Global treaty and 'ordinary states' --- It is interesting that we mainly look at how the global treaty would impact big powers. Yet, as some of you suggested, superpowers will remain superpowers - and the treaty will be by large adapted to their needs and preferences.

What often stays out of focus is 'ordinary states'. Escalations among superpowers is not likely due to cyber-attacks (or if it happens, we will have bigger concerns to deal with). Instead, wars are waged in other parts of the world - Africa, Middle East, etc. This is where, with more digitalisation, we can expect that cyber-attacks could be used along with warfare, and where escalations - including conventional weapons - are likely. Most of those states, however, don't have the capacities to deeply understand the technology behind, or legal and other implications.

If we don't have rules in place, other states will follow the examples/precedents set by superpowers - in terms of attribution/finger-pointing, response, armament, etc. If we have rules, other states are more likely to adhere to them - to avoid unnecessary pressure by the international community (even if superpowers won't always stick to the rules).

It is important to get out of the US-Russia-China framing - which is dominant today in media and public and community discourse - and think more seriously about how all this (trends, lack of rules, and rules) will impact other states and their relations, especially in war-torn or tensed regions.

Source author: Vladimir Radunovic vladar@diplomacy.edu