Global Justice With Special Reference To Crimes Against Humanity, Cyberwarfare And Utilitarianism
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Criminal Law
Published:
Updated:
GLOBAL JUSTICE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, CYBERWARFARE AND UTILITARIANISM Deekshitha Preeth Jayaram, LLM, (Cyber Law and Cyber Security), School of Law, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai Mohammed Shahzad, Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Chennai
ABSTRACT
This paper assesses major aspects in the realm of global justice and crimes against humanity in the contemporary era of tech-revolution. Firstly, there is an increase in the use of modern computer technologies in violation of international humanitarian laws for perpetrating crimes against humanity. The author observes this trend by studying the case of the Israel-Palestine war and its developments. Secondly, there is an increasing haste towards establishing ‘narratives’, especially to garner support in the international community, which seemingly helps perpetrators of crimes against humanity to defend their actions as ‘justified’. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, punishes perpetrators of crimes against humanity, but the provision has proven to be weak against nations with powerful economies or countries having strong ties with them.
Literature has shown conclusively that social networking platforms play a major role in promoting these narratives that aim at painting a good picture of perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Further, this paper attempts to take a modern globalized perspective on the utilitarianism theory debate between Bentham and Mills with respect to why a particular group of people is willing to go even to the extent of exterminating another to maximise their happiness and economic requisites. The author contends that there is a need to strengthen the implementation of international humanitarian law to prevent the use of cyber attacks as a tool in committing crimes against humanity.
1. Introduction
In contemporary international relations and legal arenas, global justice has gained widespread prominence. Global justice strives to address and correct the inequalities and injustices that transcend national borders and to guarantee fair treatment and fundamental rights to people and communities around the world. The prosecution and prevention of crimes against humanity are the crucial aspects of global justice. Crimes against humanity are egregious acts that involve widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations. Such attacks have profound and far-reaching consequences, like disruption of essential services, manipulation of democratic processes, and infliction of significant psychological and economic impact on civilians. Traditionally, such crimes have been associated with physical violence and atrocities.
However, the scope of crimes against humanity has been expanding as a result of the evolving nature of conflicts and technological advancements. Around 14 years ago, the world's first cyber weapon, the Stuxnet computer virus, revolutionised the field of cyberwarfare. Cyberwarfare involves digital attacks on the cybersystem and digital infrastructure of other states and entities. Utilitarianism is a theory deeply rooted in the maximisation of the overall wellbeing and happiness of the greatest number of people. This theory provides a valuable lens through which the author examines what drives cyber warfare and wars in general, making some people commit heinous crimes against humanity and violate international humanitarian law. In a nutshell, the author aims to explore the intersection of global justice, crimes against humanity, cyber warfare, and utilitarianism.
2 Crimes against Humanity
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a. Tracing the roots of Crimes against Humanity and Definition The theory of ‘crimes against humanity’ received its first explicit international and legal recognition in the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, calling for the limited use of explosive and incendiary projectiles. It gained further recognition during the First Hague Peace Conference (1899), the Declaration of France, Great Britain, and Russia (1915), the Versailles Peace Conference Commission (1919), and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), where Turkey accepted to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against Armenians [committed during World War I (1914-1918)] and also the Turkish officials involved. By the time of World War II (1939–1945), ‘crimes against humanity’ were officially recognised by the international instruments as an integral component of international law.
Finally, ever since the Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946), the concept of ‘crimes against humanity’ was well ingrained in the usage of customary international law. 1 b. Defining ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ There can be no exclusive definition of crimes against humanity, as scholars have shaped and refined it over time. These definitions have evolved through various legal instruments, scholarly debates, and judicial decisions. Below are some of the key components and perspectives that shaped the ‘now’ existing description of the crime: Key Components of Crimes against Humanity:
1. Such crimes or attacks are widespread (large in scale and numerous
victims) or systematic (organised in nature/improbability of random occurrences). This differentiates it from sporadic or isolated acts of violence.
2. These attacks differ from pure military actions because they target the
civilian population. 2 3. Attacks are driven by a state or any organisational policy or plan. Nonstate parties can also engage in such actions. 1‘Kai Ambos (ed. ), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article-by-Article Commentary, (4th ed, Beck, Hart, and Nomos 2022) 3,064. 2 M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law, (2nd revised ed, The Hague: Kluwer Law 1999) 610. c. Article 7 Article 7 is an all-encompassing provision for crimes against humanity consisting of three paragraphs. The first paragraph enunciates a list of 11 subpoints that describe crimes against humanity like murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, deprivation, deprivation of physical liberty, torture, rape, sexual slavery, and related crimes, persecution, enforced disappearances of persons, apartheid, and other inhumane acts of similar character.
The second paragraph supplements the purpose of the first paragraph, giving necessary deliberations on the themes mentioned above. The third paragraph expands the definition of gender to encompass only males and females in accordance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, also known as the Rome Statute, 1998. 3 d. Instances of Crimes Against Humanity: Special Reference to Palestinian Issue A discussion of prominent crimes against humanity, both before and after the Palestinian conflict, as well as current cases, is included below: i. Instances of Crimes Against Humanity: Before and After the Palestinian Issue
1. Before the Palestinian Issue
a. The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923): The Ottoman Empire systematically exterminated 1.5 million Armenians by means of massacres, forced marches, and starvation. b. The Nanjing Massacre (1937–1938): The Japanese Imperial troops mass murdered and raped Chinese civilians. They chopped up babies, killed an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 people, and looted the Nanjing city,
3 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, art 7.
the then capital of China. It is known as one of the forgotten events of World War II. c. The Holocaust (1941-1945): The Nazi-induced genocide of six million Jews in Germany, along with millions of others, including Romani people, disabled individuals, and political dissidents.
2. During and After the Palestinian Issue
a. The Khmer Rouge Regime in Cambodia (1975-1979): The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1. 7 to 2 million Cambodians through forced labour, starvation, and executions. b. The Rwandan Genocide (1994): This was a mass slaughter of approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by Hutu extremists over a period of 100 days. Later, on September 2nd, 1998, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda issued the first conviction for genocide after a trial, declaring Jean-Paul Akayesu is guilty for acts as the mayor of Taba, Rwanda. c. The Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995): During the Bosnian War, the Bosnian Serb forces committed atrocities, including the Srebrenica massacre, where over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed. d. The Darfur Conflict (2003-present): On September 9, 2004, U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Secretary of State Mr.
Colin Powell declared that "genocide has been committed in Darfur’’. The Sudanese government forces and allied militias (Janjaweed) have been accused of committing genocide, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions in Darfur.
3. Ongoing Crimes Against Humanity
a. Syrian Civil War (2011-present): Since 2011, there have been several warring factions, including the government, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and other militant organisations, that have been on a spree of committing war crimes using ammunition, chemical attacks, and torture, leading to deaths and injuries to innocent civilians. b. Persecution of Rohingyan Muslims: In Myanmar, the military has been cracking down on the Rohingyan Muslim minority population, leading to deaths on a large scale, sexual exploitation and violence, and mass displacement of over 1 million people to the vicinity of Bangladesh. c. Yemen War: The Arab Coalition and the Houthis (with alleged support from Iran) have been at war since 2014. with the Houthis capturing the capital in 2023. This war has led to around 200,000 civilian deaths and many more wounded.
4 The Palestinian Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the most protracted and contentious conflicts in modern history. To trace back its history, one has to look into the highly controversial and disputed international discourse of systemic oppression targeted against Palestinian people. Before Cyber Interference
4 Malcolm Shaw, International Law, (9 th ed, Cambridge; New York
Cambridge University Press, 2022).
1 Early 20th Century
The ‘Palestinian Genocide’ finds its roots in the 20th century, with the rise of nationalist movements among both Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Britain's 1917 Balfour Declaration, which called for the creation of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, increased tensions among them.
2 The UN Partition Plan and the First Arab-Israeli War
In 1947-49, the United Nations proposed the division of Palestine into distinct Jewish and Arab states. The Arab community rejected the plan, whereas the Jewish community approved it. The announcement of the State of Israel occurred in 1948. This prompted neighbouring Arab states to invade Israel, resulting in the first Arab-Israeli war and the massive displacement of Palestinians.
3 The Six-Day War
Again, in 1967, there occurred a six-day war where Israel successfully captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights. Since then, a majority of territory formerly part of Palestine has been under Israel’s control.
4 The First and Second Intifadas
The Palestinian people rebelled against Israeli occupation in two distinct periods, i.e., 1987-1993 and 2000-2005. These rebellions have been termed the 1st and 2nd Intifadas, or retaliations.
5 The 21st Century
As of the early 2000s, the Gaza Strip had faced a severe embargo by Israel, severely limiting the movement of people and supplies.5
5 Wendy Pearlman, Violence, Nonviolence, and the Palestinian National Movement, (1st ed, Cambridge
University Press, 2012).
After Cyber Interference The Israeli-Palestinian conflict's cyberwarfare began to acquire prominence in the early 2000s. Then the Operation Cast Lead in 2008-
2009 caused significant escalation and led to major conflicts. However,
it was during and after Operation Protective Edge in 2014 that cyber operations became more integrated and noticeable as a component of the ongoing Palestinian conflict. These events resulted in massive civilian casualties and significant infrastructure damage in Gaza. The disproportionate use of force and the impact on civilians during these operations have sparked international criticism and allegations of crimes against humanity. The following events will give more clarity about the events that ensued:
1 Early 2000s and Operation Cast Lead (Phase 1, 2008-2009)
The use of cyber tactics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be traced back to the early 2000s, with various hacking incidents and digital propaganda efforts. However, the first significant wave of cyber warfare associated with the conflict emerged during Operation Cast Lead. This operation was Israel’s military attack on Hamas’s infrastructure in Gaza (December 27, 2008). To retaliate, a group of Arabic hackers targeted thousands of Israeli government and civilian Web sites. The comeback for this was the Israeli government's threat to seize internet services in Gaza. To this, the ANONYMOUS (decentralised international hacktivists and activists collective formed on 4chan, 2003) retorted to the IG and IDF to refrain from ceasing the internet within ‘occupied territories’ or they will see the upheld wrath of ANONYMOUS.
2. (Phase-2A, November, 2012): The Arabic hackers restricted
themselves to mass website vandalism and small-to-mid-scale denial-of-service attacks (due to technical paucity). These attacks did not make use of any zero-day vulnerabilities. The majority of attackers instead targeted unpatched vulnerabilities in older websites. Also, this was the first time a volunteer botnet was used ("Help Israel Win"), in which participants willingly gave the botnet host server control over their personal computers during a cyberwar.
3. (Phase 3 November, 2012): The Gaza hackers (in response to
the assault of the Jews) released the credit card data of 35,000 "Zionist civilians." On November 16, 2012, in protest of Gaza missile attacks, the Arab hacker collective Oujda-Tech Group vandalised 40 Israeli non-governmental websites. Later on, the Hamas-friendly websites such as "hamasinfo.net" and ".qassam.ps" were taken down. This cyber battle involved both state (Israel and potentially Iran) and non-state hackers, in contrast to other examples (Chechnya, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, India).
4. (Phase 4 & 5, November, 2012): The Phase 4 attack was done
by the ANONYMOUS. Then finally, on 21st November, 2023, a ceasefire was drawn between Hamas and Israeli militant groups, vowing to stop attacking one another and lifting an Israeli embargo limiting the Gaza Strip after eight days of the horrendous bloodshed.6
5. Operation Protective Edge (2014) and Operation Pillar of
Defence (2012): The Parties Involved: For Palestine, there were Hamas, Hizbollah, the Anonymous Collective (mainly the Arabs and Muslim countries), and the State had the Iranian Cyber Army and the SEA. Also, the IDF maintained Iran had launched numerous attacks against civilian networks during this 6 Mohan B. Gazula ‘Cyber Warfare Conflict Analysis and Case Studies’ (2017) Massachusetts Institute of Technology accessed 18th December 2024 Operation. Some of the major attacks and events of this operation have been noted below: a. This operation was the aftermath of increased cyberattacks on Israel, leading to troops descending onto the Gaza Strip. b. Pro-Palestine Approach: The cyber attacks were mostly organised cyber rallies, and some major sophisticatedlevel attacks focused on Israeli communication networks. c.
The attackers caused distributed denial of service (DDoS) and domain name service (DNS), leading to the collapse of over 1000 websites, website defacement, exposure of databases, and leaked personal information of Israelis, such as login credentials. d. They also tampered with the private television satellite, which allowed a pro-Hamas propaganda message to appear momentarily on Channels 2 and 10 (Similarly, Hamas had also launched a similar attack against commercial channels during Operation Pillar of Defence. ). e. Furthermore, the IDF Spokesperson's Twitter and blog account faced a major cyberattack conducted by the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), with English and Arabic messages. f. Large hacker collectives also organised a number of cyber protests against Israel, known as "OpIsrael. " Major cyber groups came together as a result of these actions to support the Palestinian cause. g.
During the eight days of Operation Pillar of Defence, the Israeli government was subjected to more than 100 million cyberattacks, with IP addresses pointing to websites worldwide, mostly from the US and Europe. However, 70 percent of cyberattacks during Operation Protective Edge were attributed to Arab and Muslim nations. Also, it was seen that the elite members of the Anonymous collective didn't participate in Operation Protective Edge, meaning Operation Pillar of Defence required more support from outside. h. Israel’s Approach: Israel adopted a proactive cyber defence strategy with pre-planned operational capabilities, ensuring high security efficiency. Both the IDF and ISA successfully thwarted attempts to damage Israeli government networks and critical infrastructure.
The ISA confirmed that it had secured all Israeli government networks and systems against cyber attacks, implementing measures such as blocking foreign IPs for two hours at the start of Operation Protective Edge. The ISA's cyber division, in coordination with private contractors, the Ministry of Communications, and the media, took preemptive actions against the attacks. The IDF collaborated with an integrated network of military intelligence and cyber companies associated with the Ministry of Defence to identify and eliminate cyber threats. The head of the IDF cyber defence unit claimed that infiltration attempts on IDF networks were made, but Israel's advanced technological capabilities prevented breaches. 7
7 Daniel Cohen and Danielle Levin, ‘Operation Protective Edge:The Cyber Defense Perspective’, https://www.inss.org.il/wpcontent/uploads/systemfiles/Operation%20Protective%20Edge_%20The%20Cyber%20Defense%20Perspective. pdf> accessed on 18 December 2024
6. 2015-2021:
a. In these years, both Israel and Palestine supporters, like Hamas, continued their quest for amassing cyber superpowers. The IDF employed cyber tools to monitor threats, gather intelligence, disrupt enemy communications, and protect national infrastructure. On the other hand, the Palestinian groups focused on social media propaganda for mobilisation and to influence public opinion. Social media sites served as battlefields for disinformation campaigns, providing a platform for psychological manipulation and the dissemination of false information. b. Gaza Conflict in May 2021: Cyberwarfare was one of the major contributing factors of this conflict. According to reports, Palestinian hackers tried to breach Israeli systems, while Israeli cyber troops interfered with Hamas' communication networks. This internet dimension significantly intensified the already devastating physical conflict.8
7 Pager Blast (2024)
a. On 17 September 2024, thousands of pagers distributed by Hezbollah to its operatives in Lebanon and Syria exploded, resulting in over 30 deaths and thousands of injuries. Media reports suggest that Israel is responsible for the explosions. Israeli intelligence identified pagers as a possible way to penetrate Hezbollah's communication systems. In February 2024, Hezbollah 8 Rebecca Seales, ‘Israeli Soldiers Fire Warning Shots at Lebanese Protesters Who Crossed Border’, (Middle East, 15 May 2021) 6. accessed on 18 December 2024 decided to go "low-tech" to evade Israel's monitoring. b. However, Israel formed a shell corporation in Hungary called B. A. C. The company procured a license to manufacture pagers from Taiwanese corporation Gold Apollo. Hezbollah then ordered 5,000 new pagers from B. A. C. through an intermediary and distributed them to its operatives and some allies.
