| Kitap Künyesi | |
| Yazar | Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Hatice Kübra ECEMİŞ YILMAZ |
| Baskı Tarihi | 2023/09 |
| Baskı Sayısı | 1 |
| Boyut | 16x24 cm (Standart Kitap Boyu) |
| Cilt | Karton kapak |
| Sayfa Sayısı | 248 |
Bu kitap, günümüzün en kritik ve tartışılan konularından biri olan siber
operasyonların uluslararası hukuki boyutunu derinlemesine ele almaktadır. Siber alanın hızla gelişen ve evrilen doğası, bu alandaki eylemlerin geleneksel
uluslararası hukuk kurallarıyla nasıl değerlendirileceği konusunda ciddi soru
işaretleri oluşturmaktadır.
Kitabın ilk bölümünde, siber operasyonlara genel bir bakış sunularak, temel terminolojiyle tanıştırılıyoruz. Bu bölüm, savaşın ve siber saldırıların evrimi üzerine tarihsel bir perspektif sunarken, siber saldırıların tarihçesi ve türlerine dair bilgilerle okuyucunun bilgisi pekiştirilmektedir.
İkinci bölümde, siber savaşlar ve kuvvet kullanımı arasındaki ilişkiye
odaklanılmaktadır. Kuvvet kullanma yasağına dair genel ilkelerin yanı sıra, bu
yasağın siber operasyonlarla nasıl etkileşime girdiği ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelenir. Meşru müdafaa kavramının siber operasyonlarda nasıl şekillendiğini anlamak adına Tallinn kriterlerine özel bir vurgu yapılır.
Üçüncü ve son bölümde ise devletlerin siber savaşlarda taşıdıkları sorumluluklar ele alınmaktadır. Uluslararası hukukta devletin sorumluluk doğuran
fiilleri, siber operasyonların devlete nasıl atfedilebileceği, siber operasyonlar
bağlamında nasıl anlam kazandığı detaylı bir şekilde incelenmektedir.
Siber güvenlik, teknolojinin ilerlemesiyle birlikte her geçen gün daha da
karmaşıklaşan bir alan haline gelmektedir. Bu kitap, siber güvenlikle ilgilenen
akademisyenler, araştırmacılar, hukukçular ve politika yapıcılar için siber operasyonların uluslararası hukuk bağlamında nasıl değerlendirilmesi gerektiği
konusunda kapsamlı bir rehber sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.
Bu çalışmanın, siber operasyonlar ve uluslararası hukuk arasındaki ilişkiyi daha iyi anlamamıza yardımcı olacağına inanıyorum. Okuyucunun da bu
alanda derinlemesine bir perspektif kazanacağını umuyorum. Kitabın yazım
sürecinde onlara ayırmam gereken zamanı ayıramadığım halde her zaman
koşulsuz olarak yanımda olan eşim İbrahim Yılmaz’a ve oğlum Haluk Kayra
Yılmaz’a varlıkları için teşekkür ediyorum.
Ayrıca kitabın basımında emeği geçen YETKİN Basım Yayım ve Dağıtım
A.Ş.’nin güler yüzlü sahibi Muharrem BAŞER başta olmak üzere tüm çalışanlarına da teşekkürü borç bilirim.
Saygılarımla
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Hatice Kübra ECEMİŞ YILMAZ
İÇİNDEKİLER
ÖNSÖZ ..........................................................................................................7
KISALTMALAR.........................................................................................13
GİRİŞ...........................................................................................................15
BİRİNCİ BÖLÜM
SİBER OPERASYONLAR
I. SİBER OPERASYONLARA GENEL BAKIŞ.....................................19
A. TERMİNOLOJİ.............................................................................19
B. MEVCUT KURALLARIN UYGULANABİLİRLİĞİ .................23
II. SAVAŞIN VE SİBER OPERASYONLARIN DEĞİŞEN
YÜZÜ....................................................................................................25
A. SAVAŞIN DEĞİŞEN YÜZÜ.........................................................25
B. KÖTÜ AMAÇLI YAZILIM VE SİBER
OPERASYONLARIN TARİHİ VE TÜRLERİ.............................30
C. SİBER SALDIRI ÖRNEKLERİ ...................................................33
1. 2007’de Estonya’ya Yönelik Saldırılar..................................33
2. Stuxnet ...................................................................................35
3. Kırmızı Ekim .........................................................................36
4. 2014 Sony ..............................................................................37
5. Rusya’nın Seçim Müdahalesi ................................................38
D. SALDIRILARIN TEKNİK YÖNLERİ.........................................39
III. DEĞERLENDİRME.............................................................................40
İKİNCİ BÖLÜM
SİBER SAVAŞLAR VE KUVVET KULLANIMI
I. KUVVET KULLANMA YASAĞI VE İSTİSNALARI........................43
10
A. GENEL OLARAK ........................................................................43
B. ULUSLARARASI HUKUK KURALLARININ
YORUMLANMA ESASLARI......................................................50
C. KUVVET KULLANMA YASAĞINA İLİŞKİN BM
ANTLAŞMASI 2(4)......................................................................58
D. KUVVET KULLANMA YASAĞI VE
ULUSLARARASI ADALET DİVANI .........................................64
E. KUVVET KULLANMA YASAĞI VE MÜDAHALE
ETMEME ......................................................................................73
F. SİBER OPERASYONLAR VE KUVVET KULLANMA
YASAĞI ........................................................................................75
II. MEŞRU MÜDAFAA ............................................................................89
A. MEŞRU MÜDAFAANIN ŞARTLARI.........................................91
1. Silahlı Saldırı .........................................................................91
2. Orantılılık ve Gereklilik.........................................................98
