International Relations

International Political Economy

Topic: Cyber Warfare & Its Impacts on State

Sovereignty - Exploring how cyberattacks are
changing the nature of warfare & international
relations

Submitted To:

Sir Zeeshan Fida

Submitted By:

Areeba Zia

(2022-B.IR-08)
Title: Cyber Warfare and its impacts on State Sovereignty – Exploring how
cyberattacks are changing the nature of warfare and international relations

Abstract

In the digital age cyber warfare has emerged as an influential changing factor reshaping
traditional concepts of state sovereignty, security and international relations. Unlike
conventional warfare, cyberattacks transcend territorial boundaries and often lack clear
attribution, challenging the ability of states to defend their digital borders. This paper
examines hoe cyber operations ranging from espionage to infrastructure sabotage are
eroding the hegemony of states over the legitimate use of force. It explores the blurred lines
between war and peace in cyberspace, the growing role of non-state actors in international
politics and the implications for international law and diplomacy. By analyzing key case
studies and relevant theories from international relations, the paper argues that cyber
warfare is not merely a technological evolution but a significant transformation in the
structure of global power and conflict. The findings of this study emphasize the urgent need
for states to rethink sovereignty, adapt security doctrines, and establish cooperative cyber
norms.

Keywords: Cyber warfare, state sovereignty, cyber security, international relations, digital
sovereignty
Introduction

In the 21st century, the world is no longer shaped only by tanks, guns and traditional warfare.
Instead, cyber warfare has become a powerful weapon that does not need soldiers or bombs.
A cyberattack can shut down a country’s electricity, steal secret military data or influence
elections all from behind a computer screen. Cyberwarfare has changed now how countries
perceive sovereignty, which means a state control over its territory, systems and decisions. In
this contemporary world many states both developed and developing face cyber threats.
Unlike old wars that happened on land, air, or sea, cyberwarfare happens in a space that is
invisible like the internet. This makes it difficult to know who is attacking and how to
respond. Hackers can use fake locations and anonymous tools, making it hard to trace the
origin of an attack. In this case countries cannot use traditional military responses or legal
actions. This raises questions regarding identity, security and the role of international law in
the digital world. 1There have been several major incidents that shows cyberattacks pose a
serious threat. Like in 2007, Estonia faced a massive cyberattack that halts its banks, media
and government services. 2In 2010, the Stuxnet virus damaged Iran’s nuclear program. In
2016, Russian hackers interfered in the U.S presidential elections. These examples show that
cyberattacks are not just about stealing data they can damage real systems, affect
international relations, and even change the course of history.
Cyber warfare also challenges how we understand state responsibility. 3 In many cases attacks
are done by non-state actors, individuals or groups that are not part of any official
government.
However, they may still be supported by states behind the scenes. This gray zone makes it
difficult to impose international rules like UN Charter or Geneva Conventions. Many
scholars and policymakers believe that we need new rules and framework for the digital
world because of this situation.4 There have been efforts such as Tallinn Manual, to explain
how international law applies to cyber warfare. But these are not legally binding and
countries disagree on many points. Some countries want to keep the internet free and open,
while others want more state control and cyber sovereignty 5. Cyber warfare has also made
international law more complicated. There is no clear law on when a cyberattack counts as
act of war or how a country can legally respond to it. Organizations like United Nations are
trying to create new norms and agreements, but many countries do not agree on what is
allowed and what is not. This lack of global cooperation makes the situation even more
threatening. This study will examine how cyber warfare is changing the nature of state
sovereignty and international relations. It will also use two theories Realism and
Constructivism to understand the rationale and behaviors of states in cyberspace. By focusing
on real world examples, legal frameworks and emerging theories, this research highlights
why cybersecurity is no longer a technical issue it is a core part of national and international
security.6

