Why Should International Law Deal With The Uncertainties Arising From The Rise Of Irregular Forms Of Warfare?

The book “Conquest in Cyberspace” went in depth on the United States’, Russia’s, and China’s views on information warfare and cyber warfare. It also discussed the areas where their policies, guidance, and operations differ and are the same. One of the most interesting things which I noticed in the completion of this assignment is how the United States has the most well defined and in depth policies and governances regulating their information warfare and cyber warfare operations and how both China and Russia has taking the policies and governances created by the United States and mimicked them in the creation of their own policies and governances for information

When considering the technological advances over the past 50 years, the Internet has undoubtedly had the greatest impact on everyday life of developed economies and its citizens. The world has become smaller, societies interconnected, and the pace of global integration dramatically increased since the introduction of the Internet. With the world connected, cyber actors represent a very real and often underestimated threat to the United States’ ability to defend national security, protect industrial innovation, and secure privacy information. As a result of globalization, the foreign cyber actors represent the most imminent threat to national security, corporate innovation, and citizen privacy rights.

Each viewpoint, the hawk, the dove, and the internationalist base their consequent arguments on the perceived current political and moral position of the United States regarding international cybersecurity. Similar to relations between the USSR and the US, the rhetoric between the United States and China draws from the tensions surrounding superpower military supremacy and moral imperatives. Between the hawkish, dovish, and internationalist perspectives, the themes of American military and moral power persist.

The most recents detections of how cyber warfare is inevitably coming was the accusations of Russia hacking the the Democratic National Committee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email’s releasing damaging evidence against them which ultimately lead to Donald Trump being named the President of The United States (Diamond, 2016). The effects of cyber warfare have leaked over in to televise series, forming shows such as CSI cyber, and the gaming world, Call Of Duty Infinite Warfare. Neglect regarding cyber security can: undermine the reputation of both the government and elected officials; force unacceptable expenditures associated with the cost of cleaning up after security breaches; cripple governments' abilities to respond to a wide variety of homeland security emergency situations or recover from natural or man-made threats; and disable elected officials' ability to govern (Lohrmann, 2010). Classified information such as overseas operators and attacks, missile locations, response plans and weaknesses, and much more cripples America’s ability to defend itself from enemies both foreign and domestic. To combat cyber terrorism is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA. In an article titled “Why Cybersecurity Information Sharing Is A Positive Step for Online Security” it is discussed that under CISA, the Department of Homeland security will have more responsibility for domestic cybersecurity. CISA’s fundamental purpose is to better enable cybersecurity information to be shared between the private and public sectors (2016). The sharing of threat information between public and private sectors can give the the United States a head start by allowing them to share information rapidly and more often to combat enemy threats while still providing safety for privacy and civil

The article “Defending America in Cyberspace” in the journal The National Interest authored by Keith Alexander, Emily Goldman, and Michael Warner taught me much about how the Department of Homeland Security handles America’s cyber threats. The Department of Security is the lead agency in protecting America from domestic cybersecurity incidents. It stated how America fights Cyber crime and security threats. In this day and age, countries are very vulnerable to skilled hackers. Some of them not even under the age 18.

The JIE considers that the future security environment will continue to feature a range of adversaries attempting to shape political behavior by conducting damaging or disruptive cyber-attacks. This is a consequence of the globalization and cannot be stopped, however timely contention is needed. The Joint Force must minimize the consequences of threatened or successful cyberattacks against the United States, its allies, and partners by conducting Military Support to Cyber

Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015) outline possible examples of cyber warfare between Canada and China (p. 844). According to Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015), “the Canadian government revealed that several of its national departments had been victims of a cyber attack…” (p. 844). Eventually, the attack was unofficially traced to a computer in China (p. 844). Cyber warfare can be used negatively and positively. It is evident that China was seeking to gain protected information form Canada. Although a purpose of cyber warfare, it is not a conventional way of obtaining information. Additionally, cyber warfare can be used to collect intelligence on an enemy. Anyone seeking to gather intelligence on another individual or group can launch a cyber attack that gains access to protected files. This could be used to help future militant operations or expose critical information. Lastly, cyber warfare can be used to test systems internally. Acting with no malicious intent, “insiders” can utilizing cyber warfare tactics to attack their own cyber security barriers in order to test the strength of their systems. Seeking to expose the vulnerabilities in a system that contains important assets without actually harming the assets provides the system a diagnosis of what needs to be strengths and fixed. Identifying the problem or threats before an actual attack can ultimately save the protected

Hypothesis: The United State’s foreign policy will make a shift in the coming years to focus more intently on suppressing individual groups that use terrorism as a political strategy, rather than focusing on specific and identifiable States as in the past. The organizations mentioned before will be using the Internet to coordinate attacks, as well as attempt to hack US Government systems to their advantage. As a result, cyber security and antiterrorism stand to be the biggest future challenges for American foreign policy.