B. SİLAHLI SALDIRI OLARAK SİBER
OPERASYONLAR.......................................................................99
1. Silahlı Saldırı Kabul Edilmesi ...............................................99
2. Devlet Dışı Aktörlerin Siber Operasyonları.........................105
3. Orantılılık ve Gereklilik.......................................................106
C. ATFEDİLME PROBLEMİ..........................................................110
1. Atfedilmenin Fonksiyonları.................................................112
2. Hukuki Çerçevesi.................................................................114
3. İspat Külfeti .........................................................................119
4. İspat Standartları..................................................................120
5. Siber Operasyonlarda Kullanılabilecek Deliller ..................126
6. Siber Operasyonlarda Değerlendirme Problemleri..............127
III. DEĞERLENDİRME...........................................................................131
11
ÜÇÜNCÜ BÖLÜM
SİBER SAVAŞLAR VE DEVLETLERİN SORUMLULUĞU
I. DEVLETİN ULUSLARARASI SORUMLULUĞU ..........................135
A. DEVLETİN ULUSLARARASI SORUMLULUĞUNUN
İÇERİĞİ ......................................................................................135
B. DEVLETİN ULUSLARARASI SORUMLULUĞUNUN
ŞARTLARI..................................................................................143
1. Uluslararası Yükümlülüğün İhlali........................................143
2. Devlete Atfedilmesi .............................................................146
C. HUKUKA AYKIRILIĞI ORTADAN KALDIRAN
SEBEPLER..................................................................................152
1. Rıza ......................................................................................154
2. Meşru Müdafaa....................................................................157
3. Mücbir Sebep.......................................................................158
4. Karşı Önlemler.....................................................................160
5. Zorda Kalma ........................................................................161
6. Zaruret Hali..........................................................................163
7. Jus cogens Normlara Uyma Zorunluluğu............................164
D. DEVLETİN SORUMLULUĞUNUN HUKUKİ
SONUÇLARI ..............................................................................166
II. SİBER OPERASYONLARDA DEVLETİN
ULUSLARARASI SORUMLULUĞUNUN ŞARTLARI..................171
A. SİBER OPERASYONLAR VE ULUSLARARASI
YÜKÜMLÜLÜĞÜN İHLALİ ....................................................171
B. SİBER OPERASYONLARIN ATFEDİLEBİLMESİ .................182
C. SİBER OPERASYONLARIN HUKUKA
AYKIRILIĞINI ORTADAN KALDIRAN SEBEPLER.............191
1. Siber Operasyonlarda Rıza ..................................................193
2. Siber Operasyonlarda Meşru Müdafaa ................................195
3. Siber Operasyonlarda Mücbir Sebep ...................................196
12
4. Siber Operasyonlarda Karşı Önlemler.................................197
5. Siber Operasyonlarda Zorda Kalma.....................................202
6. Siber Operasyonlarda Zaruret Hali ......................................203
III. SİBER OPERASYONLARDA DEVLET
SORUMLULUĞUNUN UYGULANMASI.......................................205
IV. DEĞERLENDİRME...........................................................................220
SONUÇ ......................................................................................................223
KAYNAKÇA .............................................................................................229
KAYNAKÇA
ABASS, A. (2004). Consent precluding state responsibility: A critical
analysis. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 53(1), s. 211-225.
ACER, Y. / KAYA, İ. (2021). Uluslararası Hukuk Temel Ders Kitabı:
İngilizce Özetli, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo. Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of
the Congo I.C.J. Reports 2007.
AKAL, C. B. (2003). Modern Düşüncenin Doğuşu: İspanyol Altın Çağı,
Ankara: Dost Kitabevi, Üçüncü Baskı.
AKİPEK, Ö. İ. (1966). Devletler Hukuku Kaynaklarından ve Belgelerinden Örnekler, Ankara: Başnur Matbaası.
AKSAR, Y. (2001). The European Court of Human Rights and the Cyprus Problem. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 50(3), s. 141-
174.
AKSAR, Y. (2017). Temel Metinler ve Davalarla Uluslararası Hukuk.
Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
AKSAR, Y. (2021). Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk II, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, Altıncı Baskı.
AKSAR, Y. (2021b). Temel Metinler ve Davalarla Uluslararası Hukuk.
Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, İkinci Baskı.
Amoco International Finance Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran. International Law Reports, (1987).
ANZILOTTI, D. (1929). Cours De Droit International, (I), trad. G.
Gidel, Paris: Recueil Sirey, I.C.J. Reports (2012).
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro. I.C.J.
Reports (2007).
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
230
AREND, A. C. / BECK, R. J. (1993) International Law and Use of
Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm, New York: Routledge.
