Submarine Cables and Cybersecurity in International Waters

INTRODUCTION:

The international community’s ever-increasing reliance on the Internet and web-based Information and Communications Technologies (“ICT”) has meant that cybersecurity is becoming one of the most pressing concerns in the 21^st century. The International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”)[1] has defined cybersecurity to mean “the collection of tools, policies, security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets.”[2]

The oceans all around the world serves as a home to submarine communication cables vital for global connectivity and international data exchange. These cables are the linchpin of our digital world but, they raise series of concerns about maritime security, jurisdiction, and legalities. Submarine cables are critical infrastructure that facilitate global communication and data exchange by transmitting telecommunication signals across underwater stretches. These cables form an intricate network of fiber-optic lines laid on the ocean bed, connecting continents and enabling the seamless flow of internet data, voice communications and various forms of digital information. The deployments of submarine cables represent a sophisticated fusion of engineering and technology which depicts humanity’s capability to overcome the challenges of underwater environment.

Submarine cables are quite indispensable to global economy and our everyday life. They support the operation of major internet services, international phone calls, military operations and financial transactions, making them an anchor of modern connectivity. They provide over 95% of international telecommunications not via satellites as is commonly assumed.[3] The strategic importance of submarine cables has led to heightened security measures and international cooperation to protect these indispensable assets from potential threats and disruptions.

In recent years, the increasing demand for high-speed internet and data services has spurred the expansion and enhancement of submarine cable networks. Innovations in cable design, such as the incorporation of advanced materials and technologies, continue to push the boundaries of what these systems can achieve, ensuring that they remain robust and capable of meeting the ever-growing demands of global communication.

However, these undersea infrastructures are vulnerable to natural and artificial threats which could compromise their integrity. Piracy, deep-sea mining, illegal fishing, and sabotage are threats that pose high risks to the cables. Notwithstanding their status as critical communications infrastructure, submarine cable systems remain vulnerable to a variety of emerging cybersecurity challenges.

Since September 11^th  2014, there has been a growing concern about submarine cable systems being a point of target specifically, the possibility of intentional interference with submarine cable systems by State and or non-State actors.[4]This includes intentional damage to submarine cables laid on the sea floor, cable landing stations, as well as attacks against the virtual or cyber aspect of submarine cable systems when perpetrators hack into the network management systems used to operate these cable systems.[5]

Asides from damage, submarine cables can also be used as tools in cyber-espionage and intelligence gathering.[6] In today’s digital era where international data flow is crucial, understanding the intricate relationship between maritime security, Jurisdiction, and legal complexities of submarine cables is more critical than ever.

1.0  SUBMARINE CABLE INDUSTRY

Jacob and John Brett, two brothers, formed a British company called the English Channel Submarine Telegraph Company and developed the first submarine cable that was laid on the seabed between Dover and Calais in 1850.[7]Telegraphs were perceived as benefitting trade and commerce, and it was inevitable that the industry would be driven by private investment.[8] This private commercial model employed by the Brett Brothers shaped the way in which the industry would develop and this structure remains prevalent in recent times.[9]

In the early stages, the British companies, with the assistance of the Empire, owned and controlled most of the submarine telegraph cable network.[10] However, other powers like France, Germany and Russia were spurred to action by the way in which Britain had put its control over large portions of the global telegraph cable infrastructure to great strategic and military advantage during the war[11] and thus they began their own cable laying program to shatter the British monopoly. To break their dependence on British cables, other countries started to investigate other technologies, such as the wireless telegraph, which in part caused the demise of the telegraph.[12]

There are many private cable enterprises from various jurisdictions. There are two main types of cable companies involved in the industry.[13] The first category is the cable system owner that owns or operates the system. They can consist of national telecommunications carriers, private companies or investment banks. The second category of cable companies comprises the cable suppliers who are responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of submarine cables.[14] These include the system suppliers who design, plan, and manufacture the cable system, the marine service suppliers who provide specialist vessels for cable installation operations and the cable joint suppliers who supply joints and associated equipment required to replace damaged cables with new cables.[15]

The International Cable Protection Committee (“ICPC”), established in 1958, is an industry-based organization whose members include owners, operators, and suppliers of over 97% of the world’s international submarine cable systems.[16] In 2010, membership to the ICPC  was opened to governments, and several governments are now duly represented.[17] The ICPC issues recommendations on various issues concerning submarine cables and has been an instrumental body in working with governments, international organizations, and other seabed users to preserve the integrity of the submarine cable network.[18]

• FUNCTIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF SUBMARINE CABLES[19]

A submarine cable, also known as an undersea cable, is a specialized type designed to transmit data, voice, and video signals across vast distances under the world’s oceans and seas. It is a vital component of global telecommunications infrastructure. Below are a few functions of submarine cables:

1. DATA TRANSMISSION:

Submarine cables enable high-speed data transmission, carrying massive volumes of digital information across continents. They form the linchpin of international internet connectivity, facilitating global communication and data exchanges.

2. TELECOMMUNICATIONS:

Submarine cables are highly vital for international telecommunications networks. They provide support for voice calls, video conferencing, and other real-time communication services between individuals, businesses, and institutions worldwide.

3. INTERNET CONNECTIVITY:

Submarine cables are the primary means of connecting different regions of the world to the internet. They provide the essential link enabling users to access websites, online services, social media platforms, and global cloud computing resources.

4. INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE:

Submarine cables also facilitate international trade and financial transactions. They help support the transmission of financial data such as Stock market information, banking transactions, and secure communications for businesses engaged in global operations.

5. EDUCATION AND RESEARCH:

Submarine cables provide support for transmitting scientific data, academic research, and educational resources across all continents. They enable the collaboration between researchers, educational institutions worldwide, fostering knowledge sharing and innovation.

6. MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT:

Submarine cables facilitate the transmission of media content, including streaming services, video-on-demand platforms, and live broadcasts. They enable the global distribution of movies, TV shows, music, and other forms of digital entertainment.

7. NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFESE:

Submarine cables provide support to secure communications between military units, intelligence agencies, and government entities across different countries in the continent, enabling coordinated efforts and strategic operations.

8. ENERGY AND RESOURCE EXPLORATION:

Submarine cables also play a role in energy and resource exploration. They support the transmission of data and control signals for undersea oil and gas pipelines, offshore wind farms, and other marine-based energy projects.

2.1 SECURITY CHALLENGES AND JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES OF SUBMARINE CABLES IN INTERNATIONAL MARITIME WATERS

Submarine cables are crucial for international communication, as they carry majorly the global internet traffic. Their security is a significant concern because any damage or tampering can disrupt the smooth global communications, and this could also lead to severe economic consequences. Given their significant and critical role, their security is of great importance. However, they face a range of security challenges.

A. SECURITY CHALLENGES=

PHYSICAL THREATS

1. ****Accidental Damage:

Submarine cables are vulnerable to accidental damage from activities such as fishing, anchoring, and shipping. There are instances where trawler nets or ship anchors can snag or sever cables, leading to significant service disruptions. According to reports, around 70% of submarine cable outages are due to accidental damage, often linked to human activities.

2.  Deliberate/Intentional Attacks:

Intentional/ Deliberate attacks can involve sabotage, warfare or terrorism resulting in significant disruptions. These disruptions can have severe consequences on industries, governments, and individuals across the continents both economically and socially. For instance, attacks could be carried out by individuals or groups aiming to disrupt communications or cause economic damage. Such attacks can be challenging to detect and mitigate, particularly in remote underwater environments.

ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS

1. Natural Disasters:

Undersea cables are susceptible to natural events or disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis. Earthquakes can cause seafloors/bed shifting or landslides, leading to cable breaks. For instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami caused quite a significant damage to cables in the region.

2.  Environmental Changes:

Long-term environmental changes, including ocean currents and temperature fluctuations, can impact negatively the stability and integrity of submarine cables. These changes can lead to cable degradation over time, requiring ongoing monitoring and maintenance.

CYBERSECURITY THREATS

1 Data interception and Tampering:

Submarine cables are not immune to cyber threats. Data transmitted through these cables can be easily intercepted or tempered with by persons with ulterior motives. This is made easy as technology has evolved and spurred the emergence of several cyberthreats. While direct tapping  of submarine cables is technically complex, advanced interception techniques can be employed by State actors or cybercriminals. Cyber-attack and data interception  risk has increased with the growth of sophisticated cyber espionage techniques.