1
Nye, Joseph S. “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace.” American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017.
6:36 pm
2
Cavelty, Myriam Dunn. “Cyber-Security and Threat Politics.” Contemporary Security Policy 32, no. 2 (2011):
345–361.
3
Zetter, Kim. “An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon.” WIRED, November 2014.
4
Greenberg, Andy. “Russia's Meddling in the 2016 Election Was Just the Beginning.” WIRED, March 2018.
5
Hollis, Duncan B. “An e-SOS for Cyberspace.” Harvard International Law Journal 52, no. 2 (2011): 373–432.
6
Schmitt, Michael N. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge
University Press, 2017.
Problem Statement

In today’s digital world, cyber warfare has become a serious challenge to the traditional
concept of state sovereignty. Unlike conventional military attacks, cyberattacks are often
invisible, untraceable, and can be carried out by both states and non-state actors. These
attacks can disrupt national security, economy, communication systems, and critical
infrastructure without a single bullet being fired. However, international laws and political
structures have not fully adapted to handle this new form of conflict. States are struggling to
respond to cyber threats due to unclear legal rules, lack of international cooperation, and the
anonymity of attackers. This creates confusion about whether a cyberattack qualifies as an act
of war or not. The increasing frequency and complexity of cyber incidents raise urgent
questions about the ability of states to protect their digital borders and exercise full control
over their cyberspace. Therefore, the problem lies in the growing gap between the evolving
nature of cyber warfare and the outdated frameworks of international law and state
sovereignty.

Research Question

How is cyber warfare affecting the sovereignty of states in today’s international system?

Hypothesis

Cyber warfare is weakening state sovereignty by creating threats that traditional legal,
political, and military systems cannot handle.

Variables

Independent Variable: Cyber Warfare

Dependent Variable: State Sovereignty

Theoretical framework

To comprehend how cyber warfare affects state sovereignty and international relations, we
will use two major theories from international relations: Realism and Constructivism. These
theories help explain why states act the way they do in cyberspace and how cyber threats are
changing traditional concepts of power, security and control.

Realism

Realism is one of the oldest and widely used school of thought in international relations. It
argues that there is anarchy in international system, meaning there is no supreme authority
above states. Each state is responsible for its own survival and national interest especially
security is the top priority. Realist argues states are always in competition and they often use
power to protect themselves or increase their authority. In the case of cyber warfare, Realism
helps explain why states are building offensive and defensive cyber capabilities 7. Countries
like the United States, Russia, China constantly investing in cyber weapons because they
believe that cyber power is now as important as military power. In a realist view, sovereignty
means having full jurisdiction over your territory including digital networks. If a cyberattack
can harm your economy, military or communication systems, it become a straight threat to
your sovereignty. Realism also helps explain why there are no clear and strong international
rules and agreements on cyber laws. States do not want to restrict their own cyber capabilities
because they fear that others may gain an advantage 8. For example, despite many discussions
at the United Nations, countries like the United States and Russia have not agreed on a shared
definition of cyber warfare or its legal limits. This is because they see such agreements as
restrictions on their power and national interest.9

Constructivism

Constructivism is also an important theory of international relations, which emphasizes things

differently. It focuses on shared norms, values, ideas and beliefs instead of power and military
strength. Constructivists argues that states act depends on how they perceive threats and how
they see themselves. In cyber warfare, this holds importance because unlike traditional wars
the purpose and threat are not always clear. For example, one country may see the
cyberattack on a hospital as a humanitarian catastrophe while another may view it as
technical problem.
This clearly manifest that the impact of cyber warfare depends on how societies and states
perceive and respond to it, not just on the damage it causes. In such a manner perceptions,
communication and social values are deeply associated with cyber warfare. 10
Constructivists also argues that why some states feel more threatened than others. A country
may feel threatened when it values its national pride and another country breaches its privacy
by cyberattacks in the digital world. This result in shifts in laws, public opinion and
international relations. The multifaceted nature of cyber warfare is clearly understood by both
Realism and Constructivism, the two major theories of international relations. 11Realism
explains power struggle and how states prioritize survival and national interest, while
Constructivism shows the role ideas, values and identity. Together these school of thoughts
provide a nuanced framework of why states like this when they face cyber threats.12

