Sovereignty as a Primary Rule in Cyberspace: Towards a Qualitative Threshold for Unlawful Cyber Operations

Cyberspace has transformed interstate relations by enabling cyber operations that challenge traditional understandings of sovereignty under international law. Despite widespread agreement that international law applies to cyberspace, states remain divided on whether sovereignty constitutes an independent binding rule or merely a guiding principle. This article critically examines these competing approaches through an analysis of state practice, the Tallinn Manuals, the United Nations Charter, judicial decisions, and national cyber policies. It argues that the absence of a clearly defined qualitative threshold for determining unlawful cyber operations has created a legal grey zone that enables states to exploit ambiguities below the threshold of armed attack. To address this gap, the article proposes a Structured Threshold-Based Cyber Sovereignty Framework (STCSF), establishing a three-tier model to distinguish permissible cyber activities, sovereignty violations, and the use of force. The proposed framework integrates principles of sovereignty, due diligence, attribution, and proportionality to provide a more predictable basis for assessing state responsibility in cyberspace. The study contributes to the evolving discourse on cyber governance by advocating a coherent legal standard capable of strengthening international stability while preserving state sovereignty in an increasingly contested digital domain.