The Law of Cyberwar is Pretty Discombobulated

This article analyzes how the Law of Armed Conflict applies to cyber and electromagnetic operations, using the alleged U.S. “Discombobulator” as a lens to discuss distinction, proportionality, and precautions, alongside the Tallinn Manual’s guidance on sovereignty and use of force. It contrasts cyber espionage, disruption, and propaganda with warfare, citing cases like Stuxnet, NotPetya, and Ukraine’s grid incidents, and argues that AI blurs these categories. The core message: law should regulate effects, not the “cyber” label, especially for dual‑use targets and cascading civilian harm.