QUANTUM DECRYPTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERVENTION: DOES UNAUTHORIZED DATA ACCESS CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY?

islombek Abdikhakimov

doi:10.00000/emedhy48

Mualliflar

islombek Abdikhakimov Tashkent State University of Law Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3682-2810

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.00000/emedhy48

Kalit so‘zlar:

Quantum Computing, Territorial Sovereignty, Non-Intervention, Tallinn Manual 2.0, Shor’s Algorithm, Cyber Espionage, International Law, Harvest Now Decrypt Later

Abstrak

The rapid advancement of quantum computing technologies, specifically the development of Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers (CRQCs), poses an unprecedented challenge to the stability of the Westphalian international legal order. Current public-key encryption standards, which secure the vast majority of global state communications, are mathematically vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm, enabling a strategic paradigm known as "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" (HNDL). This article investigates the legal implications of this technological shift, specifically questioning whether the unauthorized retroactive decryption of a state’s sensitive data constitutes a breach of territorial sovereignty and a violation of the non-intervention doctrine under customary international law. Through a doctrinal analysis of the UN Charter, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, and International Court of Justice jurisprudence, the research argues that while traditional espionage is permitted, the systemic transparency created by quantum decryption functions as a coercive instrument that usurps a state’s "domaine réservé." The study concludes that unauthorized quantum access to critical government infrastructure crosses the threshold from intelligence gathering to prohibited intervention, necessitating a redefinition of digital territoriality.

Muallif biografiyasi

islombek Abdikhakimov, Tashkent State University of Law

Head of Artificial Intelligence and Legal Tech Laboratory,
Senior Lectrurer of Law and Technology Department

Havolalar

Austin, L. (2016). Cybersecurity and the State: The Definition of "Use of Force". Routledge.

Banks, W. C. (2017). State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 9(1), 1-28.

Bernstein, D. J., & Lange, T. (2017). Post-quantum cryptography. Nature, 549(7671), 188–194.

Bjorklund, A. K. (2018). Cyber-Espionage and International Law. Oxford University Press.

Buchan, R. (2018). Cyber Espionage and International Law. Hart Publishing.

Buchanan, B. (2020). The Hacker and the State: Cyber Attacks and the New Normal of Geopolitics. Harvard University Press.

Charter of the United Nations. (1945). 1 UNTS XVI.

Chen, L., et al. (2016). Report on Post-Quantum Cryptography (NISTIR 8105). National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Corn, G. P., & Taylor, R. (2017). Sovereignty in the Digital Age. AJIL Unbound, 111, 207-212.

Crawford, J. (2002). The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries. Cambridge University Press.

Delerue, F. (2020). Cyber Operations and International Law. Cambridge University Press.

Efrony, D., & Shany, Y. (2018). A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice. American Journal of International Law, 112(4), 583-657.

Goldsmith, J. L., & Wu, T. (2006). Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford University Press.

International Court of Justice. (1923). Case of the S.S. "Wimbledon". PCIJ Series A, No. 1.

International Court of Justice. (1927). The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey). PCIJ Series A, No. 10.

International Court of Justice. (1928). Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. USA). RIAA II, 829.

International Court of Justice. (1949). Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) (Merits). ICJ Reports 1949, 4.

International Court of Justice. (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Merits). ICJ Reports 1986, 14.

Jensen, E. T. (2015). The Tallinn Manual 2.0: Highlights and Insights. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 48, 735.

Kilovaty, I. (2016). Virtual Violence: Cyberattacks as a Form of Force and Intervention. Cardozo Law Review, 38, 1137.

Kulesza, J. (2020). International Law on Cybersecurity in the Age of Digital Sovereignty. Routledge.

Lindsay, J. R. (2015). The Impact of Quantum Computing on Cryptography and International Security. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 9(2), 16-29.

Mosca, M. (2018). Cybersecurity in an era of quantum computers: Will we be ready? IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(5), 38-41.

Moynihan, H. (2019). The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks: Sovereignty and Non-intervention. Chatham House.

Roscini, M. (2014). Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford University Press.

Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2013). Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, M. N., & Vihul, L. (2017). Sovereignty: A Cameo Appearance in Cyberspace Law. Texas Law Review, 95, 11.

Shaw, M. N. (2017). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Shor, P. W. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (pp. 124-134). IEEE.

Tsagourias, N. (2015). Cyber Attacks, Self-Defence and the Problem of Attribution. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 17, 95-109.

Watts, A. (2000). The International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 51(4), 777-819.

Ziolkowski, K. (2013). Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace. NATO CCD COE Publication.