Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Research (ANKASAM), within the framework of current discussions on global security, international law, hybrid threats, and cybersecurity policies, presents an interview with Vesna Poposka, Associate Professor of International Law and International Relations at the General Mihailo Apostolski Military Academy in Skopje, to assess the transformation of international law in the face of new technologies, information manipulation, and the digitalizing security environment. ANKASAM presents an interview with Vesna Poposka, Associate Professor of International Law and International Relations at the General Mihailo Apostolski Military Academy in Skopje.
1. In your view, how should international law evolve to ensure the lawful use of drone technologies in armed conflicts?
Technological development has consistently outpaced the evolution of international law. However, the absence of specific, technology‑tailored legal norms does not imply that international law is inapplicable. Foundational principles of international law—and particularly International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—apply in all situations of armed conflict, irrespective of the domain in which hostilities occur. A war remains a war, whether it is fought on land, at sea, in space, or in cyberspace. This position has been affirmed by the ICRC and reflected in the interpretations consolidated in the Tallinn Manual 1.0 and 2.0.
The same logic extends to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility: the rules remain valid, though the application becomes significantly more complex due to the heightened difficulty of proving attribution in technologically mediated environments. Specific procedures, based on case by case analysis must be developed for specific types of operations conducted by drones for different states based on their national policies and international law that applies.
Different variables shall be taken into consideration: The processes of globalization and de-globalization and their consequences, the emergence of new actors, the displacement of the status quo, the emergence of new security threats, the increased social dependence on the development of information and other technologies; the decline of liberal values and the relativity of democratic processes, the fragmentation of international law and the fact that the interspace is sometimes (mis)used by states themselves in order to acquire or maintain certain positions; the redefinition of the instruments of national power and their use for broader national security goals.
In this context, the influence of global processes on the interpretation of international law in the context of new objects of protection is an intervening variable, i.e. the only way to protect the international order at least to some extent, and more importantly – the people whose lives depend on it. Development and evolution of international law should take that into consideration only based on the presumption on ensuring balance with human rights and liverties and ensuring the liberal perimeter while balancing security. Also, the role of proxy actors under international law is increasingly challenging, as well as the interplay between humans and technology and the attribution on responsibility and consequences of the decision-making processes and establishing strict mechanism of control.
2. How should states balance security imperatives and democratic values when responding to hybrid threats and disinformation campaigns?
Through transparency and trust, based on the rule of law. It is a significant challenge especially since social media do overcome traditional media outlets and borders in a blink of an eye. States choose different mechanisms for protection, but none of those protective layers is actually bulletproof- and if it becomes one, it transfers into censorship. So, overregulation is not the answer and for every state the threshold would be put differently- due to history, culture, democratic tradition etc.
Anyhow building resilience is not a final destination but a journey – that includes legal, political and educational measures. The European Court of Human Rights Practice provides enough case law and interperation- that is why article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Funademantal Freedoms is considered “the golden standard” worldwide. The culture of self-regulation among media outlets is also crucial. The aim of propaganda and disinformation is with one unfired bullet to collapse the entire society. Hybrid threats are gaining new momentum with Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI). These are deliberate actions by state or non-state actors to influence public opinion, political processes, or social norms in another country.
The development of technology and the expansion of cyberspace have broadened the potential of FIMI to unimaginable proportions. Why? We are increasingly dependent on technology, which results in greater exposure of privacy and personal data online. Our clicks and online habits leave a digital footprint that reveals more about our personality and preferences than we probably know about ourselves. Algorithms created based on our behaviour place content on us that “inflates” our information bubble, creating a parallel reality. In addition, personal data theft and trading has become a powerful weapon for microtargeting and manipulation of attitudes.
Electoral interference is on the rise, all over the world, in different ways, with different effects, at different stages of the campaign. Disinformation and fake profiles are also used outside of election cycles to cause social polarization and impose narratives that would add support for a particular party. Voters vote according to their own convictions, but the extent to which they were able to form their own position independently and based on facts depends on the availability of arguments that were known to them or placed before them.
3. How can the protection of human rights be effectively ensured in the development and implementation of cybersecurity policies?
Effectively ensuring the protection of human rights in cybersecurity policies requires a human rights-based approach (HRBA) that recognizes security and human rights as complementary, interdependent, and mutually emphasizing, rather than adverse. Accountability requires effective monitoring of human rights standards as well as effective remedies for potential human rights breaches, and most of all-awarness and digital culture.
For accountability to be effective there must be appropriate laws, policies and procedures procedures in order to secure human rights. We are increasingly dependent on technology, which results in greater exposure of privacy and personal data online. Our clicks and online habits leave a digital footprint that reveals more about our personality and preferences than we probably know about ourselves. Algorithms created based on our behaviour place content on us that “inflates” our information bubble, creating a parallel reality. In addition, personal data theft and trading has become a powerful weapon for microtargeting and manipulation of attitudes.