The pagers were designed with batteries laced with small quantities of the explosive PETN, which is difficult to detect. c. Israel later gave the detonation order on September 17, 2024, and thousands of pagers exploded, resulting in twelve deaths and nearly 3,000 injuries. The post-attack controversy leaves many factual and legal uncertainties that complicate the analysis, preventing a conclusive judgement on the legality of such an attack, as there is a need for more information in this regard. 9
3 The Power of Narratives in a Rapidly Electronicized World
a. Echo Chambers - The Power of Narratives that take root in Social Media
1. A social media echo chamber is when one experiences a biased,
customised media experience that silences dissenting and differing openions. Users of social media now live in a cosy, self-confirming feed because social media algorithms make sure users only view content that matches their interests.
2. Social media applications foster confirmation bias due to its basic
function. Irrespective of specific algorithms, social media (like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube) have the same 9 Amichai Cohen, Yuval Shany “Well, It Depends”: The Explosive Pagers Attack Revisited’, (Lieber Institute, West Point, Oct 11, 2024) accessed on 18 December 2024 basic function: to connect groups of like-minded users together who also share content preferences.
3. This fans the flames of confirmation bias, which influences the way
people recognise and take in information by filtering it through their preexisting notions and beliefs. Therefore, social media companies have adopted adaptive algorithms to filter users’ interests and bombard them with infotainment that will keep them scrolling. The algorithms ignore the recency and frequency of what is being posted and instead focus on what a user “likes,” “retweets,” and “shares” to keep redirecting content that is similar to what seemed to be comfortable.
4. What brings users comfort is taking in media that already confirms with
what we agree with. Though the algorithm doesn’t ‘right from wong’ one should become aware that any advertisement could be narratives preplannedly redirected to appease our biased-behaviour on the apps. Meaning even an advertisement for donations for a genuine cause could be specifically targeted. 10 Example: Many advertisements on YouTube show a woman and a child or children admonishing viewers for not doing anything about Gaza’s situation and then asking for donations. Many NGOs also seem to be raising funds in this manner. However, this advertisement is subjectively shown to pro-Palestinian viewers. The Israeli government has been running graphic social media ads targeting the US and EU, urging them to support their war against Hamas and the Gaza siege. Some of these ads also show up in kids games with footage of rocket attacks, fiery explosions, and masked gunmen.
10Paige Cabianca and Peyton Hammond and Maritza Gutierrez ‘What is a Social Media Echo Chamber? ’ (Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations (Moody College of Communication), The University of Texas at Austin, November 18, 2020) accessed on 17 December 2024 A multimillion-dollar campaign against the pro-Palestine movement has spent over $370,000 on Facebook and Instagram ads without disclosing funding sources. Facebook allegedly approves paid ads containing hate speech against Palestinians. 7amleh, a civil society organisation, tested Meta's content moderation and found that Facebook's automated process failed to block such harmful content, raising concerns about Meta's ability to prevent incitement of violence against Palestinians. b. The Microsoft Digital Defence Report on the Hamas War’s Influence i.
According to the official Iranian figures, the 7th October 2023 Hamas attack led to 1206 civilian deaths. The total civilian death toll caused by Israel’s retaliatory military campaign in Gaza is 42,289, as per the local Ministry of Health. 11 ii. The Fifth Annual Microsoft Digital Defence Report (MDDR) highlights that from October 7, 2023, to July 2024, nearly 50% of the Iranian operations targeted Israeli companies. Moreover, there has been a surge in cyberattacks against Israel by Iran ever since the Gaza War. iii. According to Microsoft, Tehran had focused most of its attacks on the United States before the war. The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict has intensified Iranian cyber activity, targeting Israel (10%), the U. S. (35%), and Gulf nations (U. A. E. - 20%). 12 iv.