7
Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 2006.
8
Nye, Joseph S. “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace.” American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017.
9
Schmitt, Michael N. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2017.
10
Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.”
International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391–425.
11
Cavelty, Myriam Dunn. “Cyber-Security and Threat Politics.” Contemporary Security Policy 32, no. 2 (2011):
345–361.
12
Hollis, Duncan B. “An e-SOS for Cyberspace.” Harvard International Law Journal 52, no. 2 (2011): 373–432.
Research Methodology

This study will use qualitative approach to examine the evolving nature of cyber warfare on
state sovereignty. Instead of using statistics and numerical data, it focused on reading journal
articles, academic books and analyzing ideas and theories. These materials offer valuable
insights into both conceptualization and real examples. The paper will be shaped by Realism
and constructivism, two important theories of international relations. Both theories help
examine the impacts of cyber warfare on state sovereignty and international relations.

This research further uses a case study, applying practical examples like Stuxnet cyberattack
on Iran’s nuclear facilities and Russia’s alleged cyberattacks in the 2016 United States
elections. These cases provide clear understanding of how cyberattacks questions state’s
control. The academic quality, reliability and relevance of all sources are carefully asses in
this paper. This study is also based on current developments to make sure is remains up to
date. This method gives the overall understanding of the issue and also used comprehensive
framework and real-world examples to investigate how the traditional concepts are changing
and redefining by cyber warfare.

Significance of Research

This research is important because it explores how cyber warfare is changing the traditional
idea of state sovereignty. In the digital age, attacks are no longer just physical; they now
target critical digital systems like government data, infrastructure, and national security
networks. Firstly, the study fills a gap in research by showing how cyberattacks weaken a
state's control over its digital space. Most studies focus on traditional warfare, but this
research highlights modern digital threats that are harder to detect and respond to. Secondly,
it gives useful insights for policymakers. Understanding how cyberattacks affect sovereignty
can help in making better cyber laws, defense strategies, and global agreements to reduce
digital conflict. Finally, it adds value to academic knowledge by combining theories like
Realism and Constructivism with real-world cyber examples. This helps explain how power
and security are changing in international relations today.

Objectives of Research

1. To explore how cyber warfare affects the concept of state sovereignty in the modern world.

2. To understand the role of cyberattacks in weakening a state's control over its national
security and digital infrastructure.

3. To study how both state and non-state actors engage in cyber conflicts and their impact on
sovereignty.

4. To examine the current international laws related to cyber warfare and assess their
effectiveness.
Literature Review

Cyberattacks and State Sovereignty: Legal and Political challenges

Cyberattacks cause consequential and modern challenges to state sovereignty in the

informative or digital age. Generally, sovereignty refers a state has full internal and external
control on its land, decisions and people. However, this control of state is being challenged
by cyberattacks come from inside or especially outside the state borders. These attacks from
both state and non-state actors. One of the major concerns that cyber warfare makes
international law more complex. For instance, if countries are attacked, they have right to
protect themselves, according to the United Nations Charter. 13But in the case of cyber
warfare, it is difficult to know where the attack comes from whether it’s an armed attack or
not. Many states hesitate to retaliate with military action to cyberattacks on military and
power systems unless it causes physical damage or death. Existing international laws apply to
cyberattacks are clearly explaining by a guide known as Tallinn Manual 2.0 written by
international legal experts. As stated in the Manual, cyberattack is considered same as
physical attack if it causes serios damage to people and infrastructure. Many countries
interpret its rules distinctly as the manual is not legally binding. 14

