Diajeng Wulan Christianti, Diajeng Wulan
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjadjaran

Published : 22 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 22 Documents
Search

Legality of Iranian Embassy Bombing by Israel in Syria According to International Humanitarian Law Rusdianto, Adeline Anindya; Christianti, Diajeng Wulan
Yustisia Vol 14, No 3: December 2025
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20961/yustisia.v14i3.96626

Abstract

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) asserts that attacks can only be made against things that help the military and whose destruction gives the military an unambiguous advantage. In April 2024, Israel bombed the Iranian consulate within the embassy premises in Syria, claiming that the building served as a military objective, given Iran's persistent support for Hezbollah in its conflict with Israel and engaged in military activities within the consulate. This paper asserts that the legitimacy of Israel's attack hinges on two critical issues. First, in the ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, to what extent Iran can be legitimately targeted based on its support for Hezbollah. Second, whether Iran's consulate in Syria qualifies as a legitimate target under IHL and whether the attack satisfies the principle of proportionality. This paper concluded that IHL applies to Israel's bombing of the Iranian consulate, and Iran's support of Hezbollah in its conflict with Israel places it at risk of being targeted under IHL. However, this classification does not automatically validate the attack. There is no sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the attack was proportionate, as it targeted an object located in Syria, and the anticipated military advantage fails to justify the civilian casualties incurred.
Cyber-Attack in Estonia: a New Challenge in The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law Zahra, Iradhati; Handayani, Irawati; Christianti, Diajeng Wulan
Yustisia Vol 10, No 1: April 2021
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20961/yustisia.v10i1.48336

Abstract

This article aimed to analyze the classification of armed conflict in Estonia's cyber-attack and how the existing IHL are answering this problem, and whether those regulations are enough for future cases of cyber-attack. This article uses the normative method by comparing the Geneva Convention 1949 and Additional Protocol I 1977 with Rule 30 Tallinn Manual 1.0 and some relevant literary works, using a descriptive-analytic to explain the object comprehensively. The result shows that Estonia's cyber-attack could be classified as an International Armed Conflict, which first started as a Non-International Armed Conflict by proving attribution from Russia to Nashi Youth Group following the Overall Control in Tadic Case. The distinction between information warfare and cyber-attack is related to the physical impact, which a threshold of a cyber-attack under Tallinn Manual 1.0. It means Rule 30 of Tallinn Manual 1.0 also answered Jus ad Bellum's threshold and Jus in Bello in terms of cyber-attack. Although, this article needs some improvements regarding the limitation of this issue only focused on the Material Scope of IHL. In addition, Rule 30 of Tallinn Manual 1.0 is not legally binding because it is not one source of international law. However, it is possible for the Rule 30 Tallinn Manual 1.0 to be a new norm and becoming customary international law in the future.