Cyber threats and attacks are becoming more common, sophisticated and damaging. NATO and its Allies rely on strong and resilient cyber defenses to fulfil the Alliance’s core tasks of collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security. NATO affirms international law applies in cyberspace

On February 12, 2015 president Obama signed an executive order with the intention to expand the Cybersecurity of the U.S. and to promote principles of collaboration not just in America but around the globe. Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the most challenging subjects of the 21st-century; moreover, cyber-attacks can further compromise the future of our economic development as much as our national security and the decrement of our civil rights and privacy. Since Obama initiate his administration, he has been working on establishing the framework to better balance the interaction between, government agencies, private sector, and the general public. The objective in this essay is to better understand the connotations from several

According to the director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “The cyber warfare threat facing the United States is increasing in scope and scale and its impact is difficult to overstate” (Jason and Steve 6). Now the United State of America is also under the threat of Cyberwarfare; people must get known about their rights and ways to protect them self, also the big origination holding the public records should be alerted and the precaution should must taken right away for the safe side. Looking towards the issues of cyberwarfare in United States of America, four aspects should be taken in consideration that is what is cyberwarfare, how it works, offensive of it and defensive of it.

From the advent of the Internet, there came with it the opportunity for any of its users to have access to any information they seeked right at their fingertips. With this access; entertainment, market opportunities, educational information, productivity, and global communication were able to grow and flourish, however with these gains seen came with it the weakening of the once secure national strength seen in nations. In the last two decades cyberspace has been defined as the 'fifth battleground’ for international relations, with the aspects of cyber war, cyber terrorism, and cybercrime as some of the largest threats to the security of the national and international community. (Popović, 2013) With this ‘fifth battleground’ of the cyberspace thrown into the international battlegrounds of old, its effectiveness and effect on the both the modern state and the international bodies of the world, posing the question of how will this increased accessibility to the cyberspace will affect national security in the coming years?

For thousands of years warfare remained relatively unchanged. While the tactics and weapons have changed as new methods of combat evolved, men and women or their weapons still had to meet at the same time and place in order to attack, defend, surrender or conquer. However, the advent of the of the internet has created a new realm of combat in which armies can remotely conduct surveillance, reconnaissance, espionage, and attacks from an ambiguous and space-less digital environment. Both state and non-state actors have already embraced this new realm and utilized both legal and illegal means to further facilitate their interests. What complicates cyber security further is as states attempt to protect themselves from cyber-warfare, private

The most important thing that needs to be done before taking the debate on the status of cyber attacks under international laws of war any forward is to specifically define a “cyber attack”. Scholars generally use the terms such as “information warfare”, “cyber warfare”, “cyber threats”, “computer network attacks”, etc as alternatives for “cyber attacks” without a reference to any particular definition or limitation of scope. Perhaps this is done on a supposition that a standard definition of this term is already prevalent. This unfortunately is not true. Speaking specifically about the literature on cyber attacks, the term is comprehended primarily in two ways: while some talk about technology and computer networks as instruments of the attack, others use computers and information & technology networks as the objects of the attack.

In recent years, topics related to cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, and international law have been covered extensively within the apparatuses of both foreign and domestic policy. As of now, different scholarly experts and policy makers recommend various – often conflicting strategies – for implementing a universal policy that benefits transnationally. Because cybersecurity is the newest and most unique national security issue of the twenty-first century, one highly recommended approach – which forms the bases of many popular policies – is to require states to adopt a universal cyber warfare doctrine. Yet, subject matter experts disagree on the effectiveness of this approach by mendicating the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. In my research, I will explore the claims made by proponents of scholars. My primary research question is: How should international law deal with the uncertainties arising from the rise of irregular forms of warfare? For example, over the past several decades advances in technology have altered communications and the ability to collect, disseminate, and employ information in a range of environments. Such examples are: contemporary governments and societal groups - along with their corresponding militaries that routinely take advantage of shared information throughout the internet, and also both military and political operations – that have progressively intersected. And last but not least, is how policy groups are seen as