According to the concept of State sovereignty, no State has the power to dictate to another State how to control its internal affairs. Sovereignty grants and limits power: it gives states full control of their own territory while limiting the influence that states have over each other. In this example, sovereignty gives Brazil the power to ultimately decide what to do with its rainforest resources and limits Canada`s power to influence that decision. The violation of sovereignty by cyber means may violate international law and thus give the victim State the right to take measures, including countermeasures. Opinions differ on what constitutes a violation of sovereignty in cyberspace. Malicious cyber operations can be complex, span multiple jurisdictions, and may not always have a physical impact on the target infrastructure.  The ontological status of the state has been debated, particularly whether or not the state actually exists as an object that no one can see, taste, touch or otherwise recognize, 1 The principle of sovereignty, i.e. the highest authority over a territory, is a central principle of modern international law. What is considered sovereignty depends on the nature and structure of the international legal order and vice versa. 19. It is important that certain cyber activities, such as cyberespionage, do not constitute a violation of territorial sovereignty and thus a violation of international law.  However, they may be prohibited by national law.  We note that the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, has not only rights, but also obligations under international law, which limits the potential for abuse of power both within and in international relations.
125 Another important obligation of sovereignty is the duty to respect international law and to cooperate with other subjects of international law in the implementation of international law (Article 2(2) of the Charter of the United Nations). This includes, of course, legal obligations, but also moral obligations to support a just international system and the international rule of law. The moral duties of obeying international law by law are more complex and were discussed in the previous section. It is important to note that these direct obligations to respect international law, as well as the legality of sovereign acts, concern States exclusively. States, however, are no longer the only subjects of international law, and other subjects, such as IOs and individuals, are increasingly endowed with direct obligations under international law, duties that cannot be explained through the prism of state sovereignty, but through the modern conception of popular sovereignty. “The Charter of the United Nations provides a solid basis for the interpretation of existing international law, underlined, inter alia, by the principles of State sovereignty, sovereign equality and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. It is the Charter`s emphasis on these principles that is fully compatible with Kenya`s peaceful position in international affairs.  22 The modern concept of sovereignty was now being put to the final touch. The idea of limited sovereignty, which originated in its own laws, had first emerged. It is true that the limited dimension of sovereignty had been propagated earlier by some modern philosophers of the early 17th century.
This is the case, for example, with the work of Hugo Grotius, Alberico Gentili and Francisco Suarez, who defended the possibility, albeit limited, of disciplinary intervention by other sovereign states. Recognition of a State means the decision of a sovereign State to treat another entity as a sovereign State as well.  Recognition may be express or implicit and usually has retroactive effect. This does not necessarily imply a willingness to establish or maintain diplomatic relations. 32 This progressive awareness coincided with the development of classical international law from the beginning of the 19th century. It was the Congress of Vienna (1815). International law was seen as the law that allowed for international coexistence among sovereign States; It covers all areas of the organization of the external sovereignty of States, from border settlement to dispute settlement. It also protected internal sovereignty by prohibiting intervention in another sovereign State and guaranteeing the immunity of one State vis-à-vis the authorities of another. The need for such a right of coexistence triggered the codification of international law in the second half of the 19th century and the creation of the first international organizations (IOs), through which states organized their external relations more effectively than on the basis of individual relations. “The 2013 and 2015 consensus reports of the Group of Governmental Experts emphasize that sovereignty and the resulting international norms and principles apply to the implementation of ICT-related activities by the State.
In addition, the 2013 Group of Governmental Experts stressed the importance of international law, the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of sovereignty as a basis for the use of ICTs by States. “In cyberspace, the principle of sovereignty applies. States should exercise jurisdiction over ICT-related infrastructure, resources, data and activities within their territory and should have the right to protect their information systems and critical data from damage caused by threats, intrusions, attacks and sabotage. States have the right to adopt ICT-related policies, laws and public regulations to protect the legitimate interests of their citizens, businesses and social organizations. States should refrain from using ICTs to interfere in the interim affairs of other States and undermine their political, economic and social stability or engage in activities that undermine the national security and public interests of other States. States should participate on an equal footing in the management and distribution of international Internet resources and establish a global system of Internet governance based on multilateralism, democracy and transparency.  63 It follows that, although legal sovereignty and political sovereignty, although conceptually distinct and, in some cases, may exist separately, they are not logically separable in the long run.