Argentine-Chile Frontier Case, International Law Reports, (1966).
Armed Activities on the territory of Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Uganda. ICJ Reports, (2005).
Avast. (2021). What is Adware? Avast. https://www.avast.com/c-adware
s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. Belgium v.
Spain. I.C.J. Reports, (1970).
BAŞEREN, S. (2003). Uluslararası Hukukta Devletlerin Münferiden
Kuvvet Kullanmalarının Sınırları, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basım Evi.
BATIR, K. (2011). Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Dönemde Amerikan Müdahaleciliği ve Uluslararası Hukuk. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), s. 115-134.
BOSSERT, T. (2017). Press briefing on the attribution of the WannaCry
Malware attack to North Korea. Whitehouse. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-on-the-attribution-of-thewannacry-malware-attack-to-north-korea-121917/. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
BOWETT, D. W. (2009). Self-Defense in International Law, New York:
The Lawbook Exchange.
BOZKURT E. / POYRAZ Y. / ERDAL, S. (2018). Devletler Hukuku,
Ankara: Legem Yayıncılık.
BOZKURT, E. (2007). Uluslararası Hukukta Kuvvet Kullanımı, Ankara:
Asil Yayınları, 3.Baskı.
BRENNER, S.W. (2007). At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to
Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
97(2), s. 379-416.
BRENNER, S.W. / CLARKE, L.A. (2011). Civilians in Cyberwarfare:
Conscripts. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 43, s. 1011-1076.
BROWER, C. N. / BRUESCHKE, J. D. (1998). The Iran-United States
Claims Tribunal. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
K A Y N A K Ç A
231
BROWNLIE, I. (1963). International Law and the Use of Force by the
States, Nottingham: Clarendon Press, s. 112-127.
BRUNNÉE, J. (2012). The Meaning of Armed Conflict and the Jus ad
Bellum, Ed. O’Connell, M.E. What Is War? An Investigation in the Wake of
9/11, Schöningh: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
BUCHANAN, B. (2016). The Cybersecurity Dilemma: Hacking, Trust
and Fear Between Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.
BYERS, M. (2007). Soykırımdan Son Kırıma: Savaş Hukuku. Çev.
Hasret Dikici Bilgin. İstanbul: Detay Yayınları.
CARON, D. D. (2014). The Basis of Responsibility: Attribution and
Other Transsubstantive Rules of State Responsibility. The Iran United States
Claims Tribunal: its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility, s. 109-
184.
Case Concerning Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, Judgement, Hungary v.
Slovakia, I.C.J Reports, (1997).
Case Concerning the Differences Between New Zealand and France Arising from The Rainbow Warrior Affair, United Nations Reports of International
Arbitral Awards (1990).
Case Concerning the Factory At Chorzow, Germany v. Poland, Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice (1927).
Case of Golder v. The United Kingdom, European Court Of Human
Rights, Council of Europe, (1975).
CAVİD, A. (2005). Gemilerden Kaynaklanan Petrol Kirliliği, Ankara:
Yetkin Yayınevi.
Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Djibouti v.
France. I.C.J. Reports (2005).
CHEN, Y./ ABU-NİMEH, S. / ALZUBİ, O. (2011). Lessons from
Stuxnet. Computer, 44(4), s. 91-93.
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
232
CHOUCRI, N./ MADNICK, S. / FERWERDA, J. (2014). Institutions
for Cyber Security: International Responses and Global Imperatives. Information Technology for Development, 20(2), s. 96-121.
CLARKE R.A./ KNAKE, K.K. (2010). Cyber War. The Next Threat to
National Security and What to Do About It. New York: Ecco.
CLARKE, R. A./ KNAKE, R. K. (2011), Siber Savaş: Ulusal Güvenliğe
Yönelik Yeni Tehdit, (Çev. Murat Erduran), İstanbul: İKÜ Yayınevi.
CLAUSEWITZ C. V. (1999). Savaş Üzerine, Çev. H. Fahri Çeliker, İstanbul: Özne Yayınları.
CLAUSEWITZ, C. V. (1963). Vom Kriege. sl Leck. Hamburg: Rowohlt
Yayınevi.
CLAUSEWITZ, C. V. (2002). Savaş Üzerine, Çev: H. Fahri Çeliker,
Özne Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999. Chesterman, Simon. Just War or Just Peace:
Humanitarian Intervention and International Law.
CONNELL, M. (2012), Cyber Security without Cyber War, Journal of
Conflict and Security Law, 17 (2), s. 187-210.
Corfu Channel, United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland
v. Albania. I.C.J. Reports. (1945).
CORN, G.S./JENSEN, E.T. (2016). Untying the Gordian Knot: A Proposal for Determining Applicability of the Laws of War to the War on Terror.
Temple Law Review, 81, s. 787-854.
CORTEN, O. (2010) The Law Against War, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
COUZIGOU, I. (2014). The Challenges Posed by Cyber Attacks to the
Law on Self-Defence. In European Society of International Law, 10th Anniversary Conference, Vienna, s. 4-6.
CRAWFORD, J. (2002). The International Law Commission’s Articles
on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
CRAWFORD, J. (2013). State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
K A Y N A K Ç A
233
CRAWFORD, J./ PELLET, A./ OLLESON, S./ PARLETT, K. (Eds.).
