The utilization of cyber operations in armed conflict is a fact of life and on top of the agenda worldwide. When Russia began a large-scale military invasion in Ukraine in February 2022, many...Show moreThe utilization of cyber operations in armed conflict is a fact of life and on top of the agenda worldwide. When Russia began a large-scale military invasion in Ukraine in February 2022, many anticipated the kinetic action to be accompanied by comprehensive cyber operations. So far, cyber operations in Ukraine appear to be somewhat subdued. These cyber operations are covered by international humanitarian law (IHL) to the extent that they have a connection to armed conflict. The cyber operations that have been undertaken so far have been on the borderline of some of the most debated issues in the law regarding cyber operations. Although there is consensus that IHL applies to cyber operations during armed conflict, there is still discussion on how notions of IHL apply to cyber operations during armed conflict. Issues about the notion of “attack” and the notion of “object” are widely debated among scholars, but there is still no common understanding of the concepts. Several scholars have provided different approaches on how to apply both notions. However, the shortcoming of these different approaches is that they discuss the notions in theory, but don’t apply them in practice. This thesis wants to fill the gap of the how-question in practice by applying the key notions of “attack” and “object” of IHL to a cyber operation during an armed conflict that has already happened: the Russian-Georgian cyber conflict. This reveals that a combination of the approaches for both notions will provide the best outcome.Show less
Currently, there is a devastating humanitarian crisis occurring in Yemen due to the continuing civil war. In this paper, the legality of a potential military intervention into Yemen under the...Show moreCurrently, there is a devastating humanitarian crisis occurring in Yemen due to the continuing civil war. In this paper, the legality of a potential military intervention into Yemen under the doctrine of R2P is researched. This paper aims to increase the knowledge of the Responsibility to Protect and its legal framework. First, the legal framework of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is outlined, demarcated, and applied to the current situation in Yemen. Thereafter, a discourse analysis on the public opinion in the United States and the United Kingdom about Yemen is performed to indicate the reason for the reluctance to start a military intervention. The findings of this research demonstrate that the reluctance of the United States and the United Kingdom is caused by a potential escalating conflict between major powers and the absence of a primary humanitarian purpose. Therefore, two principles of the legal framework of R2P are not applicable and hence, a military intervention into Yemen would be illegal under the doctrine of R2P.Show less
Uyghur Muslims in the Chinese region of Xinjian are being violated by the Chinese government. Although there is growing evidence of these human rights violations, many states do not recognize the...Show moreUyghur Muslims in the Chinese region of Xinjian are being violated by the Chinese government. Although there is growing evidence of these human rights violations, many states do not recognize the atrocities that are taking place in China. This paper consists of a case study about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Even though Pakistan is an Islamic state, it remains silent about the human rights violations against its fellow believers. This study aims to explain what influences Pakistan’s public policy in their willingness to recognize these human rights violations through a rational choice institutionalism theory. This theory explains that Pakistan benefits from its relationship with China and the game theory describes that not recognizing these violations is the best outcome for both states.Show less
