Abstract
Evaluations of cyber war and weapons range from denunciations of their widespread and indiscriminate destructiveness and deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, all the way to appraisals of cyber warfare as a morally preferable, less destructive alternative to conventional warfare. This chapter will bring some order to this chaos by distinguishing permissible from impermissible forms of cyber conflict, as well as distinguishing genuine “warfare” from large-scale criminal or terrorist enterprises. The chapter will criticize the lack of discrimination often encountered in the formulation of cyber strategy and development of cyber weapons, and argue in favor of international governance and guidance that (with reference to proportionality, discrimination, and the principle of last resort) restricts the use of cyber weapons to justified military targets, using Stuxnet as a recent case in point. In ethics, we can infer or derive operable constraints on, and guidelines for acceptable practice by examining instances of what all agree is either good or bad practice, just as in international law, we recognize the evolution of customary law through the accepted conduct of otherwise law-abiding states. Hence, I will argue that an act of cyberwarfare is permissible if it aims primarily at harming military (rather than civilian) infrastructure, degrades an adversary’s ability to undertake highly destructive offensive operations, harms no civilians and/or destroys little or no civilian infrastructure in the process, and is undertaken as a “last resort” in the sense that all reasonable alternatives short of attack have been attempted to no avail, and further delay would only make the situation worse.
The original version of this paper was delivered at a UNESCO-sponsored conference on Cyber War and Ethics at the University of Hertfordshire (July 1, 2011): http://www.elac.ox.ac.uk/downloads/Permissible%20Preventive%20Cyberwar%20UNESCO%202011.pdf.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
More recently, from the perspective of domestic and international law, I commend a keynote address by Steven Bradbury, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice, entitled “The Developing Legal Framework for Defensive and Offensive Cyber Operations,” delivered at the annual Harvard National Security Symposium in 2011, devoted to “Cybersecurity: Law, Privacy, and Warfare in a Digital World” (Bradbury 2011; see also Goldsmith 2011).
- 2.
Comment of Ralph Langner, a computer security expert in Hamburg, Germany, quoted in NY Times (William et al. 2011).
- 3.
This concern is voiced explicitly in the online “infographic” documentary, Clair (2011).
- 4.
I have argued elsewhere (“Postmodern War,” Journal of Military Ethics 9, no. 4 (2010): 296) that this tendency to target civilians in cyber conflict stems from the overwhelming influence of intelligence and espionage, or clandestine services communities in the formulation of strategy and development of weapons, as contrasted with the conventional war-fighting community (even though a preponderance of the participants, from General Keith Alexander and VADM William McCollough on down, wear (or wore) military uniforms). In espionage, covert action, and “psych ops,” there is no restriction on targeting civilians (although this has begun to be questioned in the intelligence community’s own discussions of professional ethics): See also Lucas 2013.
References
Arquilla, John, und David Ronfeldt. 1993. Cyberwar is coming! Comparative Strategy 12 (2): 141–165.
Arquilla, John. 1999. Ethics and information warfare. In The changing role of information in warfare, eds. Andy Marshall, et al., 379–401. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Arquilla, John. 2003. Interview for PBS “Frontline”. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cyberwar/interviews/arquilla.html. Accessed 4 March 2003.
Bradbury, Steven G. 2011. Cybersecurity: Law, privacy, and warfare in a digital world. Harvard National Security Law Review Annual Conference. http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Vol.-2_Bradbury_Final.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2011.
Budapest. 2001. Council of Europe, Convention on cybercrime. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/html/185.htm. Accessed 23 Nov 2001.
Clair, Patrick. 2011. Stuxnet: Anatomy of a computer virus. http://vimeo.com/25118844.
Davis, Joshua. 2007. Hackers Take Down the Most Wired Country in Europe. Wired Magazine 15 (9): http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-09/ff_estonia?currentPage=all. Accessed 12.31.2012.
Dipert, Randall R. 2010. The ethics of cyberwarfare. Journal of Military Ethics 9 (4): 384–410 (December 2010).
Goldsmith, Jack. 2011. Steven Bradbury on cyber security. In the Blog, Lawfare. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/04/steven-bradbury-on-cybersecurity/. Accessed 18 April 2011.
Gross, Michael J. 2011. A declaration of cyber-war. Vanity Fair. Condé Nast. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/04/stuxnet-201104. Accessed 3 March 2011.
Libicki, Martin C. 2009. Cyberdeterrence and cyberwar. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Lin, Herbert S., et al. 2009. Technology, policy, law, and ethics regarding U.S. Acquisition and use of cyberattack capabilities. Washington, DC: National Research Council/American Academy of Sciences.
Lucas, G. R. Jr. 2013. jus in silico: moral restrictions on the use of cyber warfare. In The Routledge Handbook of War and Ethics, eds. Allhoff Evans, and G. Henschke Nicholas, 367–380. London: Routledge.
Rowe, Neil C. 2007. War crimes from cyberweapons. Journal of Information Warfare 6 (3): 15–25.
Rowe, Neil C. 2008. Ethics of cyber war attacks. In Cyber warfare and cyber terrorism, eds. Lech J. Janczewski, and Andrew M. Colarik. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Rowe, Neil C. 2010. The ethics of cyberweapons in warfare. International Journal of Cyberethics 1:1.
Schaap, Arie J. Major. 2009. Cyber warfare operations: Development and use under international law. Air Force Law Review 64 (121): 144–145.
William, J. Borad, Markoff John, E. Sanger und David. 2011. Israeli test on worm called crucial in Iran nuclear delay. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=1. Accessed 15 Jan 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lucas, G. (2014). Permissible Preventive Cyberwar: Restricting Cyber Conflict to Justified Military Targets. In: Floridi, L., Taddeo, M. (eds) The Ethics of Information Warfare. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04135-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04135-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04134-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04135-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)