īoth potential and actual effects are considered to be relevant when assessing the coercion element. Many States have affirmed that the assessment has to be done on a case-by-case basis. One example that has been reiterated in several States’ positions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States, is the case of cyber operations by a State interfering with another state’s ability to hold an election or manipulating the election results. Some States support the approach that intervention may take various forms, such as economic and political coercion. While coercion is evident in the case of an intervention involving the use of force, ‘either in the direct form of military action, or in the indirect form of support for subversive or terrorist armed activities within another State’, as affirmed by the ICJ, it is less clear with respect to non-forcible forms of interference. The element of coercion also entails the requirement of intent. Under both approaches, however, merely influencing the target State by persuasion or propaganda or causing a nuisance without any particular goal is insufficient to qualify as coercion. This latter approach distinguishes itself from the former by accepting that mere deprivation of the target State’s control over a protected matter, without actually or potentially compelling that State to change its behaviour, may constitute intervention.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |