Disinformation Online and the Principle of Non-intervention

Piotr Czepulonis

doi:10.21697/2025.14.1.03

Published: 2025-08-30

Vol. 14 No. 1 (2025)

Disinformation Online and the Principle of Non-intervention

Piotr Czepulonis

Polish Review of International and European Law

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/2025.14.1.03

Abstract

Disinformation is as old as communication. Yet, its latest reincarnation in the form of so-called fake or misleading news distributed by social media provokes new questions under international law. Due to its qualitative and quantitative characteristics modern disinformation can have a debilitating impact on election processes, social order or even national security. Its growing importance from the perspective of international law has been reflected in adoption of relevant resolutions by the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council as well as in initiatives undertaken by states and regional organizations to address the problem of foreign disinformation campaigns. The crucial question for an international lawyer is whether a disinformation campaign may violate international law and if so which norms or principles thereof.

This article will focus on the principle which seems to be of particular importance in the context of disinformation, namely the principle of non-intervention. While taking into account latest developments in the field, the text will try to clarify whether and if so under what circumstances a disinformation campaign may violate the principle. The affirmative view has been expressed by several states in their national positions on application of international law to cyberspace. The COVID-19 pandemic during which disinformation exacerbated public health crises, clearly played a role in forming at least some of these positions.

The text will separately tackle two elements forming the principle of non-intervention: a) interference with a state’s internal or external affairs; and b) coercion. It will pay a particular attention to the scope of the term „coercion” in the context of information domain. Since coercion may be understood as either taking control over sovereign decisions or „extorting” expected behaviour from another state, the article will tackle both meaning of the term.

Keywords:

non-intervention, coercion, disinformation, cyberspace

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Czepulonis, P. (2025). Disinformation Online and the Principle of Non-intervention. Polish Review of International and European Law, 14(1), 101–140. https://doi.org/10.21697/2025.14.1.03

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Ruanda), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 2006, p. 168.
Google Scholar

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep 2010, p. 403.
Google Scholar

Baade, Björnstjern. “Fake News and International Law.” The European Journal of International Law 29 no. 4 (2018): 1357-1376.
Google Scholar

Buchan, Russell. “Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions?” Journal of Conflict & Security Law 17 (2012): 212–227.
Google Scholar

Buchan, Russell, and Nicholas Tsagourias. “The Crisis in Crimea and the Principle of Non-Intervention.” International Community Law Review, 19 2-3 (2017): 165-193.
Google Scholar

Charter of United Nations. United Nations, Treaty Series vol. 1, p. 16.
Google Scholar

Charter of the Organization of American States. United Nations, Treaty Series vol. 119, p. 3.
Google Scholar

Charter of Organization of African Unity. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 39, p. 479.
Google Scholar

Charter of ASEAN, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 2642, p. 223.
Google Scholar

Corfu Channel Case, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1949, p. 4.
Google Scholar

Covenant of the League of Nations. League of Nations Treaty Series vol. 188, p. 108.
Google Scholar

Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Report of the Secretary General, 2022, A/77/287.
Google Scholar

Dias, Talita. Study on International Norms for Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference. November 2023. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024/Study%20international%20norms%20on%20FIMI.pdf.
Google Scholar

Disinformation and freedom of opinion and expression, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, 2021, A/HRC/47/25.
Google Scholar

Efrony, Dan, and Yuval Shany. “A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice.” American Journal of International Law 112 issue 4 (2018): 583 - 657.
Google Scholar

Ferreira Caceres, Maria Mercedes, Juan Pablo Sosa, Jannel A. Lawrence, Cristina Sestacovschi, Atiyah Tidd-Johnson, Muhammad Haseeb Ul Rasool, et. al. “The impact of misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic.” AIMS Public Health 9(2) (2022): 262-277.
Google Scholar

Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. International Legal Materials, vol.14, p.1292.
Google Scholar

Floridi, Luciano. The fourth revolution: how the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press UK, 2014.
Google Scholar

Gill, Terry. “Non-Intervention in the Cyber Context.” In Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace: International Law, International Relations and Diplomacy, edited by Katharina Ziolkowski. Estonia: NATO CCD COE Publication, 2013.
Google Scholar

Guess, A., and Benjamin A. Lyons. „Misinformation, Disinformation and Online Propaganda.” In Social Media and Democracy The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, edited by Nathaniel Persily, and Joshua A. Trucker: 10-33. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Google Scholar

Hamm, Lauren. “The Few Faces of Disinformation.” EU Disnfo Lab. May 11 2020. https://www.disinfo.eu/publications/the-few-faces-of-disinformation/#:~:text=With%20the%20use%20of%20fake%20identities%2C%20online%20profiles%20and%20websites,of%20undermining%20climate%20protection%20measures.
Google Scholar

Helal, Mohamed. “On Coercion in International Law.” 52 New York Uniersity Journal of International Law and Policy 1 (2019): 49-54.
Google Scholar

Human Rights Council. A/HRC/RES/49/21 (2022).
Google Scholar

Human Rights Council. A/HRC/RES/55/10 (2024).
Google Scholar

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p.171.
Google Scholar

International Law Commission, Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, 1949. Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949, Vol. I, pp 286-290.
Google Scholar

International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Supplement No.10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1, November 2001.
Google Scholar

Jamnejad, Maziar, and Michael Wood. The Principle of Non-intervention, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Google Scholar

Jennings, Robert, and Arthur Watts. Oppenheim’s International Law – Vol. 1: Peace, 9th ed. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Google Scholar

