge-old attempts at
covert influence and propaganda have been supercharged in online disinformation, which can be churned
out at massive scale and little cost.” Andrew Parker, MI5 Director General, U.K., Speech to BFV
Symposium in Berlin (May 14, 2018), www.mi5.gov.uk/news/director-general-andrew-parker-speech-
to-bfv-symposium.
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
174. Theresa May, Prime Minister, U.K., Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet 2017 (Nov. 13, 2017),
www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-the-lord-mayors-banquet-2017.
175. The 1981 General Assembly Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention includes an
obligation for states “to combat . . . the dissemination of false or distorted news which can be interpreted
as interference in the internal affairs of other States . . .” G.A. Res. 36/103, supra note 54, ¶ 2(III)(d).
Because the Declaration was adopted by 120 votes to 22, following opposition by Western states, it is not
generally regarded as reflecting customary international law.
176. Björnstjern Baade explains that fake news, in the strict sense of a false news item, which is
intentionally fabricated, is “coercive,” because “the projection of a different set of facts constrains one’s
freedom to act by making certain options and conclusions no longer seem viable or making others seem
mandatory.” Baade, supra note 171, at 1364.
177. On the practice of releasing deep fake sex tapes, see generally Ben Collins, Russia-Linked
Account Pushed Fake Hillary Clinton Sex Video, NBC NEWS, (Apr. 11, 2018, 4:49 PM), https://
www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/russia-linked-account-pushed-fake-hillary-clinton-sex-video-n864871.
178. On “deep fakes” see generally, Robert Chesney & Danielle Keats Citron, Deep Fakes: A
Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security, 107 CALIF. L. REV. 1753 (2019).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
3. Disinformation Campaigns
The basic political question in any democracy is: what should we do?
This is answered by a general election or referendum, and by the governing
political class—those involved in making political decisions—at other times,
with a recognition of the importance of maintaining the support of the
electorate for policy positions. Political will-formation depends on the
availability of reliable information, and the capacity of the public and the
political class to deliberate and decide on the best course of action. Fake
news feeds false information, in order to get them to act differently.
Disinformation campaigns also rely on fabricated information,181 but the
objective is to undermine the capacity of the population or the political class
to make decisions in their own interests.
Disinformation is misleading information that is likely to create false
beliefs, where it is “no accident that it is misleading.”182 Similar to lying,
disinformation involves a deliberate attempt to mislead, but in the case of
disinformation the objectives and goals are “often political.”183 The most
widely cited example of a disinformation campaign is the 2016 “Our Lisa”
case in Germany, involving the dissemination of the untrue story about the
abduction and rape of an underage Russian-German girl by Arab migrants.184
The security expert, Constanze Stelzenmüller, explains that the widespread
reporting of the story on social media by Russian actors was intended “to
sow confusion, doubt, and distrust.”185 This was part of a wider influence
campaign by Russia, intended to undermine the confidence of German
citizens, including the three million ethnic Russian-German minority,186 in
the leadership of the Chancellor, Angela Merkel, regarding her stance on
Russia’s interventions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.187
The objectives of a disinformation campaign are to create decision-
making paralysis and/or to shift the policy position of the target so it comes
to align with the interests of the foreign power. Decision-making paralysis is
achieved by creating confusion about the facts of the situation and
undermining confidence in the capacity of the democratic system to deliver
the best policy outcomes. The outside power can then feed information and
disinformation into the political debate in order to get the target population
or political class to move themselves to a policy position that aligns with the
interests of the outside power.188 This is described in the literature in terms
of reflexive control.189
183. James H. Fetzer, Disinformation: The Use of False Information, 14 MINDS & MACH. 231, 232
(2004). On “disinformation” see generally, W. Lance Bennett & Steven Livingston, The Disinformation
Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions, 33 EUR. J. COMM. 122
(2018) (discussing recent disinformation campaigns meant to disrupt the normal political order); L. John
Martin, Disinformation: An Instrumentality in the Propaganda Arsenal, 2 POL. COMM. 47 (1982)
(providing a Cold War perspective distinguishing disinformation from run-of-the-mill propaganda).
