The expansion of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the increasing reliance of states on digital infrastructure have transformed cyberspace into one of the most critical domains for national security, economic stability, and political sovereignty. However, the transnational, decentralized, and borderless nature of cyberspace has posed fundamental challenges to the traditional principles of international law, particularly state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention.

Accordingly, the primary research question is: To what extent are international legal frameworks capable of regulating state behavior in cross-border cyber operations, and what challenges do these operations pose to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention? In response to this question, the research hypothesis posits that although existing international law provides a foundational framework for regulating state behavior in cyberspace, the complex and transnational nature of cyber operations has subjected these rules to enforcement limitations, conceptual ambiguities, and legal lacunae. Consequently, the need for the progressive development of international cyber law is felt more than ever.

Employing a doctrinal legal analysis and a comparative approach, this study examines international instruments, including the United Nations Charter and the Tallinn Manual 2.0. The research findings indicate that the fundamental rules and principles of international law, such as state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention, exhibit more limited efficacy in cyberspace. Furthermore, divergent state perspectives regarding the threshold for sovereignty violations and cyber intervention have led to fragmentation in the application of legal rules, thereby increasing the risk of escalating cyber tensions.