CIAO DATE: 06/2014
Volume: 12, Issue: 4
Fall 2013
The Degrees of Force Exercised in the Cyber Battlespace. (PDF)
Joseph Bussing
Introduction Each instance of communication via the Internet depends on the transfer of confidential, readily available, and authenticated information. If this information is read, altered, or forged in any way, it jeopardizes the secure and safe operation of any service depending on the transfer of data. Thus, the exploitation of data can be leveraged in ways that can have devastating effects on modern societies. The problem with a networked society is that the international conventions on the use of force fail to sufficiently safeguard the world from the instability caused by computer attacks. This article seeks to remedy the situation by defining what kinds of actions carried out via computerized networks constitute a use of armed force or armed conflict. This article applies the existing Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) to three cases of computer-based attacks carried out by nation-states. In doing so, the aim is to highlight the legal limitations on actions that can be taken to respond to computer attacks. The first examination involves the wave of cyber attacks that precluded the 2008 South Ossetia War between Russia and Georgia. The second case addresses the United States’ covert operation, codenamed “Olympic Games.” For this case, the analysis will be focused on the Stuxnet computer program. The third case utilizes LOAC to assess the acts of digital espionage carried out by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Unit 61398. Using LOAC as a legal rubric, the cases suggest that there are three distinct interpretations of computer-based operations. The case of the 2008 South Ossetia War constitutes a situation in which using computers to attack another country can be interpreted as a use of force and as an act of armed conflict. The “Olympic Games” operation reveals that a computer-based attack can be considered a use of force but not an act of armed conflict. The analysis of the actions of Unit 61398 shows a perspective on computer attacks that are neither a use of force nor an act of armed conflict. Each case expresses unique characteristics of operations in cyberspace. Therefore, in order to develop a legal understanding of these cases, the analysis favors an effects-based assessment of cyber attacks, pioneered by Michael Schmitt and expressed in the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare.[1]
Common Ground: U.S. and NATO Engagement with Russia in the Cyber Domain (PDF)
Geoff Van Epps
Introduction Significant changes in the global strategic landscape over the past two decades include the fall of the Iron Curtain and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, accelerated globalization, increasing reliance on digital information technologies in all aspects of life, the rise of China and India, global financial crises, the political revolutions of the Arab Spring, and the emergence of violent Islamist extremism as a key feature of the geopolitical landscape. Yet at the same time, many of the key dynamics of the international arena remain unchanged from twenty years ago, including the volatility and instability of the Middle East, the lack of development in most of Africa, the ever-increasing integration of the global economy, and the preeminence of the United States as an actor in global affairs, with other states, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Russia also playing key roles. Among all that has changed and all that remains the same, new issues have emerged, few of which merit consideration in isolation. Rather, the complex and interconnected nature of today’s international system demands analysis that accounts for the relationships between actors and issues and considers the multiplicity of effects that their interaction unavoidably creates. Two key features of the current strategic environment—the two that are the focus of this article—are the indispensability of information technology in all aspects of modern life and the continued significance of Russia as an actor on the global stage. Driven by the growing dependence of modern society on digital technology and the vulnerability of digital systems to cyber threats, cybersecurity has emerged as a critical national security issue, spawning a growth industry that researches solutions to the technical, legal, and policy challenges of the day. At the same time, the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contend with a Russian Federation that no longer poses the existential threat of the Soviet superpower era but still wields enough power to demand attention and to play the role of spoiler on many important global issues. The U.S. and NATO have repeatedly and publicly declared improved relations and increased cooperation with Russia to be top priorities, but that rhetoric has seldom translated to concrete improvement in their relationships or broad advancement across the agenda of critical topics. However, cybersecurity is an area of strategic importance where real progress is possible. The June 2013 announcement of a new U.S.–Russia bilateral agreement to work together on cybersecurity is an important symbolic first step in that direction, but the accord is modest, and should merely serve as a starting point for a longer-term and more extensive program of cooperation. More tangible improvement of U.S. and NATO relations with Russia is vital, given the interconnectedness of all three actors and their status as the three most important actors in modern European—and to some extent global—security affairs. Given Russia’s robust cyber capability (and demonstrated willingness to employ it), its longstanding quest for recognition as a leader in world affairs, and the public call to develop international norms for cyberspace, cybersecurity is a prime topic for U.S. and NATO engagement with Russia.
