New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

exists with the growth of these informal rules as these could cause an overlap with binding rules whereby the latter’s binding nature is transformed and its bindingness gradually hollowed out. 564 The adoption of non-legal documents has not occurred yet in sanctions law, but there are other ways through which it is “colonized” by these informal rules. In particular, relatively powerful private actors are employing instruments that have de facto sanctions effect (for instance limiting access to services and products that are provide by them) whose “legal” basis are precisely these informal rules. 565 This is frequently undertaken in cooperation with law enforcement organs of the state. Such trend may result in circumventing the rules on cyber sanctions, giving preference to ‘informal regimes’ where the international legal framework is even more blurred. Thirdly, two interconnected phenomena can be observed with respect to the issue of digitalisation and international law – regionalization and fragmentation. 566 In some sense, the former is the cause of the latter. Starting with regionalization, it appears that a divide between Western and non-Western states is being crystallized. A well-known example is the discord between the two groups of states in connection with the rules on cyberspace in the UN. 567 Cyber sanctions are equally regionalized, albeit it is not merely cyber sanctions but sanctions law as such. As pointed out before, there is a divide between Global South/North on the legality of unilateral sanctions and thus, the regional character of sanctions law is not an entirely unprecedented change. The regional character of rules on digitalization creates and fuels fragmentation of international law. If the rules on cyberattacks, principle of non-intervention, human rights and other issues related to digitalization are not unified and are interpreted and applied differently in different regions, how is it possible to establish attribution and the violation of international norms that serve as a basis to react by imposing sanctions in a legally acceptable manner? A distinct way to conceptualize the fragmentation created by digitalization, according to Burchardt, is the divide between the digital and non-digital legal regimes. 568 It is not clear yet whether we can see some sort of ‘paradigmatic shift’ which will establish parallel sanction law regimes in the digital and non-digital sphere. Currently, this does not seem to be the case due to the fact that the EU has failed to employ the cyber sanctions regime more actively, even though there were several occasions where EU was an object of malicious cyber practices. 569 Be that as it may, we may contend nevertheless repository.graduateinstitute.ch/record/298089?_ga=2.189322283.1057064273.1704068666 773194854.1704068666> accessed 31 December 2023, pp. 74–75. 564 Burchardt D, ‘Does Digitalization Change International Law Structurally?’ (2023) 24 German Law Journal 438, p. 449. 565 Pawlak P and Biersteker TJ, ‘Guardian of the Galaxy. Eu Cyber Sanctions and Norms in Cyberspace’ ( Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies , October 2019) accessed 31 December 2023, p. 75. 566 Burchardt D, ‘Does Digitalization Change International Law Structurally?’ (2023) 24 German Law Journal 438, p. 450. 567 Ibid., p. 449. 568 Ibid. 569 See, supra (n 540).

132