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

Court of Justice (ICJ). This principle emanates from the concept of sovereignty outlined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter. 738 While it is evident that states interact with one another and exert influence, whether directly or indirectly, there are specific forms of intervention in the internal affairs of other states that have been formally proscribed by international law through the UN Charter and resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 739 Such interactions are clearly visible during the infodemic, where information flows from one country to another, sometimes being disseminated at the initiative of governments, prompting the need for global coordination and regulation to combat misinformation on a wide scale. UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, known as the Friendly Relations Declaration, played a pivotal role in delineating the limits of intervention. It asserted that no state possesses “the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the in ternal or external affairs of any other state”. 740 Notably, the International Group of Experts (IGE), responsible for creating the Tallinn Manual, has affirmed that the principle of non- -intervention extends to the realm of cyberspace. 741 Therefore, any global legal efforts by the international community to combat infode mia must carefully account for the unique characteristics and intricacies of international law in this context. Moreover, the multifaceted nature of infodemia, which encompasses not only the dissemination of false information but also the manipulation of public opinion, requires a holistic approach that involves not only legal mechanisms but also international cooperation in the realms of media literacy, technology regulation, and diplomatic efforts. This comprehensive strategy can help address the complex challenges posed by infodemia and its impact on global society. 4. Promoting Reliable Information and an Enabling Environment Recognizing the distinct character of disinformation, the global community as a who le has taken a first and important step with HRC Resolution 49/21. According to Resolution 49/21 governments ought to make an effort to draft a comprehensive, legally binding agreement that prohibits international State-sponsored disinformation. 742 Such a convention ought to clearly indicate that any intentional attempt to use disinformati on to control and harm a population of a foreign country is illegal interference in the sovereign state’s territory. 738 UN, Charter of the United Nations, adopted on 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS 16, Article 2(1) UNC. 739 UNGA, Res 2131 (XX), ‘Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States’ UN Doc. A/RES/36/103 (1981). 740 UNGA, Res 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, (1970) (Friendly Relations Declaration); ICJ, Case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda) , Judgment [2005] ICJ Rep 168, para 155–65. 741 Schmitt M, Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (CUP, 2017), p. 312. 742 Zhao W, ‘Cyber Disinformation Operations (CDOs) and a New Paradigm of Non-Intervention’ (2020) 27 U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy 35, p. 51.

181