(2010). The Law of International Responsibility. New York: Oxford Commentaries on International Law.
CRAWFORD, J./ BROWNLIE, I. (2019). Brownlie's Principles of
Public International Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cyber Defence Pledge. (2016) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO). https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133177.htm#:~:text=In%20recognition%20of%20the%20new,on%20land%20and%20at%20sea. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
CZOSSECK, C./ OTTIS, R./TALIHÄRM, A. M. (2011). Estonia after
the 2007 cyber attacks: Legal, strategic and organisational changes in cyber
security. International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism, 1(1), s. 24-
34.
ÇALIŞKAN, Y. (2011). Milletlerarası Tahkimde Ahde Vefa ve Akdin
Değişen Şartlara Uyarlanması Prensiplerinin Uygulanması. Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 24(1-2), s. 365-378.
DE GROOT, J. (2022). A History of Ransomware Attacks: The Biggest
and Worst Ransomware Attacks of All Time. Digital Guardian.
https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/history-ransomware-attacks-biggestand-worst-ransomware-attacks-all-time s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
DEDERER, H. G./ SINGER, T. (2019). Adverse cyber operations: Causality, attribution, evidence, and due diligence. International Law Studies,
95(1), s. 430-466.
DEEKS, A. S. (2011). Unwilling or unable: toward a normative framework for extraterritorial self-defense. Virginia Journal of International Law,
52(3), s. 483-550.
DEGAN, D. V. (1997). Sources of International Law, London: Martınus
Nıjhoff Publishers.
DELERUE, F. (2020). Cyber Operations and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
234
DELIBASIS F. D./ KLEIN, A. (2019). Cyberspace Operations & State
Responsibility. Available at SSRN 3505428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3505428. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
DEMİRBAŞ, Ç. E. (2017). Haklı Savaş Öğretisinin Fikri Temelleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi,
31(4), s. 895-921.
Department of Defense Law of War Manual. (2016). U.S. Department of
Defense. Office of General Counsel Department of Defense https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-
12-13-172036-190. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023
DINNISS, H. (2012). Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
DINSTEIN, Y. (2002). Computer network attacks and self-defense. International Law Studies, 76(1), s. 99-119.
DINSTEIN, Y. (2005). War, Aggression and Self-Defence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
DIXON, M. (2013). Textbook on International Law. New York: Oxford
University Press. s. 263-264.
DIXON, M./ MCCORQUODALE, R./ WILLIAMS, S. (2011). Cases
and Materials on International Law. Oxford University Press.
DÖRR, O./ SCHMALENBACH, K. (2018). Vienna Convention on The
Law Of Treaties. Berlin: Springer.
DROEGE, C. (2012). Get Off My Cloud: Cyber Warfare, International
Humanitarian Law, and the Protection of Civilians. International Review of
the Red Cross, 94(886), s. 533-578.
ECEMİŞ YILMAZ, H. K. (2019)Birleşmiş Milletler Antlaşması, Kuzey
Atlantik Antlaşması Ve Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Siber Saldırıların Tanımlanması Sorunu. International Journal Of Socıal Humanıtıes Scıences Research 6 (38). s. 1641-1655
K A Y N A K Ç A
235
EFRONY, D. (2021). The Cyber Domain, Cyber Security and What
About the International Law? https://csrcl.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/csrcl/files/dan_efrony.pdf. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
EICHENSEHR, K.E. (2018). Public-Private Cybersecurity. Texas Law
Review, 96(3), s. 779-829.
EILAM, E. (2011). Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons Publishing.
EREKER, F. A. (2004). İlkçağlardan günümüze haklı savaş kavramı.
Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 1(3), s. 1-36.
Eritrea - Ethiopia Claims Commission - Final Award - Ethiopia's Damages Claims. (2009). Reports Of International Arbitral Awards. https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVI/631-770.pdf s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission Decision on Delimitation, International Law Reports (2002).
ERKINER, H. H. (2010). Devletin Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan
Uluslararası Sorumluluğu, İstanbul: On İki Levha.
Executive Office of the President. (2011). International Strategy for Cyberspace: Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
FARWELL, J. P./ ROHOZINSKI, R. (2011). Stuxnet and the Future of
Cyber War. Survival, 53(1), s. 23-40.
Fifth report on State responsibility / by Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, Special
Rapporteur. (1971). Reissued in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, (2). A/CN.4/453. United Nations Digital Library.
FINLAY, L./ PAYNE, C. (2019). The attribution problem and cyber
armed attacks. American Journal of International Law, 113, s. 202-206.
Fisheries, United Kingdom v. Norway. ICJ Reports (1951).
FRANCK, T.M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. New
York: Oxford University Press.
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
236
GADDIS, J.L. (1987). The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the
Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press.
GAT, A. (2006). War in Human Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.
General Assembly, U. N. (2015). Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context
of International Security. A/70/174. United Nations General Assembly.
GENTILI, A. (1933). De Jure Belli Libri Tres, The Classics of International Law. (16).
GORTNEY, W. E. (2016). Department of Defense Dictionary of Military
and Associated Terms. Washington: Joint Chiefs of Staff Washington United
States.
