Cyberterrorism across Digital Borders and the Changing Limits of International Security Cooperation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
A suspected cyberterrorist attack can damage infrastructure in one state while leaving the most useful evidence in another. Governments may face demands for retaliation before investigators know whether the actor is a terrorist group, an individual, or a state-backed proxy. This study examined how that uncertainty was changing the practical limits of international security cooperation. This research use normative legal research was used to analyze treaty rules, United Nations counter-terrorism measures, the law of state responsibility, and cyber norm documents. The analysis showed that sovereignty continued to determine coercive authority, while territorial jurisdiction no longer guaranteed timely access to evidence. Cooperation increasingly relied on faster preservation procedures, direct engagement with service providers, and emergency channels that could operate before final attribution. Those developments remained uneven because newer treaty frameworks were not yet fully operational in 2026. Cyberterrorism therefore exposed a shift in the problem rather than the disappearance of state authority: current limits increasingly concern speed, access, trust, private control of infrastructure, and disagreement over attribution.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Backhaus, S., Gross, M. L., Waismel-Manor, I., Cohen, H., & Canetti, D. (2020). A cyberterrorism effect? Emotional reactions to lethal attacks on critical infrastructure. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(9), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0692
Broeders, D. (2021). Private active cyber defense and (international) cyber security—pushing the line? Journal of Cybersecurity, 7(1), tyab010. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyab010
Broeders, D., Cristiano, F., & Weggemans, D. (2023). Too close for comfort: Cyber terrorism and information security across national policies and international diplomacy. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 46(12), 2426–2453. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2021.1928887
Brown, J. M., & Fazal, T. M. (2021). #SorryNotSorry: Why states neither confirm nor deny responsibility for cyber operations. European Journal of International Security, 6(4), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2021.18
Carrapico, H., & Farrand, B. (2020). Discursive continuity and change in the time of COVID-19: The case of EU cybersecurity policy. Journal of European Integration, 42(8), 1111–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1853122
Chen, X., & Gao, X. (2024). Norm diffusion in cyber governance: China as an emerging norm entrepreneur? International Affairs, 100(6), 2419–2440. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae237
Egloff, F. J. (2020). Public attribution of cyber intrusions. Journal of Cybersecurity, 6(1), tyaa012. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyaa012
Egloff, F. J., & Dunn Cavelty, M. (2021). Attribution and knowledge creation assemblages in cybersecurity politics. Journal of Cybersecurity, 7(1), tyab002. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyab002
Egloff, F. J., & Smeets, M. (2023). Publicly attributing cyber attacks: A framework. Journal of Strategic Studies, 46(3), 502–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.1895117
Farrand, B., & Carrapico, H. (2022). Digital sovereignty and taking back control: From regulatory capitalism to regulatory mercantilism in EU cybersecurity. European Security, 31(3), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2102896
Farrand, B., Carrapico, H., & Turobov, A. (2024). The new geopolitics of EU cybersecurity: Security, economy and sovereignty. International Affairs, 100(6), 2379–2397. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae231
Flonk, D. (2021). Emerging illiberal norms: Russia and China as promoters of internet content control. International Affairs, 97(6), 1925–1944. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab146
Foulon, M., & Meibauer, G. (2024). How cyberspace affects international relations: The promise of structural modifiers. Contemporary Security Policy, 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2024.2365062
Fung, C. J. (2022). China’s use of rhetorical adaptation in development of a global cyber order: A case study of the norm of the protection of the public core of the internet. Journal of Cyber Policy, 7(3), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2023.2178946
Gao, X. (2022). An attractive alternative? China’s approach to cyber governance and its implications for the Western model. The International Spectator, 57(3), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2022.2074710
Iftikhar, S. (2024). Cyberterrorism as a global threat: A review on repercussions and countermeasures. PeerJ Computer Science, 10, e1772. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1772
Kadir, Z. K. (2025). Kejahatan Berbasis Identitas Digital: Menggagas Kebijakan Kriminal untuk Dunia Metaverse. Jurnal Litigasi Amsir, 12(2), 124–137.
Kadir, Z. K., & Kadir, N. K. (2024). Examining of the Concept of Standard of Proof in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. International Journal of Global Community, 1(1), 13–25.
Katagiri, N. (2021). Why international law and norms do little in preventing non-state cyber attacks. Journal of Cybersecurity, 7(1), tyab009. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyab009
Kello, L. (2021). Cyber legalism: Why it fails and what to do about it. Journal of Cybersecurity, 7(1), tyab014. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyab014
Leventopoulos, S., Pipyros, K., & Gritzalis, D. (2024). Retaliating against cyber-attacks: A decision-taking framework for policy-makers and enforcers of international and cybersecurity law. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 5, 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-024-00113-5
Liebetrau, T., & Monsees, L. (2024). Cybersecurity and international relations: Developing thinking tools for digital world politics. International Affairs, 100(6), 2303–2315. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae232
Lonergan, E. D., & Schneider, J. (2023). The power of beliefs in US cyber strategy: The evolving role of deterrence, norms, and escalation. Journal of Cybersecurity, 9(1), tyad006. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyad006
Mainwaring, S. (2020). Always in control? Sovereign states in cyberspace. European Journal of International Security, 5(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2020.4
Masyhar, A., Utari, I. S., Usman, U., & Ahmad Sabri, A. Z. S. (2023). Legal challenges of combating international cyberterrorism: The NCB Interpol Indonesia and global cooperation. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 31(2), 344–366. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i2.29668
Michaelsen, M., & Thumfart, J. (2023). Drawing a line: Digital transnational repression against political exiles and host state sovereignty. European Journal of International Security, 8(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2022.27
Pattison, J. (2020). From defence to offence: The ethics of private cybersecurity. European Journal of International Security, 5(2), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2020.6
Shandler, R., Gross, M. L., Backhaus, S., & Canetti, D. (2022). Cyber terrorism and public support for retaliation—A multi-country survey experiment. British Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 850–868. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000812
Shokri, A. (2026). Sovereignty in cyberspace from the viewpoint of international law. Asian Journal of International Law, 16(2), 326–356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251325100556
Snider, K. L. G., Hefetz, A., Shandler, R., & Canetti, D. (2026). Experimenting with threat: How cyberterrorism targeting critical infrastructure influences support for surveillance policies. Terrorism and Political Violence, 38(5), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2025.2457746
Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on Cybercrime, ETS No. 185.
Council of Europe. (2022). Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence, CETS No. 224.
International Law Commission. (2001). Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.
United Nations General Assembly. (2021). Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security, A/76/135.
United Nations General Assembly. (2021). Official compendium of voluntary national contributions on the application of international law in cyberspace, A/76/136.
United Nations General Assembly. (2024). United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, A/RES/79/243.
United Nations Security Council. (2001). Resolution 1373, S/RES/1373.
United Nations Security Council. (2017). Resolution 2341, S/RES/2341.
United Nations Treaty Collection. (2026). Status of the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime.