Objectives:
A phenomenon is emerging in relations between states that is the opposite of a declaration of war, i.e. the phenomenon of 'unspeakable war', which, according to US experts, may even lead to a so-called 'electronic Pearl Harbour'. This is because a cyber attack can ultimately take the form of... cyber warfare. In the past 20-25 years alone, we have been confronted with a situation we had not anticipated: that "destructive and disruptive actions are taking place above our heads", that cyber warfare is almost universal and at the same time invisible, because conventional weapons are not used.

Material and methods:
The research was carried out using dogmatic-legal, historical and comparative legal methods.

Results:
There seem to be sufficient reasons prompting the creation and harmonisation of national and international legal norms in the sphere of war. Remaining in international law and domestic constitutional law in the blissful conviction of the legitimacy of persisting in a sphere of terminology that excludes or weakens at least the meaningfulness of the concept of "war" and abrogating it in favour of a softer-sounding concept of, for example, a "state of defence" and in the need to emphasise one's entirely peaceful attitude in international relations, ceases to have its hitherto undisputed justification.

Conclusions:
To be precise, the impact (attacks) on the adversary affects its : defence systems, infrastructure (including so-called critical infrastructure), society, key state institutions and political elites. If such targets are targeted through the Internet, computers and other means of storing and distributing information to attack the information systems of the victim state, it is reasonable to call such actions cyber warfare, or cyber warfare.