GRAY, C. (2006). The Use of Force and the International Legal Order,
Ed. Evans, M. D., International Law, New York: Oxford University Press,
İkinci Baskı.
GRAY, C. (2018). International Law And The Use Of Force. New York:
Oxford University Press.
GRAY, C.S. (2012). War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History. London: Routledge.
GREEN, J. A. (2009). Fluctuating evidentiary standards for self-defence
in the international court of justice. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 58(1), s163-179.
GROTIUS, H. (1751). De iure belli ac pacis. Bousquet. (2).
GROTIUS, H. (2011). Savaş ve Barış Hukuku, Çev. Seha L. Meray, İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
GÜNDÜZ, A. (2018). Milletlerarası Hukuk, Ed. Reşat Volkan Günel,
Ankara: Savaş Yayınevi.
Haaretz (2020). Israel was behind cyberattack on Iranian port, report says
- Israel News. Haaretz.com. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-05-
K A Y N A K Ç A
237
19/ty-article/israel-cyberattack-iran-port-washington-post-report/0000017ff18c-d487-abff-f3fe8aee0000. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
HATHAWAY, O. A./ CHERTOFF, E./ DOMINGUEZ, L./
MANFREDI, Z./ TZENG, P. (2016). Ensuring Responsibility: Common Article 1 and State Responsibility for Non-State Actors. Texas. Law Review. (95).
s. 539-590.
HATHAWAY, O. A./ CROOTOF, R./ LEVITZ, P./ NIX, H./ NOWLAN, A./ PERDUE, W./ SPIEGEL, J. (2012). The law of cyber-attack. California Law Review, s. 817-885.
HEALEY, J. (2011). Beyond Attribution: Seeking National Responsibility in Cyberspace. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depthresearch-reports/issue-brief/beyond-attribution-seeking-national-responsibility-in-cyberspace/ s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
HEKİMOĞLU, M. M. (2013). ABD’nin Irak İşgaline Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Eleştirel Bir Bakış. Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, (34), s. 61-
86.
HENKIN, L. (1989). Use of Force: Law and U.S. Policy, Right v. Might,
International Law and the Use of Force, New York: Council of Foreign Relations Books, s.38-39.
HIMES, R. K. (1994). The Morality of Human Intervention. Theological
Studies, 55(1), s. 82-106.
HOLLIS, D.B. (2011). An e-SOS for Cyberspace. Harvard International
Law Journal, 52, s. 373-412.
I.C.J. Decision in Barcelona Traction Case (Diplomatic Protection of Corporations and Shareholders; Nationality of Claims). (1970). International Legal Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9(2), s. 227-358.
International Law Commission. (1966). Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries. United Nations New York: Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2, 248.
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
238
Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (1999). Prosecutor v. Dusko
Tadic International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
JAGOTA, S. P. (1985). State responsibility: circumstances precluding
wrongfulness. Netherlands Yearbook Of International Law, (16), s. 249-277.
JESSUP, P. C. (1946). Responsibility of states for injuries to individuals.
Columbia Law Review, 46(6), s. 903-928.
JOHNSON, J.T. (1991). Historical Roots and Sources of the Just War
Tradition in Western Culture, Eds. Kelsay, J. ve Johnson, J.T., Just War and
Jihad, Newyork: Grenwood Press.
KADELBACH, S. (2006). Chapter II. Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and Other Rules-the Identification of Fundamental Norms. In The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order. Boston: Brill Nijhoff. s. 21-40.
KANUCK, S. (2010). Sovereign Discourse on Cyber Conflict under International Law, Texas Law Review, 88(7) s. 1571-1598.
Kasikili/Sedudu Island, Botswana v. Namibia, I.C.J. Reports, (1999).
Kaspersky (2021). What is a Botnet? https://usa.kaspersky.com/resourcecenter/threats/botnet-attacks s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Kaspersky Lab. (2013a). “Red October” Diplomatic Cyber Attacks Investigation. https://securelist.com/red-october-diplomatic-cyber-attacks-investigation/36740/ s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Kaspersky Lab. (2013b). “Red October” Detailed Malware Description
1. First Stage of Attack. https://securelist.com/red-october-detailed-malwaredescription-1-first-stage-of-attack/36830/ s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
KAYA, İ. (2005). Terörle Mücadele ve Uluslararası Hukuk. Ankara:
Uluslararası Stratejik Araştırmalar Kurumu Yayınları.
KEBER, T. O./ ROGUSKI, P. N. (2011). lus ad bellum electronicum?
Cyberangriffe im Lichte der UN-Charta und aktueller Staatenpraxis. Archiv
des Völkerrechts, 49(4), s. 399-434.
K A Y N A K Ç A
239
KESAN, J. P. /HAYES, C. M. (2011). Mitigative counterstriking: Selfdefense and deterrence in cyberspace. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, s. 431-543.
KESKİN, F. (1998) Uluslararası Hukukta Kuvvet Kullanma: Savaş, Karışma ve Birleşmiş Milletler, Ankara: Mülkiyeliler Birliği Vakfı Yayınları.
KESKİN, F. (2002). BM ve Kuvvet Kullanma. Avrasya Dosyası, 8(1), s.
