Let’s assume that al-Qaeda managed to hack into every major power grid in the United States and shut them down. The nation’s economy would be devastated. Such an act of cyber-terrorism would be catastrophic (Bernadette & Clemens, 2006, p.78-79, 122) for the United States. Although this is just an assumption, hackers constantly look for ways to hack into the U.S. government computer systems throughout the day (Mount, 2009). The fact of the matter is that the critical U.S. infrastructure is extremely vulnerable due to being accessible via the Internet. Perhaps the same can be said about other nations too, and that is cyber-terrorism is a global threat. There are a variety of methods that can be used by cyber-terrorists to hack into their computer networks. Although steps to prevent or at least reduce the risk of cyber-terrorism, however, there are several reasons they have proven insufficient (Jones, 2009) to secure the Internet from cyber-terrorists and pursue them for effective prosecution.
Cyberspace has no borders, and this is what makes it so potentially perilous. Since there is no territory in cyberspace, and this is why traditional jurisdiction does not exist in it (Schultz, 2008). While it is cyber-terrorism cannot be prevented, pursuing effective prosecution is the only way to deter cyber-terrorists. Although several forms of jurisdiction have been provided by international law (Fry, 2002), territorial and universal jurisdiction is most relevant. Whenever a crime is committed, a state applies its laws based on the location where the crime was committed (Randall, 1988). Modern international law is based on territoriality (Raustiala, 2009, p.11). However, since crosses multiple territories and an act of cyber-terrorism can be committed from anywhere in the world, applying territorial jurisdiction would be complicated and ultimately ineffective. Even the origin of an act of cyber-terrorism is complicated, since the culprit is usually in another region, the crime itself takes place in cyberspace (Kanuck, 1996, p.288), and it is intended to affect another area.
Another reason it is very difficult to locate cyber-terrorists and apply a particular jurisdiction to prosecute them is because they keep changing their locations and have the necessary technological tools to make it appear that an attack originated from somewhere else. Cyber-terrorists may loop numerous computer systems before they actually attack their target (Borchgrave, 2009), therefore, it becomes impossible to locate them and establish jurisdiction. Another reason analyzing territorial jurisdiction becomes complicated in terms of cyber-terrorism is because the computer systems that cyber-terrorists loop through can also be decoys. Moreover, the international community does not agree that the doctrine of jurisdiction in terms of territories can be applied under international law. Since deterring cyber-terrorism and pursuing effective prosecution of cyber-terrorists are the primary goals, asserting territorial jurisdiction in terms of cyber-terrorism becomes almost impossible because of these reasons. In this case, the only way to prosecute a cyber-terrorist would be if they visited the area they are attacked.
Numerous have been taken within the United States to secure cyberspace in the recent years. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the Congress with the intention of deterring and punishing terrorists. In 2009, “The Cybersecurity Act” was introduced in the United States. In the United States, there are laws that forbid hacking, intrusion into computer systems, and online identity theft. However, it is not merely about the United States, since cyberspace is nowhere yet everywhere. Therefore, a more effective way to pursue effective prosecution of cyber-terrorists by exercising jurisdiction would be through the principle of universal jurisdiction of international law (Randall, 1988). Unfortunately, the only way universal jurisdiction could be exercised if worldwide states would be willing to do so. The threat cyber-terrorism poses to the security of nations is significant, and this is why global nations need to agree upon universal jurisdiction so that cyber-terrorists can be effectively prosecuted.
References
Bernadette, S., & Clemens, M. (2006). Webster’s new world ® hacker dictionary. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Schultz, T. (2008). Carving up the internet: Jurisdiction, legal orders, and the private/public international law interface. The European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 800–801. Retrieved from http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/19/4/1662.pdf
Fry, J. D. (2002). Terrorism as a crime against humanity and genocide. 7 UCLA J. Int'l L. & For. Aff., 169, 173–174.
Randall, K. C. (1988). Universal jurisdiction under international law. 66 Tex. L. Rev., 785, 786–787.
Raustiala, K. (2009). Does the constitution follow the flag?: The evolution of territoriality in american law. (p. 11). Oxford University Press.
Kanuck, S. P. (1996). Information warefare: New challenges for public international law. 37 Harv. Int'l L.J., 272,
Jones, J. L. (2009, Feb 8). Remarks by national security adviser jones at 45th munich conference on security policy. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/ remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th_munich_conference_on_security _policy.htmlGable_camera_ready_final.doc
Borchgrave, A. D. (2009, Feb 17). Commentary: Silent cyberwar. Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/02/17Commentary-Silentcyberwar/UPI-74141234886723
Mount, M. (2009, Apr 21). Hackers stole data on pentagon's newest fighter jet. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html
