New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law is to rather identify and prove the detailed content of the applicable rules of law - not being the source of law itself. 660 Furthermore, due to the extensive diffusion and accessibility of the Manual, the upcoming generations of practitioners and advisors in the digital space are thus gradually learning about international law by reading the rules of the Tallinn Manual and their commentaries. 661 Another more structural problem is that applicability of the framework of international law regarding the use of force to cyberspace has its limits. While there is an overwhelming consensus that international law is applicable to cyberspace, this seemingly does not translate well to all its logical conclusions. An example of this could be the ongoing academic debate surrounding self-defense embedded in Article 51 of the UN Charter. While the right to anticipatory defense can be argued for in a conventional kinetic use of force, it is much less conceivable to do so in a case of a cyberattack, despite the obvious double standard one is forced to adopt. Similarly, the suitability of the jus ad bellum and jus in bello duality to cyberoperations can be easily challenged. 662 Some have even gone as far as to question international law as a suitable normative framework for cyberspace, which seem to challenge conventional legal ways of defining space . 663 As a result, the formalistic legal approach of the manual may not be an appropriate means of combatting cyberspace and new, sui generis forms of cyber-governance should be developed instead. Conclusion Due to this plurality of obstacles in cyberspace, normative attempts have proven to be exceptionally cumbersome. States have so far demonstrated a skeptical view towards the Tallin Manual’s utility in governing the law of cyberspace and have deployed a policy of strategic silence, highlighting the political nature of normativity in cyberspace. Despite the multitude of criticism, the utility of the Tallinn Manual does not necessarily lie in accepting it as a codified set of laws. The importance of an existing material source of cyberlaw cannot be understated as it necessitates legal discourse and a venue for further normative opportunities. The Tallinn manual mirrors the frustration of legal practitioners with the innate unwillingness of traditional law-makers to legislate highly political issues. Whether the Manual leads to a comprehensive Cyber treaty or not, it’s worth lies in its ability to direct legal discourse in its field. The one-of-a-kind legal treatment of cyberspace fills a legal void which, in turn, necessitates its recognition in legal practice. 661 Bannelier K, ‘“Rien Que La Lex Lata”? Étude Critique Du Manuel de Tallinn 2.0 Sur Le Droit International Applicable Aux Cyber-Opérations’ (2017) 63 Annuaire français de droit international 121, p. 125. 662 Efrony D and Shany Y, ‘A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice’ (2018) 112 American Journal of International Law 583, p. 653. 663 Tanodomdej P, ‘The Tallinn Manuals and the Making of the International Law on Cyber Operations’ (2019) 13 Masaryk U JL & Tech 67, pp. 69-70. 660 Yee S, ‘Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Applicable Law: Selected Issues in Recent Cases’ (2016) 7 J Int’l Disp Settlement 472, p. 491.

156