Countries also faces issues politically. For instance, some states influence elections, get
sensitive data and also spread disinformation through cyberattacks. In the case of 2016
United States elections, Russia was accused for influencing election through cyberattacks.
These cyber operations may not damage infrastructure and loss of life but still violate the
sovereignty of state and also disrupting its internal affairs. These acts are considered as
something threatening and serious but not illegal under international law. 15Other problem is
that it is hard to identify who the attacker is and where attacks come from also known as
attribution. In this situation states hesitate to respond when risk of escalation is high unless
they are confident and have proof of attack.16

Urgent global cooperation is needed in order to cope with these political and legal problems.
United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UN GGE) and some regional compliances
has work to make norms but they are not legally binding and the clear international treaty
regarding cyber warfare still not exists. A recent AP News article (2025) reports that the
Czech Republic accused China of a “malicious cyber campaign” against its Foreign Ministry.
This case reflects the diplomatic tensions caused by state-sponsored cyberattacks 17. The
Times UK (2025) also reported that Britain is increasing its offensive cyber operations
against countries like Russia and China, highlighting the shift in international policy toward
proactive digital defense.18

13
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations, Article 51. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
14
Schmitt, Tallinn Manual 2.0, 47.
15
Greenberg, “Russia's Meddling.”
16
Cavelty, “Cyber-Security and Threat Politics.”
17
Associated Press, “Czech Republic Accuses China of ‘Malicious Cyber Campaign’ Against Its Foreign Ministry,”
May 28, 2025.
18
The Times UK, “Britain to Increase Cyberattacks Against Russia and China,” May 29, 2025.
The Role of Non-State Actors in Cyber Warfare

Non-state actors like groups who are involved in criminal activities, hackers, private
organizations and digital activists plays significant and perilous role in cyber warfare. In
cyber warfare, groups attack from outside of state sovereignty or physical borders. These
attacks cause serious apprehension to state sovereignty and international security and are
carried out due to financial, political and ideological reasons. 19 In some cases, non-state
actors perform cyber operations with state’s support which is more treacherous. As an
illustration to Russian cyberattack, many experts thinks that Russia employ hacker groups
like APT28 (Fancy Bear) and APT29 (Cozy Bear) to perform cyberattacks and still deny its
actions. In 2016 cyberattacks on United States Democratic National Committee were carried
out by these actors which influence elections and causes political turmoil. It’s difficult to hold
accountable those actors who are backed by states by international law. 20

Many groups carried out attacks by themselves without the support of state. For example,
hacktivists a global network of activist hackers. Methods like taking down websites or
stealing and leaking sensitive data can cause havoc even their purpose of attack are political
or moral. 21Non-state actors such as criminal groups are frequently attack for wherewithal.
For instance, in 2021 ransomware attack on United States Colonial Pipeline by Darkside
causes dread across several states. In digital age, the increasing power of non-state actors is
alarming to many states. There is no clear international law that deals with non-state actors,
particularly when its not clear who carried out the attacks. State hesitates and reluctant to
respond because they are not aware whether the state is involved or not.22

Tools used for cyberattacks are easily available online that allows even diminutive groups to
cause mass level destruction. In essence, non-state actors play a significant role in cyber
space by making lines blur between war and crime. Whether backed by states or not their
activities make things harder for states to protect its sovereignty and also lift the need for
global cooperation and international law.23

Cybersecurity, National Defense and International Cooperation

Cybersecurity becomes an influential and important part of national defense particularly in

the digital world. Unlike conventional security where states protect themselves with military
action, in cyber warfare states need to protect their computer system and sensitive digital
data. Numerous states are taking cyberattacks as serious security issue that threatened its
national security and sovereignty. Therefore, cyber defense is also involved in national
defense. Cyber defense is now predominant for many countries like United States, China,
Russia. These states also highly invested in many cyber projects such as the United States
Cyber Command (US CYBERCOM). This mission is also included in U.S military that
handles cyberthreats. It aims to safeguard both state and government. This clearly manifest
that cybersecurity is not just a digital technology it’s a concern for national security.
19
Cavelty, “Cyber-Security and Threat Politics.”
20
Greenberg, “Russia's Meddling.”
21
Nye, Deterrence and Dissuasion, 21.
22
Schmitt, Tallinn Manual 2.0, 47.
23
Hollis, “An e-SOS for Cyberspace.”
Many countries see cyberattacks as an act of war because it harms many people across the
state, if attacked on power systems, banks, water supply, military system and other
infrastructure. According to Article 51 of United Nations Charter, which gives States the right
to protect themselves if they are attacked.24