Most of the cyber, influence, and cyber-enabled influence operations against Israel began after the Hamas-Israel war broke out. v. Iranian organisations also extended their cyber influence operations using cyberspace beyond Israel, concentrating on sabotaging global
11 The Hindu, ‘Iran’s cyber attacks against Israel surged since Gaza war:report’ (October 16, 2024)
accessed on 15 December 2024 12Microsoft ‘ Microsoft Digital Defense Report: 600 million cyberattacks per day around the globe’ (29 November 2024) accessed 1 December 2024 military, political, and financial backing for Israel's military endeavours. vi. This includes activities such as creating fake Telegram accounts to spread false messages about Gaza's victims, impersonating Israeli activists to criticise their Prime Minister's actions, and the Iranian Intelligence Unit’s account named 'KarMa' calling out for the Prime Minister’s resignation.
4 The Simple Goal of Maximizing Happiness for a Few at the Detriment of Others
A Bentham v. Mill Perspective a. The Rationale behind Crimes against Humanity: Crimes against humanity refer to widespread or systematic attacks directed against civilian populations, involving acts such as murder, extermination, enslavement, torture, and sexual violence. The rationale behind these heinous acts can be understood through a multifaceted lens, incorporating political, social, and psychological factors. b. A Historical Perspective: i. Political Power and Control: Often, crimes against humanity are perpetrated by regimes seeking to maintain or consolidate power. For example, the Nazi regime during World War II engaged in the systematic extermination of Jews and other minority groups to establish racial purity and eliminate perceived threats to their ideology and control. ii.
Ethnic and Religious Hatred: Deep-seated ethnic or religious animosities can drive crimes against humanity. The Rwandan Genocide of 1994, where Hutu extremists targeted Tutsi and moderate Hutu, was fuelled by longstanding ethnic tensions and propaganda inciting hatred. iii. State Ideologies and Policies: Authoritarian regimes often employ crimes against humanity as tools of state policy. For instance, during Stalin's regime, the Great Purge involved mass executions and imprisonments to eliminate political dissent and consolidate absolute power. c. Economic Goals: i. Resource Acquisition and Economic Gain: Crimes against humanity can be driven by the desire to control valuable resources. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, various armed groups have committed atrocities to control mineral-rich areas, exploiting resources like coltan and diamonds to fund their activities. ii.
Forced Labour and Exploitation: Economic exploitation through forced labour is another motive. During the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, forced labour camps were established to drive agrarian reforms and increase productivity, leading to widespread death and suffering. d. Psychological and Social Factors i. Dehumanisation and Propaganda: Perpetrators often use propaganda to dehumanise targeted groups, making it easier to justify and commit atrocities. The use of media to portray victims as subhuman or enemies can incite ordinary people to participate in crimes against humanity. ii. Obedience and Authority: Psychological studies, such as Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments, suggest that individuals can commit atrocities when ordered by authority figures, highlighting how hierarchical structures and obedience to authority can facilitate crimes against humanity. 13 iii.
Groupthink and Social Pressure: In situations where group cohesion is emphasised, individuals may suppress personal moral objections to conform to group norms and participate in atrocities. This phenomenon is evident in various genocides where social pressure and the desire to
13 Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority
An Experimental View, (Harper Perennial, 2009). belong to the in-group played significant roles. 14 e. Comparison between Bentham and Mills w. r. t. maximization of happiness and their Relationship with Crimes Against Humanity Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both key figures in the development of utilitarian philosophy, offer different perspectives on the maximisation of happiness, which can be connected to the rationale behind crimes against humanity. i. Jeremy Bentham: Theory of Utilitarianism: Bentham is the founder of modern utilitarianism, which he articulated in "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" (1789). Bentham's utilitarianism is grounded in the principle of utility, which states that actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Bentham’s approach is quantitative, focusing on the sum total of pleasure and pain generated by actions and the calculation of pleasure and pain. 15 Crimes Against Humanity: From Bentham’s perspective, crimes against humanity are morally reprehensible because they cause extreme pain and suffering to a large number of people. The systematic nature of such crimes results in significant net unhappiness, thus failing the utilitarian principle. ii. John Stuart Mill Refinement of Utilitarianism: Mill, a student of Bentham, expanded and pleasures are intrinsically superior to lower ones, thus prioritising intellectual and emotional well-being over mere physical satisfaction. 16 Crimes Against Humanity: Mill would argue that crimes against humanity are particularly egregious because they violate fundamental human rights and dignity, which are essential for achieving higher pleasures.