184. Stefan Meister, The “Lisa Case”: Germany as a Target of Russian Disinformation, NATO
REV. (July 25, 2016), https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2016/07/25/the-lisa-case-germany-as-a-
target-of-russian-disinformation/index.html.
185. The Impact of Russian Interference on Germany’s 2017 Elections: Hearing Before the S. Select
Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong. 44 (2017) (statement of Constanze Stelzenmüller, Fellow, Royal
Swedish Academy for War Sciences).
186. The target of a disinformation campaign can be the entire population, or one section, exploiting
divisions in society. The resulting lack of political cohesion can make it difficult for a democratic
government to act. See MARTIN MOORE, DEMOCRACY HACKED: POLITICAL TURMOIL AND INFORMATION
WARFARE IN THE DIGITAL AGE 80 (2018).
187. See Kaan Sahin, Germany Confronts Russian Hybrid Warfare, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR
INT’L PEACE, (July 26, 2017), https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/07/26/germany-confronts-russian-
hybrid-warfare-pub-72636.
188. See Timothy L. Thomas, Russia’s Reflexive Control Theory and the Military, 17 J. SLAVIC MIL.
STUD. 237, 241 (2004).
189. See Han Bouwmeester, Lo and Behold: Let the Truth Be Told: Russian Deception Warfare in
Crimea and Ukraine and the Return of “Maskirovka” and “Reflexive Control Theory, in NETHERLANDS
ANNUAL REVIEW OF MILITARY STUDIES 2017 at 125, 140 (Paul Ducheine & Frans Osinga eds., 2017).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
On the application of the notion to Russian efforts in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, see Annie
Kowalewski, Disinformation and Reflexive Control: The New Cold War, GEO. SEC. STUD. REV. (Feb. 1,
2017), http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2017/02/01/disinformation-and-reflexive-control-
the-new-cold-war/.
190. See Diego A. Martin et al., Recent Trends in Online Foreign Influence Efforts, 18 J. INFO.
WARFARE no. 3, 15, at 16 (2019).
191. The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines the term “sock puppet” as a person whose actions
are controlled by another. Sock, n.1, OXFORD ENG. DICTIONARY ONLINE (June 2020),
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/183797.
192. A DICTIONARY OF THE INTERNET (Darrel Ince ed., 4th ed. 2019).
193. See Jens David Ohlin, Election Interference: The Real Harm and The Only Solution 7 (Cornell
Legal Stud. Res. Paper Series, No. 18-50, 2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=3276940; see generally, Christopher T Stein, Hacking the Electorate: A Non-Intervention Violation
Maybe, but Not an “Act of War”, 37 ARIZ. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 29 (2020) (analyzing how to categorize
the Russian disinformation operations during the 2016 U.S. election under international law).
194. The social media platform, Facebook, has responded to the problem of, what it calls,
“coordinated manipulation campaigns” by focusing on the issue of transparency, with its Head of
Cybersecurity Policy explaining that: “The real issue is that the actors behind these campaigns are using
deceptive behaviors to conceal the identity of the organization behind a campaign.” He describes
“Foreign-led efforts to manipulate public debate in another country” as a “particularly egregious”
example of a coordinated manipulation campaign. Nathaniel Gleicher, How We Respond to Inauthentic
Behavior on Our Platforms: Policy Update, FACEBOOK (Oct. 21, 2019), https://about.fb.com/news/2019/
10/inauthentic-behavior-policy-update/.
195. Nicar. v. U.S., 1986 I.C.J, ¶ 205.
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
VI. CONCLUSION
The aim of this article was to explain how we can apply the long-
established principle of non-intervention to the new problem of state cyber
and influence operations targeting elections. There is general agreement that
the formulation in the 1986 Nicaragua case provides the starting point for
any discussion: a prohibited intervention must both concern a matter “which
each State is permitted to decide freely,” and use “methods of coercion.”196
There is also no doubt that the outcome of an election is a matter that
democratic states should be permitted to decide freely, without outside
intermeddling—this point has been clear from the emergence of the non-
intervention rule.197 The only question is whether and when cyber and
influence operations targeting elections can be categorized as coercive—and
that depends on how we understand the term.
Words for international lawyers mean what international lawyers
decide they mean.198 The agreed meaning of coercion will crystallise through
the utterances of states, courts, tribunals, international law practitioners, and
academics. It is, therefore, important for democratic countries to explain
publicly which cyber and influence operations they consider to be violations
of the non-intervention principle, or how and why certain forms of cyber and
influence operation can be categorized as coercive.
This article developed an argument for how we can, and should,
understand the notion of coercion, by drawing on the arguments of our
colleagues in the cognate disciplines of philosophy and the philosophy of
law. The work showed that the function of the non-intervention rule is to
protect the state from coming under the control of an outside power through
its intermeddling in the information that voters and the political class rely on
196. Id.
197. See WHEATON, supra note 41.
198. The point is made clear in Whaling in the Antarctic, where the International Court of Justice
drew a clear distinction between the way that scientists use the term “scientific research” and its
international law meaning, with the ICJ deciding that “[t]heir conclusions as scientists . . . must be
distinguished from the interpretation of the Convention, which is the task of this Court.” Whaling in the
Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan: N.Z. intervening), Judgment, 2014 I.C.J. 226, ¶ 82 (Mar. 31).
WHEATLEY_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
when making a decision; the capacity of the population and political class to
engage in meaningful political deliberation; the right of the state to decide
freely; or the sovereign right of the state to act for itself. The analysis led to
the following conclusions.
First, the provision of factual information and commentaries on the
news by foreign states, including by state-owned and state-controlled news
media, does not violate the principle of non-intervention, no matter how
unfriendly or unwelcome.199 Consequently, the practice of doxfare is not a
violation of the rule. Nor are comments made by the leaders of outside
powers seeking to influence the outcome of a democratic election or
referendum. Lying to the electorate, on the other hand, defined as providing
deliberately false information, is prohibited where the intention is to get the
population to vote differently. Fake news, in this narrow sense, involves the
coercive manipulation of the decision-making process, because the objective
is to deceive the target population into doing something it would not
otherwise have done, absent the false information.
Second, sustained disinformation campaigns are unlawful where the
objective is to frustrate the target state’s capacity for meaningful democratic
deliberation. This can be done in two ways: by paralyzing the decision-
making process, through the creation of confusion about the facts of the
situation and undermining confidence in the ability of the system to deliver
the correct policy outcomes; and by systematically feeding information and
disinformation into political debates, in order to move the position of the
population or political class so that it comes to align with the interests of the
foreign power. Both involve methods of coercion because the objective is to
usurp the target’s right to decide for themselves. Where there is evidence that
a foreign power is using sock puppets, such as individuals pretending to be
local citizens, and spreading disinformation, this clearly violates the non-
intervention rule.
Third, where information and communications technologies are used to
communicate to a government or population that they must decide a
particular way, this constitutes a coercive threat and a violation of the non-
intervention rule. States are entitled to make representations and to warn of
deleterious consequences if the government or population makes a certain
decision. What outside powers are not permitted to do is frame the warning
as a threat that could not reasonably be ignored because this creates a forced
choice situation where the target is required to make the decision preordained
by the foreign power.
199. The one exception is an influence campaign designed to overwhelm the information
environment with a single political narrative, as this prevents the electorate from making a meaningful
choice between competing positions.
WHEATLEY_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2021 11:12 AM
Finally, where a state cyber operation takes control of, or disables the
functioning of, the ICTs that underpin the holding of elections, to ensure that
the target acts as intended by the foreign power, this involves the coercive
use of cyber power and constitutes a prohibited intervention. All uses of
cyber power of this type are coercive, and therefore wrongful, because the
outside power achieves its objective by working through bodies like the
Electoral Commission, compelling them to do something they would not
otherwise do–and thus making the target state’s institutions the instrument
of a foreign power.