On the contrary- when the US enters into a treaty, which ocurrs when the Senate ratifies it, the treaty has the same force as any other law in the United States. We are a nation of laws, and therefore, also a nation of treaties. Treaties do come with clauses allowing nations to leave the treaty if it is in their national security interests, but doing so must be done publically which has an international audience cost.
I agree that many nations bend agreements when in their interests, but the best treaties are the ones that are well defined, fair, and most importantly, verifiable.
Actually, when we sign a treaty and it is ratified by the Senate, the treaty has the same force as a US law. We can, of course, exit a treaty just as we can overturn or rewrite a law. The important point is that more than just being sovereign, we are a nation of laws, which include international treaties. So breaking a treaty is breaking the law, though I admit most countries at least bend treaty obligations all of the time.
A second point is that a treaty is only agreed to by two or more parties who agree it is in their best interest. Have you ever signed a contract that you felt wasn't in your best interest? Treaties and agreements have played an important roll in protecting US interests in the past and they can likely do so in the future with respect to 'cyberwarfare'. There are, however, a number of challenges. For a treaty to work, the conditions of the treaty must be verifiable. In terms of arms control treaties from the cold war this meant removing missiles from silos and then leaving the silos open for a time so the other side could take a peek with aerial/satellite recon. After that, the silos could be blownup, filled in, or blocked with something heavy and immovable--but the point is both sides could check that the other was owning up to the agreement. In terms of cyber warfare the most important challenge to any treaty will be how to define what constitutes cyberwarfare and cyberweapons and how to make such an agreement verifiable.
Legal limitations? Who could wage 'cyberwarfare'?
on
The New Air Force Mission?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I once was at a lecture by Lieutenant Commander Chris Eagle, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School, who taught courses on cyber defence and cyber warfare and he made an important point: Only uniform wearing members of the United States Armed Forces can actively engage in warfare of any kind, including 'cyberwarfare'. This is because of laws and treaties governing who is and who is not a combatant. Even though many civillians may be involved in developing 'cyberweapons', just as civillians are very involved in developing physical weaponry, when deployed and used it must be an active member of the armed forces pulling the trigger, pushing the button, or, in this case, hitting the enter key.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out an interesting article about out-sourcing homework help in the Communications of the ACM: Academic Dishonesty and the Internet.
On the contrary- when the US enters into a treaty, which ocurrs when the Senate ratifies it, the treaty has the same force as any other law in the United States. We are a nation of laws, and therefore, also a nation of treaties. Treaties do come with clauses allowing nations to leave the treaty if it is in their national security interests, but doing so must be done publically which has an international audience cost.
I agree that many nations bend agreements when in their interests, but the best treaties are the ones that are well defined, fair, and most importantly, verifiable.
Actually, when we sign a treaty and it is ratified by the Senate, the treaty has the same force as a US law. We can, of course, exit a treaty just as we can overturn or rewrite a law. The important point is that more than just being sovereign, we are a nation of laws, which include international treaties. So breaking a treaty is breaking the law, though I admit most countries at least bend treaty obligations all of the time.
A second point is that a treaty is only agreed to by two or more parties who agree it is in their best interest. Have you ever signed a contract that you felt wasn't in your best interest? Treaties and agreements have played an important roll in protecting US interests in the past and they can likely do so in the future with respect to 'cyberwarfare'. There are, however, a number of challenges. For a treaty to work, the conditions of the treaty must be verifiable. In terms of arms control treaties from the cold war this meant removing missiles from silos and then leaving the silos open for a time so the other side could take a peek with aerial/satellite recon. After that, the silos could be blownup, filled in, or blocked with something heavy and immovable--but the point is both sides could check that the other was owning up to the agreement. In terms of cyber warfare the most important challenge to any treaty will be how to define what constitutes cyberwarfare and cyberweapons and how to make such an agreement verifiable.
I once was at a lecture by Lieutenant Commander Chris Eagle, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School, who taught courses on cyber defence and cyber warfare and he made an important point: Only uniform wearing members of the United States Armed Forces can actively engage in warfare of any kind, including 'cyberwarfare'. This is because of laws and treaties governing who is and who is not a combatant. Even though many civillians may be involved in developing 'cyberweapons', just as civillians are very involved in developing physical weaponry, when deployed and used it must be an active member of the armed forces pulling the trigger, pushing the button, or, in this case, hitting the enter key.