SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION any regulation requiring ISPs to deploy content blocking or filtering should be restricted to exceptional cases, including war propaganda, with the additional protection that an independent judge should determine the illegality of the content.97 Shutdowns to prevent or mitigate cyberattacks from abroad. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. 98 Today such threats may also exist in cyberspace. The most authoritative explanation of the existing law on cyberattacks is the Tallinn Manual 2.0. Representing the common views of experts, it notes that sovereignty includes sovereignty over cyber infrastructure within its territory, including the right to control cyber infrastructure and cyber activities. A cyber operation against this infrastructure may violate the other state’s sovereignty. It certainly does so if it causes damage.99 A cyber operation aimed to coerce a foreign government may be qualified as an armed attack (Art. 51 of the UN Charter), which triggers the right to self-defense (Art. 21 of the UN Charter), including restriction or protection (in part or in whole) of access to the internet, without prejudice to applicable international law, including human rights law or international telecommunications law.100 Other experts make a point, that within the framework of internet shutdowns, national sovereignty offers States a legitimate way to block access to the digital environment as well as suspend digital services coming from other States. Internet shutdowns, they say, could be implemented to avoid damages deriving from cyber-attacks or be provoked by the legitimate exercise of the right to self-defense from the external interference of other States. 101 As the legal grounds for the sovereign right to cut off internet access, these and other experts, as well as some States, point to the Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the United Nations. Indeed, it refers to the right of the States to block telecommunications services according to their national law when there is a danger to the security of the state or an infringement of its laws, public order, or decency. Moreover, ITU member States also have the right to suspend international telecommunication services. 102 The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur have heavily criticized such justifications. 103 The Special Rapporteur held that “[s]uch an interpretation contravenes the human rights norms and standards… and the ITU’s own values and commitments”. The Special Rap97 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)/Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network (I&JPN), Internet & Jurisdiction and ECLAC Regional Status Report 2020 (LC/TS.2020/141), Santiago, 2020. – P. 109, https://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/publication/ files/46421/S1901092_en.pdf. 98 UN Charter, 1945, Art. 2, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter. 99 Schmitt, M. (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. In Tallinn Manual 2.0aon the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (p. Iii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 16. 100 Op.cit., p. 17.789 101 Giovanni De Gregorio and Nicole Stremlau, Internet Shutdowns and the Limits of Law / International Journal of Communication 14(2020), p 4233. 102 Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union (1992), Arts. 34(2), 35, https://www.itu.int/en/council/Documents/basic-texts/ Constitution-E.pdf. 103 Ending Internet shutdowns: a path forward. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Human Rights Council Forty-seventh session 15 June 2021, A/HRC/47/24/Add.2, para 65-67, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/ doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/149/66/PDF/G2114966.pdf?OpenElement. 23