States should exercise due care to ensure that the IT infrastructure located within their territory is not used for unauthorised actions targeted at third countries. The same applies to persons staying within the territory of the state. An assessment of whether the state exercised due care or not should be contingent upon its technological advancement, expertise/resources and knowledge about actions in cyberspace initiated within its territory. Actions in cyberspace that violate the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of non-intervention in affairs falling under the domestic jurisdiction of a state would also violate the principle of sovereignty. 3. Actions in cyberspace may constitute unlawful intervention in affairs falling under the domestic jurisdiction of a state Intervention in internal or external affairs of another state that fall under its domestic jurisdiction is an action that contravenes international law.*° The principle of non-intervention is a natural consequence of the principle of sovereignty — to the extent to which the state exercises its exclusive sovereign rights, the other states have an obligation to respect them. The threshold for considering a specific operation in cyberspace to be in breach of the principle of non-intervention is higher than in the case of deeming it solely a violation of the principle of sovereignty. To be in breach of international law, an intervention must include the element of coercion that aims at influencing the state’s decisions belonging to its domaine réserve, i.e. the area of state activity that remains its exclusive competence under the principle of sovereignty.‘ Therefore, it is possible to refer to a violation of the non-intervention principle if astate interferes with internal or external affairs falling under the exclusive competence of another state by using an element of coercion. There is no universally acceptable definition of “coercion”, but an unambiguous example of a prohibited intervention is the use of force. A cyber operation that adversely affects the functioning and security of the political, economic, would military or social system of a state, potentially leading to the state’‘s conduct that not occur otherwise, may be considered a prohibited action in cyberspace that would with ICT systems that would intervention. In particular, any prevent the filing of tax returns online or any interference prevent a reliable and timely conduct of democratic elections would be a violation of international law. Similarly, depriving the parliament working remotely of the possibility of voting online to adopt a law or modifying the outcome would also be such aviolation. It should also be noted that a wide-scale of such voting and targeted disinformation campaign may also contravene the principle of non-intervention, in particular when it results in civil unrest that requires specific responses on the part of the state. 10 The principle of non-intervention is referred to in Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations (with respect to the relations between the UN and States) and the Declaration on Principles of International Law adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution No 2625 of 24 October 1970 (with respect to international relations). 11 The International Court of Justice’s judgment in the case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ. Rep. 1986, § 205.