2.  Signal Interference:

Interference with cable signals can disrupt communications and degrade data quality. This can be achieved through various methods, including jamming or introducing noise into the signal. For effective countermeasures, there is the need for continuous monitoring and sophisticated encryption methods

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

Submarine cables traverse multiple jurisdictions and international waters, creating complex legal and regulatory challenges. Navigating the governance of submarine cables is a highly intricate and complex process due to the unique nature of their operations and their presence in international waters. The establishment of the rights and responsibilities of stakeholders, including states and cable owners, is governed by a combination of international and domestic laws, treaties, and agreements.

However, challenges frequently arise due to competing sovereignty claims in territorial waters, as well as the enforcement of laws in the maritime domain. Ensuring the security of cables often requires international cooperation and adherence to various national and international regulations. Disputes over cable ownership and control can complicate efforts to address security concerns.

2.2 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF SUBMARINE CABLES

Submarine cables were recognized early on as a public good that ought to be protected and regulated.[20] From 1863 to 1913, the protection of submarine cables appeared on the agenda of seven international conferences.[21] Between 1884 and 1982, the international community adopted four legal instruments that addressed the rights and obligations of States vis-à-vis submarine cables. These are:

1. The 1884 Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables (“1884 Cable Convention”)[22]
2. The 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas[23]
3. 1958 Convention on Continental Shelf[24]
4. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”).[25]

The 1884 Cable Convention is a stand-alone convention dealing solely with the protection of submarine telegraph cables. The convention’s primary goal was to require State adoption of legislation that protected cables laying outside of territorial waters and presently has 40 State Parties.

The 1958 Geneva Conventions on the High Seas and the Continental Shelf (“the 1958 Geneva Conventions”) and UNCLOS are broad, comprehensive treaties that address various aspects of law of the sea.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the primary legal framework governing submarine cables. It establishes that coastal States have sovereignty over their territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs), but it also stipulates that they must allow the laying and maintenance of submarine cables on the continental shelf and in international waters, provided this is done with due regard for other States’ rights and interests.

Article 112 of UNCLOS specifically requires states to protect submarine cables and allows them to take measures to prevent and address cable damage.

International Waters and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) are areas beyond national jurisdiction (i.e., high seas), States have limited authority, making it challenging to enforce laws or respond to incidents involving submarine cables. In EEZs, coastal States have sovereign rights over natural resources but not over the water column. States can regulate certain activities within their EEZs, but they must respect the rights of other states to lay and maintain submarine cables.

2.3 IMPLICATIONS OF DISRUPTIONS OF SUBMARINE CABLES ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Governments and stakeholders must recognize the implications of cable disruptions on national security and take proactive measures to mitigate the risks. This includes enhancing the resilience of submarine cable systems, developing backup communication channels, improving incident response capabilities, and fostering international cooperation to address common security challenges.

 

IMPACTS ON MILITARY OPERATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE CONTROL:

a. Cable disruptions can severely hamper military operations by disrupting communication channels between military units, headquarters, and command Centres.

b. Intelligence sharing among defence, and intelligence agencies heavily relies on submarine cables. Disruptions can impede the timely exchange of critical intelligence information, compromising national security.

c. Command and control systems, including real-time decision-making capabilities, can be severely affected, hindering military responses to threats and emergencies.

IMPACTS ON ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

Submarine cables are crucial for the functioning of economic and financial systems, including international banking, stock exchanges, and transactions of a country. Disruptions can lead to financial losses, market volatility, and a loss of investor confidence.

1. Global commerce heavily depends on uninterrupted communication and data transmission through submarine cables.
2. Disruptions can result in supply chain disruptions, delays in trade, and economic losses.
3. Government operations, such as government agencies, emergency services, and public utilities, rely on submarine cables.
4. Disruptions can hamper the delivery of essential services, affecting public safety and national resilience

2.4 FUTURE CHALLENGES ON SUBMARINE CABLES

As submarine cables play a vital role in global connectivity and national security, it is essential to anticipate and address future challenges. Below are few key challenges:

1. Emerging Cybersecurity threats.
2. Climatic Change and Natural Disasters.
3. Environmental Impact and Sustainability.
4. Expansion of Undersea Data Centres.