Many countries join forces through international cooperation to counter these increasing
cyber threats. Many countries join alliances like NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
to counter cyberattacks, share critical information and protect each other. NATO’s collective
defense policy also incudes cyber defense. It means if member is attacked by cyber
operations, it considered an attack on all, so other members may help respond to them. Now
cyber norms and laws are also discussed internationally 25. United Nations also works on it,
efforts like Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) and the Group of Governmental Experts
(GGE) to protect and discuss the rules for liable conduct in cyber space. In cyber warfare,
these groups assist states to comprehend what is authorize and what is not. For instance,
attacking hospitals and elections is not allowed. Although there is lack of trust between states
which causes problems in international cooperation. Some countries may conceal their cyber
activities or criticize others without clear evidence. This lack of trust makes difficulties for
international cooperation. Furthermore, there is no clear international law that completely
encompasses cyber warfare.26

Future Outlook: Sovereignty in the Digital Age

Future of state sovereignty will confront many obstacles as technology continues to develop.
In the digital era, state sovereignty is about protecting sensitive information, digital identities
and data networks not just about to protecting its borders and territory. Now in international
relations, cyberthreats are common. This indicates that the traditional definition of
sovereignty, where state has full control over its land, resources and people is changing 27.
There are several concerns regarding cyber warfare, influence of cyberattacks on democratic
systems are one of the major concerns. Hackers influence elections by spreading
misinformation or by stealing data. This is seen as an example for digital interference in
political affairs which affect state’s sovereignty. Authority of states will be weakened, if
external power can influence public opinion through cyberattacks, without entering into its
borders. 28

24
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations, Article 51. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.
25
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), “Cyber Defence,” updated March 2024,
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_78170.htm.
26
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), “Developments in the Field of Information and
Telecommunications in the Context of International Security,” https://www.un.org/disarmament/ict-security/
27
Nye, Deterrence and Dissuasion, 21.
28
Greenberg, “Russia's Meddling.”
Another concern is the growing role of technology like many countries uses artificial
intelligence for surveillance and defense. National security can be improved by these
technologies but they also pose ethical concerns. These technologies need to be handled
effectively if not it will lead to grave consequences like violations pf human rights and
escalate tensions between states. For instance, there are cyber tools that are used without
human control which makes things more complex.29

Counties are working together to counter these issues posed by emerging technologies.
Countries are creating cyber sovereignty to control how the internet is managed within state
borders. Different countries believe different norms, like Russia and China support the idea
where each state have its own cyber rules like controlling data and blocking websites.
However, not all countries agree on this idea because it can limit freedom of expression and
international connectivity. While western states support broad and open international policies
like equality and open global internet. 30Many organizations like United Nations are trying to
make cyber rules but major powers have distinct interests, which makes the implementation
difficult. This lack of trust between states makes things complicated, like some of them thinks
that strict rules may limit their freedom of action in the digital world. While many thinks that
international cooperation and agree on shared norms is significant for creating balance in the
digital world.31

In cyber space, one effective solution is to make “norms of responsible behavior”. These are
not formal or legal laws but considered as shared norms agreed by countries. For instance,
there should be an agreement for not attacking important buildings like hospitals, banks in
peacetime.
In essence, in digital age state sovereignty is going through major changings. State
sovereignty is reshaped by emerging technologies, artificial intelligence and cyberattacks. It
changes the idea of how states perceive threats and protect themselves. Some countries want
full control over its cyber space while others want open and free digital world. 32

