Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Punggawa Law Review LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies SOCILEXIA: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Nadiah Khaeriah Kadir
Universitas Hasanuddin

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
From Territoriality to Functional Control: A Jurisdictional Test for Cross-Border Cyberterrorism Operations Nadiah Khaeriah Kadir
Punggawa Law Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Punggawa Law Review
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Cyberterrorism repeatedly challenged jurisdictional reasoning because its conduct, infrastructure, effects, and evidence were distributed across multiple states, making territorial and effects-based claims both over-inclusive and operationally fragile. This article examined why classical jurisdiction bases produced recurring gaps and conflicts in cross-border cyberterrorism prosecutions and proposed a control-oriented solution. It developed a Functional Control Test that assessed jurisdictional priority by reference to operational direction, meaningful leverage over enabling infrastructure, deliberate targeting and foreseeable coercive effects, and the lawful feasibility of securing decisive electronic evidence. The analysis showed that the test reduced inflated claims driven by incidental routing or compromised nodes, while still accommodating legitimate concurrent jurisdiction for deliberately targeted victim states. It also clarified that strong jurisdiction to prescribe and adjudicate did not entail unilateral cross-border enforcement, preserving consistency with sovereignty and non-intervention constraints. The study concluded that functional control provided a more reviewable and practicable nexus standard for allocating prosecutorial leadership and structuring cooperation in cyberterrorism cases.
From Propaganda to Synthetic Operations: Generative AI and the Transformation of Cyberterrorism Nadiah Khaeriah Kadir
LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Existing studies largely treated generative AI in cyberterrorism as a tool for synthetic propaganda, leaving unclear when its outputs began to support operational preparation and how existing law could respond. This study examined the movement from AI-assisted propaganda toward synthetic operations and assessed its legal implications. It used normative legal research with conceptual and statutory approaches, supported by scholarly literature, open-source documents, and European Union law. The findings indicated that documented terrorist use remained concentrated in content production, translation, adaptation, and reuse. Generative AI nevertheless acquired operational relevance when outputs could be applied with limited correction and connected to later tasks in preparing or carrying out terrorist activity. Open evidence did not establish autonomous or systematic AI-driven terrorist workflows; synthetic operations therefore remained an analytical threshold rather than a settled practice. The synthetic origin of content also did not determine legal responsibility. Criminal attribution continued to depend on human intent, use, and connection to prohibited conduct, while regulatory duties varied according to the role and capacity of model providers, applications, hosting services, and online platforms. Technology-neutral rules remained relevant, although proof, attribution, and content-focused regulation became more difficult when assistance was distributed across services and occurred before public dissemination.
Cyberterrorism across Digital Borders and the Changing Limits of International Security Cooperation Nadiah Khaeriah Kadir
SOCILEXIA: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): SOCILEXIA: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

A suspected cyberterrorist attack can damage infrastructure in one state while leaving the most useful evidence in another. Governments may face demands for retaliation before investigators know whether the actor is a terrorist group, an individual, or a state-backed proxy. This study examined how that uncertainty was changing the practical limits of international security cooperation. This research use normative legal research was used to analyze treaty rules, United Nations counter-terrorism measures, the law of state responsibility, and cyber norm documents. The analysis showed that sovereignty continued to determine coercive authority, while territorial jurisdiction no longer guaranteed timely access to evidence. Cooperation increasingly relied on faster preservation procedures, direct engagement with service providers, and emergency channels that could operate before final attribution. Those developments remained uneven because newer treaty frameworks were not yet fully operational in 2026. Cyberterrorism therefore exposed a shift in the problem rather than the disappearance of state authority: current limits increasingly concern speed, access, trust, private control of infrastructure, and disagreement over attribution.
Co-Authors