Cyberwarfare in International Law

belmolis writes "If the CIA is right to attribute recent blackouts to cyberwarfare, cyberwarfare is no longer science fiction but reality. In a recent op-ed piece and a detailed scholarly paper, legal scholar Duncan Hollis raises the question of whether existing international law is adequate for regulating cyberwarfare. He concludes that it is not: 'Translating existing rules into the IO context produces extensive uncertainty, risking unintentional escalations of conflict where forces have differing interpretations of what is permissible. Alternatively, such uncertainty may discourage the use of IO even if it might produce less harm than traditional means of warfare. Beyond uncertainty, the existing legal framework is insufficient and overly complex. Existing rules have little to say about the non-state actors that will be at the center of future conflicts. And where the laws of war do not apply, even by analogy, an overwhelmingly complex set of other international and foreign law rules purport to govern IO.'"

Comments

Re:What is IO?

[Nibbler999]

IO = information operations in this context.

True stateless war

[G4from128k]

What stops a Saudi IslamoFascist living in Canada from buying malware from the Russian mafia and redirecting attacks through servers in China? Who do we attack when the attacker is a botnet consisting of a bunch of infected PCs on some UK cablemodem network?

The extreme malleability of data, software, and networks means that anyone can make anyone look like they are a participant in an attack. It won't surprise me if a large percentage of counterattacks, reprisals, or sanctions target the wrong party because they were just the last identifiable node in a long chain of proxies and dark-net hops. If one can make one enemy look like it attacked another enemy, then one can kill two enemy for the price of on DDoSing.

Re:The US=The World

[nweaver]

Well, execpt that The Estonian "Cyber War" was really internal-to-Estonia script kiddiez.

Re:cluelessness

[rtechie]

All of these quaint efforts overlook the fact that war is, by definition, the breakdown of any shred of mutual trust and willingness to compromise. War is about killing people, and when you get to that stage of mutual rage and madness, no piece of paper full of high-minded sentiment is going to stop you from doing what you think you must to win (or not lose). I can't think of any historical exceptions. Can you? The short answer is: yes. There have been rules of war that have been closely followed, for centuries, by various groups. There were strict laws of war governed by the Church in the Middle Ages. Imperial Japan followed rules of war, right into WWII (you might not agree with those rules, but they existed). The Roman Army followed strict rules. The idea of soldiers acting in a discipled and humane fashion is nothing new. The big problem is that these rules only tend to be followed in cultural sandboxes: European vs. European, Japanese vs Japanese, etc. When conflicts are cross-cultural the tendency to dehumanize opponents increases and you get much bloodier conflicts: Crusades, Native American wars, Vietnam, etc.

I don't think it's useless to have laws of war. There is no reason to believe they make conflicts worse and every reason to believe that they help reduce civilian casualties, torture, etc. During WW1 gas weapons saw wide deployment, and they were banned not because they were ineffective, but because of the danger they reprsented to all soldiers and civilians. Gas weapons have been used since (notably in the Iran-Iraq war), but widespread use is a thing of the past. Ditto for flamethrowers and flame weapons in general (Phosphor weapons are making a comeback though. Bush apparently thinks burning people alive is fun).