Weapons convention - is it too early still? --- Bennette, I would say we are still in very early phases of negotiations about cyberstability. There is no agreement on common understanding of some of the major terms and concepts among countries - and, furthermore, most countries don't have their own positions and understanding of those concepts yet (which is a precondition for meaningful negotiations). For instance, how international law applies to cyberspace, or how should the attribution be done, etc.

It is also hard to control cyber-weapons, as they are nothing by the code: one can't track them or inspect them, they are dual-use, they are based on vulnerabilities in commercial systems, which have their due date, etc. There were (are) some attempts such as the Wassenaar Arrangement as Eduardo mentions below, that we will discuss later in the course, but without much effect.

At the same time, stakes weren't high enough for cyber-attacks to cause risk to international peace, and major powers benefited from lack of clarity and lack of clarity about the rules of the road. Yet, I think this time has passed, and the big players now see clearly that the stakes are getting too high (eg. US and Russia being in each others critical infrastructure systems already).

So, is it too early still for such a cyber-weapons convention?

Source author: Vladimir Radunovic vladar@diplomacy.edu