Czech Republic Position paper on the application of international law in cyberspace 8. The prohibition of intervention applies between States, and thus it is not applicable to the activities of individuals and non-State groups, unless their conduct can be attributed to a State under the rules of attribution under international law.9 Cyber activities may constitute a prohibited intervention under international law if they are comparable in scale and effect to intervention in non-cyber contexts. 9. There are two conditions for a cyber activity to be considered as an intervention prohibited under international law: a) The activity has to tamper with the internal or external affairs of the State, also known as domaine réservé.10 Internal affairs include, for instance, the conduct of elections; court proceedings; or the drafting and enactment of laws. External affairs include, for instance, the ratification and denunciation of treaties; consenting to official activities of other State’s organs in its territory; or opening or closing down an embassy. b) The activity must be coercive in nature. Coercion is an activity intended to deprive, either directly or indirectly, the State of its ability to exercise control or govern matters within its internal and external affairs. The precise definition of coercion, and thus of unauthorised intervention, has not yet fully crystallised in customary international law, further State practice and opinio juris are therefore needed. 10. Furthermore, a causal nexus between the activity and the effect on the target State to change its behaviour has to be considered. The assessment whether a particular cyber activity has reached the threshold of prohibited intervention has to be done on a case-by-case basis. 11. There is a certain similarity between the terms “internal and external affairs” and “inherently governmental affairs”, which is one of the defining elements of violation of sovereignty. The difference between actions that violate sovereignty and actions that violate the prohibition of intervention is that the latter is coercive, i.e., intentionally aims to influence the State’s free will and choice. 12. The use of cyber means to target election systems to manipulate election results would, for example, constitute a violation of the obligation of non-intervention.11 13. Prohibition of intervention does not cover cyber activities broadly described as “propaganda”, provided that they do not violate another specific rule of international law, such as direct and public incitement to commit genocide.12 Mere influencing, criticism or persuasion do not meet the requirements to be qualified as prohibited intervention either. 9 See para. 79 of Harriet Moynihan: The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks: Sovereignty and Non-intervention, Chatham House, 2 December 2019. 10 Such matters in which a State may decide freely include political, economic, social, and cultural system as well as formulation of foreign policy. 11 See also The Oxford Statement on International Law Protections Against Foreign Electoral Interference Through Digital Means. Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict 12 Article 3 of the UN General Assembly Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, United Nations 5