149-174.
KOLB, R. (2006). General principles of procedural law. In: The statute
of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. Ed. Andreas Zimmermann, Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 871–908.
KUNARAC et al. (IT-96-23 ve 23/1). International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia. https://www.icty.org/en/case/kunarac s.e.t: 17 Ağustos
2023.
LaGrand, Germany v. United States of America. I.C.J. Reports. (2001).
LAHMANN, H. (2020). Unilateral remedies to cyber operations: selfdefence, countermeasures, necessity, and the question of attribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening. I.C.J. Reports, (2002).
LANDESMAN, M. (2011). A Brief History of Malware. https://www.lifewire.com/brief-history-of-malware-153616. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
LANDLER, M./MARKOFF, J. (2007). Digital Fears Emerge After Data
Siege in Estonia. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/technology/29estonia.html. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
LANGNER, R. (2011). Stuxnet: Dissecting a Cyberwarfare Weapon.
IEEE Security ve Privacy, 9(3), s. 49-51.
LANGNER, R. (2013). To Kill a Centrifuge: A Technical Analysis of
What Stuxnet's Creators Tried to Achieve. The Langner Group.
LAUGHLAND, O. / RUSHE, D. (2014). Sony cyber attack linked to
North Korean government hackers, FBI says.
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
240
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/19/north-korea-responsiblesony-hack-us-official. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa
in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution,
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports (1971).
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports (1996).
Legality of Use of Force, Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium and others,
I.C.J. Reports, (2004).
LEWY, G. (1993). The Case for Humanitarian Intervention, Orbis, 37(4),
s. 621-633.
LIBICKI, M.C. (2016). The Convergence of Information Warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11(1), s. 49-65.
LIN, H.S. (2010). Offensive Cyber Operations and the Use of Force.
Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 4(63), s. 63-86.
LIN, H.S. (2012). Cyber Conflict and International Humanitarian Law.
International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), s. 515-531.
LINDSAY, J.R. (2013). Stuxnet and the Limits of Cyber Warfare. Security Studies, 22(3), s. 365-404.
LINDSAY, J.R. (2015). Tipping the Scales: The Attribution Problem and
the Feasibility of Deterrence against Cyberattack. Journal of Cybersecurity,
1(1), s. 53-67.
Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits) International Law Reports, (1996).
LOWE, V. (1999). Precluding wrongfulness or responsibility: a plea for
excuses. European Journal of International Law, 10(2), s. 405-411.
LUBELL, N. (2010). Extraterritorial Use Of Force Against Non-State
Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MAHNKEN, T.G. (2011) ‘Cyber War and Cyber Warfare’, Kristin Lord
and Travis Sharp (eds) , America’s Cyber Future: Security and Prosperity in
the Information Age, Washington DC: CNAS2011.
K A Y N A K Ç A
241
MALANCZUK, P. (2002). Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law. Routledge. New York: Routledge.
MARKOFF, J. (2007). Before the Gunfire, Cyberattacks. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html. s.e.t:
17 Ağustos 2023.
Martini Case. (1930). Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases,
(5), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAfee. (2021). What is a Trojan? McAfee. https://www.mcafee.com/learn/what-is-a-trojan/ s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
McClean, D. (1988). Mutual assistance in criminal matters: The Commonwealth initiative. International ve Comparative Law Quarterly, 37(1),
177-190.
MERAY, S. L. (1977). Uluslararası Hukuk ve Uluslararası Örgütler, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
MERCADO, S.C. (2007). Sailing the Sea of OSINT in the Information
Age. Studies in Intelligence, 48(3), s. 45-55.
Militarv and Puramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports (1986).
MORI, T. (2018). Origins of the Right of Self-defence in International
Law: From the Caroline Incident to the United Nations Charter. (12). Boston:
Brill.
Morris Worm, FBI (1988), https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/morris-worm s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
NAKASHIMA, E. (2012). Stuxnet was work of U.S. and Israeli experts,
officials say. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/stuxnet-was-work-of-us-and-israeliexperts-officials-say/2012/06/01/gJQAlnEy6U_story.html s.e.t: 17 Ağustos
2023.
National Security Strategy, May 2010 (2010). Office of Justice Programs.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/national-security-strategy-
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
242
may-2010#:~:text=Internationally%2C%20America%20must%20engage%20in,and%20sustainable%20economic%20growth%3B%20and. s.e.t:
17 Ağustos 2023..
Norton. (2021). What is a Computer Worm? Norton. https://uk.norton.com/blog/privacy/what-is-a-computer-worm#:~:text=A%20computer%20worm%20is%20a,to%20get%20inside%20a%20machine. s.e.t: 17
Ağustos 2023.
Nuclear Tests. Australia v. France. I.C.J. Reports. (1974).
NYE, J. S. (2011). Cyber Power. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/cyber-power s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
NYE, J. S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
NYE, J.S. (2014). The Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities. Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series, (1).
https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/gcig_paper_no1.pdf. s.e.t: 17
Ağustos 2023.
O’CONNELL, M. E. (2002). The myth of preemptive self-defense.
In The American Society of International Law. s. 1-21.