Sebastian Von Munchow
Introduction “Good governance” is the political concept through which transitional and post-conflict states seek to be integrated into those parts of the international community that embrace the ideals of democracy and the rule of law and place a premium on the will of the peo- ple. One of the most decisive factors for the implementation of good governance is in how the security sector interacts with the state and contributes to the public welfare. In particular, the security sector should be subject to civilian oversight and control, make decisions that are comprehensible, and be held accountable for misconduct and unlawful actions. This concept has led to a worldwide movement for security sector reform (SSR). As the global SSR agenda has been developed and implemented over the past decade, there has been increasing pressure to better integrate the security sector into the state in an ef- fort to restrict the use of security forces as oppressive tools for power by a particular re- gime, clan, or individual. This is the most important task facing those countries that are embarking on SSR processes in an effort to align themselves more closely with the Euro-Atlantic security space, as the most crucial element in reforming a security sector is to build a nationally-owned and led vision of security that embraces modern-day stan- dards of transparency.
Energy Security: A Paradigm Shift (PDF)
Milina Velichka
The Old Paradigm [1] The concept of energy security that dominated for almost forty years (following the energy crisis of the 1970s) was rooted in the relatively plentiful availability of and easy access to fossil fuels, while the main threat to global energy security was considered to be the discontinuation of energy supplies. Thus, the old paradigm could be briefly summarized as “stable and continuous supplies at affordable prices.” The significance of this problem was suggested by the common statement of geopolitical strategists, investment bankers, geologists, and physicists on the foreseeable depletion of oil and natural gas, and by the “final countdown” that had started in the production of hydrocarbon resources at an acceptable “energy price.”[2] This fact, as well as the severe competition for energy resources due to increasing demand and consumption in developed and emerging economies, shaped the context of energy policies. This was a period when the major consumers of energy resources (the U.S., EU, China, and India) were highly dependent on the producing countries dominating the energy market from the Middle East and the Caspian region, Russia, etc. The basic principles of the energy market were energy nationalism, the active role of “transit” countries, and the domination of producers over consumers. Energy nationalism was the major principle that shaped the behavior of the key participants on the energy market, whether they were producing countries, transit countries, or heavy consumers of energy resources.[3] Energy nationalism created a reality where the behavior and decisions of energy markets and the supply of resources ultimately depended not on economic market factors but rather on the producers, whereas the energy market turned into an arena of interstate relations. Oil and natural gas were used as geopolitical weapons, while energy geopolitics and geoeconomics became the most essential part of global politics and the foreign policy of the key players on the energy market.
The Young and the Normless: Al Qaeda's Ideological Recruitment of Western Extremists (PDF)
Therese Postel
Radical Recruiting: Different Ideologies Pulling on the Same Strings There is little theoretical research that attempts to explain Al Qaeda’s recruitment tactics.[9] Perhaps this dearth of information on recruitment is a result of the group’s shadowy, secretive nature. This may also be a result of the lack of experts studying how Al Qaeda recruits new adherents. Outside of the literature on Al Qaeda’s recruitment patterns, there has been a significant amount of research regarding the recruitment of members of U.S. domestic hate groups. Al Qaeda and hate groups use similar rhetoric and target similarly disaffected individuals. One can come closer to understanding the framework through which Al Qaeda attempts to recruit its members by analyzing the theory that aims to explain the recruitment methods used by right-wing hate groups in the United States. It is important to note that Al Qaeda propaganda, like Inspire magazine, seeks to recruit individuals passively through indoctrination, as do some domestic hate groups. Similarly, by reviewing theories regarding the nature of terrorism in the post-9/11 world, one can understand the ideological recruitment themes upon which Al Qaeda bases its narrative. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are over one thousand active hate groups in the United States.[10] Many of these groups themselves produce domestic terrorists. Prior to 9/11, the most successful terrorist attack on the United States was that of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Timothy McVeigh, although not a part of any particular hate group, was virulently anti-government and had been accused of anti-Semitic rhetoric.[11] The United States is much more familiar with the concept of domestic terrorism because of these hate groups. These groups primarily recruit individuals in three ways. First, they target individuals who are experiencing “anomie” or “strain” in their lives; these individuals who are “frustrated” with their position in society are at risk of succumbing to hate groups.[12] Second, hate groups will preach that the “status quo” is under attack, and that people must join these groups in order to protect their ethnic or religious groups’ position of power in society.[13] Third, many of these groups will use “apocalyptic” rhetoric in order to recruit individuals. Many individuals believe their specific community is under attack and will be recruited into hate groups when they believe their struggle is one of destiny or is God’s will.[14]