CONCLUSION:

Submarine cables are quite indispensable to global economy and our everyday life. They support the operation of major internet services, international phone calls, military operations and financial transactions, making them an anchor of modern connectivity. Notwithstanding their status as critical communications infrastructure, submarine cable systems remain vulnerable to a variety of emerging cybersecurity challenges. It is the responsibility of States to protect the cables against damage, cyber-attacks or threats.

 FOOTNOTES:

[1] The International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”) is the leading U.N. agency that establishes international standards for information and communication technology. See About ITU, INT’L TELECOMM. UNION, http://www.itu.int/en/about

[2] INT’L TELECOMM. UNION, REC. ITU-T X.1205, SERIES X:DATA NETWORKS, OPEN SYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS AND SECURITY 2 (2008), https://ccdcoe.org/sites/default/files/documents/ITU-080418-RecomOverviewOfCS.pdf.

[3] LIONEL CARTER ET AL., SUBMARINE CABLES AND THE OCEANS: CONNECTING THE WORLD 8 (2009), http://www.iscpc.orjg/publications/ICPC-UNEP_Report.pdf.

[4] Robert Beckman, Protecting Submarine Cables From Intentional Damage – The Security Gap, in SUBMARINE CABLES: THE HANDBOOK OF LAW AND POLICY 281, 281 (Douglas R. Burnett, et al., eds. 2014) [hereinafter Beckman, Protecting Submarine Cables]; see generally David E. Sanger & Eric Schmitt, Russian Ships Near Data Cables Are Too Close, N.Y TIMES (Oct. 25, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/world/europe/russian-presence-near-undersea-cables-concerns-us.html?_r=1 (“Russian submarines and spy ships are aggressively operating near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians might be planning to attack those lines in times of tension or conflict.”).

[5] Beckman, Protecting Submarine Cables, supra note 11, at 283.

[6] Olga Khazan, The Creepy, Long-Standing Practice of Undersea Cable Tapping, THE ATLANTIC (July 16, 2013), http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/the-creepy-long-standing-practice-of-undersea-cable-tapping/277855/.

[7] GRAEME MARETT, A HISTORY OF THE TELEGRAPH IN JERSEY: 1858–1940, at 2-3 (2009), http://www.marett.org/telecom/telegraph.pdf.

[8] Jonathon W. Penney, The Cycles of Global Telecommunication Censorship and Surveillance, 26 U. P A. J. I NT’ LL. 693, 704 (2015)

[9] Id. at 703.

[10] Id. at 703

[11] Id. at 716

[12] Id. at 721

[13] Mick Green, The Submarine Cable Industry: How Does it Work? in SUBMARINE CABLES: THE HANDBOOK OF LAW AND POLICY 41, 42 (Douglas R. Burnett et al. eds., 2014).

[14] Mick Green, The Submarine Cable Industry: How Does it Work? in SUBMARINE CABLES: THE HANDBOOK OF LAW AND POLICY 41, 42 (Douglas R. Burnett et al. eds., 2014).

[15] Mick Green, The Submarine Cable Industry: How Does it Work? in SUBMARINE CABLES: THE HANDBOOK OF LAW AND POLICY 41, 42 (Douglas R. Burnett et al. eds., 2014).

[16] See About the ICPC, INT’L CABLE PROT. COMM. (Jul. 24, 2015), https://www.iscpc.org/about-the-icpc/.

[17] See About the ICPC, INT’L CABLE PROT. COMM. (Jul. 24, 2015), https://www.iscpc.org/about-the-icpc/.

[18]See e.g., ICPC Recommendations, INT’L CABLE PROT. COMM. (Dec. 22, 2014), https://www.iscpc.org/publications/recommendations/.

[19] Shivam Kumar Pandey and Aditya Bhushan, Submarine Cables: Issues of Maritime Security, Jurisdiction and Legalities European Journal of Theoretical And Applied Sciences ISSN 2786-7447

[20] United Nations Documents on the Development and Codification of International Law, 41 AM. J. INT’L L. SUPP. 29, 33-34 (1947).

[21] Id.

[22] Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables, Mar. 14, 1884, 24

Stat. 989, T.S. No 380 [hereinafter 1884 Cable Convention].

[23] High Seas Convention, supra note 79, at 82.

[24] Convention on the Continental Shelf, Apr. 29, 1958, 499 U.N.T.S. 311 [hereinafter Continental Shelf Convention].

[25] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397[hereinafter UNCLOS].