Office of Public Affairs (2018). North Korean Regime-Backed Programmer Charged With Conspiracy to Conduct Multiple Cyber Attacks and Intrusions. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/north-korean-regime-backed-programmer-charged-conspiracy-conduct-multiple-cyber-attacks-and. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Oil Platforms ,Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America. I.C.J.
Reports, (2003).
ORAKHELASHVILI, A. (2008). The Interpretation of Acts and Rules
in Public International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OTTIS, R. (2008). Analysis Of The 2007 Cyber Attacks Against Estonia
from The Information Warfare Perspective. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Warfare. Reading, MA: Academic Publishing Limited. s. 163-168.
K A Y N A K Ç A
243
PAYNE, C./ FINLAY, L. (2016). Addressing obstacles to cyber-attribution: A model based on state response to cyber-attack. George Washington International Law Review. (49). s. 535-568.
PAZARCI, H. (1999). Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri III. Kitap, Ankara:
Turhan Kitabevi.
PAZARCI, H. (2009). Uluslararası Hukuk, Ankara: Turhan Kitapevi.
8.Baskı.
PAZARCI, H. (2011). Türk Hukukunda Andlaşmalar ile Yasaların Çatışması. Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 24(1-2), s.
651-674
PAZARCI, H. (2014). Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri, Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi. 13.Baskı.
Phosphates in Morocco. Italy v. France. Preliminary Objections. Permanent Court of International Justice. (1938)
Report on State responsibility / by F. V. Garcia Amador, Special Rapporteur. (1956). Reissued in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, (2).
A/CN.4/96. United Nations Digital Library.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly UN Documents, General
Assembly, A/Res/56/83. (2001).
Resolutions Adopted on the Reports of the Sixth Committee, UN Documents, General Assembly, A/Res/25/2625. (1970).
RIAL, J.M.C. (1987). States, Sovereign Equality. Encyclopedia of Public International Law, s. 477-481.
RID, T. (2012). Cyber War Will Not Take Place. Journal of strategic
studies, 35(1), s. 5-32.
RID, T./ BUCHANAN, B. (2015). Attributing cyber attacks. Journal of
Strategic Studies, 38(1-2), s. 4-37.
ROSCINI, M. (2010). World Wide Warfare-'Jus Ad Bellum'and the Use
of Cyber Force. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 14, s. 85-130.
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
244
ROSCINI, M. (2014). Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RUYS, T. (2014). The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus
Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article
2 (4)?. American Journal of International Law, 108(2), s. 159-210.
SANGER, D. E. (2012). Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars
and Surprising Use of American Power. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
SANGER, D. E. / SCHMITT E. (2016). Spy Agency Consensus Grows
That Russia Hacked D.N.C https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html. s.e.t: 17
Ağustos 2023.
SCHMITT, M. N. (2003). Counter-terrorism and the Use of Force in International Law. In Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, (32). London: Brill
Nijhoff.
SCHMITT, M. N. (ED.). (2017). Tallinn manual 2.0 on the international
law applicable to cyber operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SCHMITT, M.N. (2011). Cyber Operations and the Jus Ad Bellum Revisited. Villanova Law Review, 56(3). s. 569-605.
SCHMITT, M.N. (2013). Classification of Cyber Conflict. Journal of
Conflict ve Security Law, 17(2), s. 245-260.
SCHMITT, M.N. / VIHUL, L. (2017). The Nature of International Law
Cyber Norms. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Secretary-General, U. N. (2013). Developments In the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security Report of the Secretary-General. A/66/152. United Nations General Assembly.
Secretary-General, U. N. (2013). Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context
of International Security: note/by the Secretary-General. A/68/150. United
Nations General Assembly.
K A Y N A K Ç A
245
SHACKELFORD, S. J./ PROIA, A. C. (2019). Toward a State-Centric
Cyber Peace? Analyzing the Role of National Cybersecurity Strategies in Enhancing Global Cybersecurity. New York University Journal of International
Law and Politics, (51), s. 757-825.
SHAW, M.N. (2003). International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Beşinci Baskı.
SHAW, M.N. (2017). International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sekizinci Baskı.
SILVER, D. B. (2002). Computer network attack as a use of force under
Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. International Law Studies, 76(1),
s. 73-97.
SIMMA, B. / PAULUS, A. L. (1999). The responsibility of individuals
for human rights abuses in internal conflicts: a positivist view. American Journal of International Law, 93(2), s. 302-316.
SINCLAIR, I. M. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law Of Treaties. Great Britain: Manchester University Press.
SKLEROV, M. J. (2009). Solving the dilemma of sate responses to cyberattacks: a justification for the use of active defenses against states who neglect their duty to prevent. Military Law Review, 201(1). s.1-107.
SLOMANSON, W. (2011). Fundamental Perspectives on Intemational
Law, Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Leraning, Altıncı Baskı.
Sony Pictures Entertainment attack (2014) - International cyber law: interactive toolkit. (2021, June 9). International Cyber Law: Interactive Toolkit.
https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment_attack_(2014). s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
SPAFFORD, E. H. (1989). The Internet worm program: An analysis.
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 19(1), s. 17-57.
SUR, M. (2022). Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları, İstanbul: Beta.