Kahler, Miles. “Foreign Influence and Democratic Governance.” Council on Foreign Relations. October 7 2024. https://www.cfr.org/report/foreign-influence-and-democratic-governance.
Google Scholar

Keller, Helen. “Friendly Relations Declaration (1970).” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. 2021.
Google Scholar

Kilovaty, Ido. “The Elephant in the Room: Coercion.” AJIL Unbound, 113 (2019): 87-91.
Google Scholar

Kleczkowska, Agata. “The Russian Disinformation Campaign During the Romanian Presidential Elections: The Perfect Example of a Violation of International Law?” Opinio Iuris. January 27 2025. https://opiniojuris.org/2025/01/27/the-russian-disinformation-campaign-during-the-romanian-presidential-elections-the-perfect-example-of-a-violation-of-international-law/.
Google Scholar

Kułaga, Łukasz. „Działania w cyberprzestrzeni wpływające na wybory w innym państwie a zasada nieinterwencji”. In Przestrzeń cyfrowa. Nowe wyzwania dla prawa międzynarodowego i prawa Unii Europejskiej, edited by Cezary Mik and Łukasz Kułaga. Warsaw: Wyd. UKSW, 2021.
Google Scholar

Kunig, Philip. “Prohibition of Intervention.” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. 2008.
Google Scholar

Kranz, Jerzy. Pojęcie suwerenności we współczesnym prawie międzynarodowym, Warszawa 2015.
Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, Hersch. The International Protection of Human Rights. Librairie du Recueil Sirey 1947.
Google Scholar

Lowe, Alan Vaughan. International Law. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Google Scholar

Marshall, Hannah, and Alena Drieschova. “Post-Truth Politics in the UK's Brexit Referendum”. New Perspectives 26, no. 3 (2018): 89-106.
Google Scholar

Mik, Cezary. „Fenomenologia regionalnej integracji państw. Studium prawa międzynarodowego”. In t. 2: Regionalne organizacje integracyjne z perspektywy analitycznej prawa międzynarodowego. C.H. Beck, 2019.
Google Scholar

Milanović, Marco. “Revisiting Coercion as an Element of Prohibited Intervention in International Law”. American Journal of International Law, 117, issue 4 (2023): 601 – 650.
Google Scholar

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1986, p. 14.
Google Scholar

Moynihan, Harriet. “The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks Sovereignty and Non-intervention”, Chatham House Research Paper, December 2019.
Google Scholar

Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. Rep Ser. B No. 4, p. 22.
Google Scholar

Nolte, George. „Article 2(7)”. In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, edited by Bruno Simma 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Google Scholar

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China, 2022.
Google Scholar

Official compendium of voluntary national contributions on the subject of how international law applies to the use of information and communications technologies by States submitted by participating governmental experts in the Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 73/266. A/76/136.
Google Scholar

Ohlin, Jens David. “Did Russian Cyber Interference in the 2016 Election Violate International Law?” Texas Law Review 95 (2017): 1579–98.
Google Scholar

Rikhter, Andrey, “International law and policy on disinformation in the context of freedom of the media.” Brief Paper for the Expert Meeting organized by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, 14 May 2021.
Google Scholar

Roberts, Dexter. “China’s Disinformation Strategy, Its Dimensions and Future.” Atlantic Council, 2020.
Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael (ed.). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael. “Virtual Disenfranchisement: Cyber Election Meddling in the Grey Zones of International Law.” Chicago Journal of International Law 19, no. 1, article 2 (2018): 30-67.
Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael, and Liis Vihul. “Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Lex Lata Vel Non?” American Journal of International Law Unbound 111 (2017): 213 – 218.
Google Scholar

Skafle, Ingjerd, Anders Nordahl-Hansen, Daniel S. Quintana, Rolf Wynn, Elia Gabarron. “Misinformation About COVID-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review”. J Med Internet Res. 4;24 (8) (2022).
Google Scholar

Strauss, David. “Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression” Columbia Law Review 91 (1991): 333- 371.
Google Scholar

Tsagourias, Nicholas. “Electoral Cyber Interference, Self-Determination and the Principle of Non-Intervention in Cyberspace.” EJIL: Talk! 26 August 2019. https://www.ejiltalk.org/electoral-cyber-interference-self-determination-and-the-principle-of-non-intervention-in-cyberspace/.
Google Scholar

UN General Assembly. “Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. A/RES/76/227 (2021).
Google Scholar

UN General Assembly. “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States.” A/RES/20/2131 (1965).
Google Scholar

UN General Assembly. “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. 2625(XXV) (1970).
Google Scholar

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
Google Scholar

Wanyana, Racheal. “Cognitive Warfare: Does it Constitute Prohibited Force?” EJIL: Talk! 30 January 2025. https://www.ejiltalk.org/cognitive-warfare-does-it-constitute-prohibited-force/.
Google Scholar

Wardle, Claire, and Hossein Derakhshan, “Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking.” Council of Europe, 31 October 2017.
Google Scholar

Watts, Arthur. “Low-Intensity Cyber Operations and the Principle of Non-Intervention”. In Cyber War: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflict, edited by Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern, and Claire Finkelstein. Oxford University Press, 2025.
Google Scholar

Wheatley, Steven. “Foreign Interference in Elections under the Non-intervention Principle: We Need to Talk about “Coercion.”” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 31 (2020): 161-197.
Google Scholar

Yaffe, Gideon. “Indoctrination, Coercion, and Freedom of Will.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXVII (2) (2003): 335-356.
Google Scholar

Ziegler, Katja. “Domaine Réservé”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. 2008.
Google Scholar