On March 27, 2014, the Academic Salon of the Institute of International Law of Wuhan University was held on time in Room 323. Professor Huang Zhixiong from teaching and research section of International Public Law has made a wonderful lecture titled “ ‘cyber Warfare’ and the Use of Force in International Law—A Review of the Contents of the Tallinn Handbook”.

Professor Huang Zhixiong's report is divided into five parts: the background of the "cyber warfare", the compilation and main content of the Tallinn Handbook, the use of force in the Tallinn Handbook, content evaluation and conclusion of "cyber warfare" and the "Tallinn Handbook", etc.

First of all, when introducing the background of the "cyber warfare", Professor Huang introduced three stages of the development of the "cyber warfare" problem: the first phase (1993-2000), the second phase (2001-2006), and the third phase (2007-present). The first stage is the stage of the concept of "cyber warfare"; the second stage of "cyber warfare" research has been quiet due to the anti-terrorism in 9.11; the third stage of "cyber warfare" problem has become a hot issue again due to cyber attacks and "seismic cyber" events in Estonia Waiting.

Secondly, Professor Huang introduced the compilation and main contents of the Tallinn Handbook. In the compilation, he pointed out that the Tallinn Handbook was completed by the “International Expert Group” established by 20 western countries' war laws experts, military law experts and cyber technology experts, and was published in March 2013. In terms of content, the Tallinn Handbook focuses on war rights and wartime regulations. Second, the editors of the Tallinn Manual said that the relevant rules of the Tallinn Manual are the determination of existing laws.

Then, Professor Huang commented on the use of force in the Tallinn Manual. Two issues were mainly discussed: whether "cyber warfare" constitutes the use of force prohibited by Article 2.4 of the UN Charter; the legal issue of "cyber warfare"’s exercising the right to self-defense. When discussing the first question, Professor Huang first introduced the multi-disciplinary views of the West around the meaning and scope of Article 2.4: “Tool Theory”, “Consequence Theory” and “Skopos Theory”. What is then pointed out is that the "scale and consequence" standard advocated by the Tallinn Manual actually conforms to the "consequence theory". Professor Huang pointed out that from the reality of today's international relations, it is reasonable to include specific cyber attacks in the "use of force" prohibited by Article 2.4. However, he also pointed out that the "scale and consequence" standards adopted in the Tallinn Handbook are uncertain and objectively difficult to judge. When discussing the second question, Professor Huang first discussed the threshold of Article 51 “armed attack” of the UN Charter, stating that the “armor attack” in Article 51 should be higher than the “use of force” in Article 2.4. Then he discussed whether and how cyber attacks constitute a "force attack", pointing out that most western scholars support "force attack", but there are differences on specific standards. It was subsequently pointed out that the Tallinn Manual adopted the “scale and consequence” standard. Professor Huang then questioned this and considered that this standard is inevitably subjective and arbitrary. Moreover, he pointed out that the Tallinn Handbook has a tendency to expand the interpretation of Article 51, which is reflected in: the right to defend against the non-state actors can also exercise the right to self-defense; advocate the "prophylactic right to self-defense".

Next, Professor Huang made a comprehensive evaluation of the contents of "Network Warfare" and "Tallinn Handbook". In the evaluation of the "cyber warfare" issue, Professor Huang proposed: First, the discussion of cyber warfare in Europe and the United States exaggerated and even subjectively assume the threat of cyber attacks; second, the militarization of cyber security policies in western countries continued to emerge; third, the role of international law scholars in western countries is compelling. Fourth, the development of cyber policy in Western countries is strong in power of politics and dual standards. Fifth, the issue of "cyber warfare" reflects the policy tendencies of some big countries in "military network." In evaluating the Tallinn Handbook as “determination of existing law” or “scientific lawmaking”, Professor Huang pointed out: First, Article 38(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice states: “The highest authority of public law in all countries can be used as "subsidy information for determining legal principles"; second, the editor of the Tallinn Manual argues that the Tallinn Handbook proposes rules of customary international law; and third, at least as to the use of force, it is not convincing that the Tallinn Handbook establishes the rules of customary law. Fourth, the Tallinn Handbook is an attempt by Western countries to provide a "rule basis" in the sense of real law for relevant policies. Fifth, strongly advocating the Tallinn Handbook is establishing the rules of customary international law is merely a manifestation of the Western "discourse power".

Finally, in the conclusion section, Professor Huang pointed out that the it is worthy of vigilance that "cyber warfare" is heating up and the militarization policy of the "military force network" of the western countries is under the way; the Tallinn Handbook has obvious "discourse power" color regarding the use of force and the right to resort to war; the "de-militarization" of the cybersecurity policy and the establishment of a peaceful and harmonious cyberspace international order are the goals that all countries should pursue together.

In the questioning session, Professor Zhang Qinglin and Professor Nie Jianqiang from the Institute of International Law conducted in-depth discussions with Professor Huang Zhixiong on the acceptance of the Tallinn Handbook by western countries and whether the “cyber war” could be independent of the United Nations to establish a new rules system.

The academic salon was hosted by Professor Nie Jianqiang, Deputy Director of the Institute of International Law at Wuhan University. Zeng Lingliang, Feng Jiechi, Shi Lei, Xiao Jun and other teachers from the International Law Institute and some doctoral, postgraduate and undergraduate students attended the salon. (Contributor: Yuan Aixiang, graduate student of Wuhan University Institute of International Law )