The widespread suffering and deprivation caused by such crimes undermine both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of happiness. f. Utilitarian Perspective on Cyber Warfare and Crimes Against Humanity Evaluation of Actions: ● Bentham: He would use hedonic calculus to assess the net pleasure and pain resulting from cyber warfare and crimes against humanity. ○ Crimes Against Humanity: Clearly the result would be significant pain and suffering; thus, crimes become morally indefensible. ○ Cyber Warfare: It is assessed based on warfare’s outcomes; if it prevents greater harm and provides safety, it could be seen as justifiable. ● Mill: He would consider the qualitative impact of these actions on human well-being for employing utility. ○ Crimes Against Humanity: It deprives individuals of fundamental rights and higher pleasures. It makes crimes morally and ethically wrong.
○ Cyber Warfare: Any cyber warfare becomes justifiable if it protects higher pleasures and human dignity without causing
16 Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, (Hackett Publishing Company, 2001).
disproportionate harm. Application to Hamas and Israel: ● Cyber attacks result in widespread panic and disruption of the economy on either side and cause harm to innocent civilians. Thus, such attacks fail the utilitarian test due to these significant negative impacts. However, defensive cyber countermeasures and strikes are justified only if they are strictly for the purpose of preventing greater harm and for the protection and well-being of the defender’s people.
5. Conclusion
Crimes against humanity are being taken to the next level with the use of modern technologies such as computers and digital media. The ongoing Israel-Palestine war has seen the use of such tactics, which have quite a similar impact as that of the use of traditional arms and weapons. With globalisation at its peak, there is increased dependency on these technologies amongst the common populace. Moreover, globalisation has also aided countries like Israel in having a technological supremacy in the ongoing war in Palestine. The use of cyber attacks is a big problem in modern warfare. There needs to be a stronger implementation of international humanitarian law in order to mitigate the impact of cyber attacks and ensure peace and harmony. Perpetrating crimes against humanity as a tool for attaining maximum happiness for one nation’s people is not a good long-term solution.
Rather, diplomacy and amicable resolution of disputes are needed to attain long-term happiness.
Bibliography ● Books 1. Ambos K, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Articleby-Article Commentary (4th edn, Beck ; Hart ; Nomos 2022)
2. Bassiouni M C, Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal
Law, (2nd revised ed, The Hague: Kluwer Law 1999)
3. Bentham, Jeremy, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation, (Dover Publications, 2007).
4 Janis, Irving L,. Groupthink
Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, (Houghton Mifflin, 1982).
5 Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority
An Experimental View, (Harper Perennial, 2009).
6. Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, (Hackett Publishing Company, 2001).
7. Pearlman W, Violence, Nonviolence, and the Palestinian National
Movement, (1st ed, Cambridge University Press, 2012).
8 Shaw M, International Law, (9 th ed, Cambridge; New York
Cambridge University Press, 2022) ● News and Online Materials
1 Amichai Cohen, Yuval Shany “Well, It Depends”
The Explosive Pagers Attack Revisited’, (Lieber Institute, West Point Oct 11, 2024) accessed on December 2024
3 Microsoft ‘ Microsoft Digital Defense Report
600 million cyberattacks
per day around the globe’ (29 November 2024) accessed 1 December 2024
4. Mohan B. Gazula ‘Cyber Warfare Conflict Analysis and Case Studies’
(2017) Massachusetts Institute of Technology accessed 18th December 2024
5. Paige Cabianca and Peyton Hammond and Maritza Gutierrez ‘What is a
Social Media Echo Chamber?’ (Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations (Moody College of Communication), The University of Texas at Austin, November 18, 2020) accessed on 17 December 2024
6. Rebecca Seales, ‘Israeli Soldiers Fire Warning Shots at Lebanese
Protesters Who Crossed Border’, (Middle East, 15 May 2021) 6. <https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-