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
246
SZUREK, S. (2010). “Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the
ILC Articles on State Responsibility: Distress”, in The Law of International
Responsibility. (Eds.). Crawford, J., Pellet, A., Olleson, S., & Parlett, K. New
York: Oxford Commentaries on International Law.
TAFT, W. H. (2004). Self-Defense and the Oil Platforms Decision. Yale
Journal of International Law. (29), s. 295-307.
TAŞDEMİR, F. (2006). Uluslararası Terörizme Karşı Devletlerin Kuvvete Başvurma Yetkisi, Ankara: Uluslararası Stratejik Araştırmalar Kurumu
Yayınları.
TAŞDEMİR, F. (2006b). Uluslararası Anarşiye Giden Yol: Uluslararası
Hukuk Açısından Önleyici Meşru Müdafaa Hakkı. Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, (05), s.75-89.
Temple of Preah Vihear. Cambodia v. Thailand I.C.J Reports, (1967).
TESÓN, F. R. (1989). Interdependence, Consent, and the Basis of International Obligation. Proceedings of the American Society of International
Law Annual Meeting. Cambridge University Press.
The Peace Treaty of Versailles, League of Nations covenant – Peace
Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference, United Nations, (1919).
TILLY, C. (1992). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–
1992. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing.
TOLUNER, S. (2000). Milletlerarası Hukuk Açısından Türkiye’nin Bazı
Dış Politika Sorunları. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
TOLUNER, S. (2000). Nikaragua’ya karşı askeri ve benzeri faaliyetler
davası’ndaki yargı ve meşru müdafaa hakkı, Milletlerarası Hukuk Açısından
Türkiye’nin Bazı Dış Politika Sorunları, Beta Yayıncılık.
TOPAL, A. H. (2005). Uluslararası Terörizm ve Terörist Eylemlere Karşı
Kuvvet Kullanımı. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
TÖNER ŞEN, S. (2021). Siber Uzay ve Uluslararası Hukuk, İstanbul:
Onikilevha Yayıncılık.
K A Y N A K Ç A
247
TRAYNOR, I. (2007). Russia Accused of Unleashing Cyberwar to Disable Estonia. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Treaty For The Renunciation Of War As An İnstrument Of National Policy, (Kellogg-Brıand Pact), Washington, Government Printing Office, (1933).
TSAGOURIAS, N. (2012). Cyber Attacks, Self-Defence and the Problem of Attribution. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 17(2), s. 229-244.
TÜTÜNCÜ, A. N. (2004). Gemi Kaynaklı Deniz Kirlenmesinin Önlenmesi Azaltılması ve Kontrol Altına Alınmasında Devletin Yetkisi, İstanbul:
Beta Yayıncılık.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2015). Treasury Sanctions North Korean Officials and Entities in Response to the Government of North Korea’s
Ongoing Human Rights Abuses and Censorship. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm568. s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Statüsü. https://inhak.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/Dokuman/2312020093041bm_02.pdf s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
United Nations (1945). Charter of the United Nations International Court
of Justice. Charter of the United Nations, Together with the Statute of the International Court of Justice, Signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, California, (2353). US Government
Printing Office.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, U.S.A.
v. Iran. I.C.J. Reports. (1980).
. U.S. Director of National Intelligence (2019). Worldwide Threat Assessment. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR---
SSCI.pdf s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
UZUN, E. (2007). Milletlerarası Hukuka Aykırı Eylemlerinden Dolayı
Devletin Sorumluluğu, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
VAGİAS, M. / FERENCZ, J. (2015). Burden and Standard of Proof in
Defence Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Leiden Journal of International Law, 28(1), s. 133-155.
S İ BE R O P E R A S YO N L A R I N U LU S L A R A R A S I H U KU K L A İ L İ Ş K İ L E N D İ R İ L M ES İ
248
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). United Nations.
VİLLİGER, M. E. (2009). Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention
on Law of Treaties, The Netherlands: Martınus Nıjhoff Publishers
VON GLAHN, G./ TAULBEE, J. L. (2015). Law Among Nations: An
Introduction to Public International Law. New York: Routledge.
WATSON, J. S. (1992). State consent and the sources of international
obligation. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual
Meeting. (86) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WAXMAN, M.C. (2011). Cyber-attacks and the Use of Force: Back to
the Future of Article 2(4). Yale Journal of International Law, 36, s. 421-459.
WEBROOT. (2021). What is Spyware? Webroot. https://www.webroot.com/us/en/resources/tips-articles/what-is-spyware-and-how-to-detect-it
s.e.t: 17 Ağustos 2023.
WOLTAG, J.C. (2016). Cyber Warfare: Military Cross-Border Computer Network Operations Under International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
YILMAZ, E. (2005). Hukuk Sözlüğü, Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
ZETTER, K. (2014). Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch
of the World's First Digital Weapon. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
ZETTER, K. (2015). A Cyberattack Has Caused Confirmed Physical Damage for the Second Time Ever. WIRED.
https://www.wired.com/2015/01/german-steel-mill-hack-destruction/. s.e.t:
17 Ağustos 2023.
Copyright 1985 - 2023 | Yetkin Basım Yayım Dağıtım San. ve Tic. A.Ş.
