A/76/136 armed attack and in respect of acts of self-defence that are carried out by cyber means. Thus, if a cyber activity – alone or in combination with a physical operation – results in, or presents an imminent threat of, damage equivalent to a traditional armed attack, then the inherent right to self-defence is engaged. Any use of force in self-defence must be necessary for the State to defend itself against the actual or imminent armed attack, and be a proportionate response in scope, scale and duration. Any reliance on Article 51 must be reported directly to the UN Security Council. The rapidity of cyber activities, as well as their potentially concealed and/or indiscriminate character, raises new challenges for the application of established principles. These challenges have been noted by Australia in explaining its position on imminence and the right of self-defence in the context of national security threats that have evolved as a result of technological advances. For example, in a speech to the University of Queensland in 2017, then Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC, explained that: ‘[A] state may act in anticipatory self-defence against an armed attack when the attacker is clearly committed to launching an armed attack, in circumstances where the victim will lose its last opportunity to effectively defend itself unless it acts. This standard reflects the nature of contemporary threats, as well as the means of attack that hostile parties might deploy. Consider, for example, a threatened armed attack in the form of an offensive cyber operation, …which could cause large-scale loss of human life and damage to critical infrastructure. Such an attack might be launched in a split-second. Is it seriously to be suggested that a state has no right to take action before that split-second?’ 2. International humanitarian law (jus in bello) and international human rights law International humanitarian law (IHL) (including the principles of humanity, necessity, proportionality and distinction) applies to cyber activities within an armed conflict. Australia considers that a cyber activity may constitute an ‘attack’ against an adversary under IHL if it rises to the same threshold as that of a kinetic ‘attack’ (or act of violence). The rules governing such attacks during armed conflict will apply to those kinds of cyber activities. Accordingly, it will be necessary to assess whether the cyber activity is sufficiently connected to hostilities and results in the reasonably foreseeable death or injury to individuals or damage and destruction to objects. IHL also provides rules that apply to cyber activities in an armed conflict that do not constitute or rise to the level of an ‘attack’, including the general protections afforded to the civilian population and individual civilians against dangers arising from military operations. In accordance with the IHL principle of military necessity, a combatant is justified in using measures, not forbidden by international law, which are indispensable for securing complete submission of an enemy at the soonest moment. The principle cannot be used to justify actions prohibited by law, as the means to achieve victory are not unlimited. The IHL principle of distinction seeks to ensure that only legitimate military objectives are attacked. Distinction has two components. The first, relating to personnel, seeks to maintain the distinction between combatants (who may be attacked), and civilians or non-combatants (including protected persons). The second component distinguishes between objects which are targetable as legitimate military objectives, and civilian and protected objects. The IHL principle of proportionality prohibits the launching of an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage 6/142 21-09670