29
Cavelty, “Cyber-Security and Threat Politics.”
30
Hollis, “An e-SOS for Cyberspace.”
31
United Nations, “Developments in the Field.”
32
Microsoft, “Digital Peace Now: Cybersecurity for the Future,” https://blogs.microsoft.com.
Conclusion

Cyber warfare poses a dangerous threat to state sovereignty in the contemporary world. In
contrast to conventional wars that employ armies and weapons, cyber wars are intangible,
quick, and usually anonymous. They do not involve crossing borders physically. A state may
be attacked via its electronic systems far from where the attacker is located, and even not
known. This new kind of conflict alters our conceptualization of national security, power, and
control. Realism describes that states behave to safeguard themselves in a world where no
worldwide authority actually exercises control over cyber operations. It is for this reason that
several states spend money on cyber offense and defense capabilities. Constructivism,
however, explains to us how evolving ideas, identities, and social norms influence cyber
relations as well. The two theories reveal that sovereignty is no longer a static concept—it
now hinges on how states evolve to meet these emerging challenges and establish trust
through cooperation. The future of sovereignty in the digital world will rest on international
cooperation, more robust laws, and clear norms for cyber conduct. Nations have to come to
terms with some red lines, for instance, safeguarding civilian infrastructure from hacking.
They also need to cooperate using platforms like the United Nations and alliances in a region
to contain risks and mitigate misunderstandings. Governments, on the other hand, need to
establish robust internal systems to protect their networks, inform the public, and act fast
against threats. In sum, cyber war is transforming the character of international relations. It
has obfuscated the distinctions between peace and war, state and non-state actors, and the
public and private spheres. Sovereignty no longer simply means the control of territory—it
now means the protection of cyberspace. To prepare for this new world, states need to be
vigilant, collaborative, and responsible. Then, and only then, can they safeguard their
autonomy, uphold order, and achieve peace in the virtual age.
 Bibliography

1. Cavelty, Myriam Dunn. “Cyber-Security and Threat Politics.” Contemporary Security

Policy 32, no. 2 (2011): 345–36.

2. Deibert, Ronald J. “The Geopolitics of Cyberspace After Snowden.” Current History 113,
no. 759 (2014): 9-15.

3. Hollis, Duncan B. “An e-SOS for Cyberspace.” Harvard International Law Journal 52, no.
2 (2011): 373–432.

4. Klimburg, Alexander. “Mobilising Cyber Power.” Survival 53, no. 1 (2011): 41–60.

5. Lewis, James A. “Sovereignty and the Role of Government in Cyberspace.” Brown Journal
of World Affairs 16, no. 2 (2010): 55–65.

6. Nye, Joseph S. “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace.” American Academy of Arts

and Sciences, 2017.

7. Rid, Thomas. “Cyber War Will Not Take Place.” Journal of Strategic Studies 35, no. 1
(2012): 5–32.

8. Schmitt, Michael N., ed. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber
Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

9.Greenberg, Andy. “Russia's Meddling in the 2016 Election Was Just the Beginning.”
WIRED, March 2018.

10. Microsoft. “Digital Peace Now: A Call for Global Digital Norms.” Microsoft News
Center,
2019. https://news.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/10/29/digital-peace-now/

11. Sanger, David E. “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran.” The New
York Times, June 1, 2012.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obamaordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-
against-iran.html

12. The Guardian. “North Korea’s Lazarus Hacking Group behind $600m Cryptocurrency
Heist, US Says.” The Guardian, April 15, 2022.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/15/north-korea-lazarus-group-
ronincryptocurre

13. Zetter, Kim. “An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon.”
WIRED, November 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxne

14. Associated Press. “Czech Republic Accuses China of ‘Malicious Cyber Campaign’
Against Its Foreign Ministry.” May 28, 2025
15. The Times UK. “Britain to Increase Cyberattacks Against Russia and China.” May 29,
2025.