- Jan 2023
-
curator.diplomacy.edu curator.diplomacy.edu
-
In September the Russian delegation to a UN working group on space security hinted that, despite its status as a nominally civilian system, Starlink might be considered a legitimate military target under international humanitarian law—which is probably a fair assessment.
Interesting - explicit discussion in UN OEWG on Reducing Space Threats whether Starlink is/could be a military target under the international law. No such discussion were ever raised in UN OEWG cyber - eg. would Starlink/ViaSat be a legitimate target of cyberattack during war (not least because Russia and fellows deny the use of cyber for militarisation/as weapon). Worth following further? ||Pavlina|| ||JovanK||
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Jul 2022
-
curator.diplomacy.edu curator.diplomacy.edu
-
States are engaging in a range of cyber behaviors that undermine peace and stability, but these proposed prohibitive norms do not address those behaviors. There is no reported instance of states engaging in cyber operations against another state’s cyber emergency response teams or using their teams for malicious purposes. And, although states have targeted critical infrastructure in armed conflict and non-state actors have done so in peacetime, the proposed prohibitive norms are not framed in a manner addressing that context or those actors, respectively.
Interesting observation: that current prohibitive norms of GGE/OEWG actually mis-shoot. Example on CERTs is a good one: while this norm is important - it doesn't reflect the reality (there were no documented cases. The one on CI, however, doesn't stay: this is the major issue between US and Russia - it is a valid norm.
-
Interesting blog that comments on lack of conformance of states to cyber norms: that OEWG/GGE norms don't reflect the reality of attacks, while GCSC which reflect better are not in the game; and on three ways conformance is currently cultivated (persuasion, socialization, and incentives) - all three failing.
Then, it proposes 'a new way' which should complement this process of turning norms into customary law - by inhibiting the ability for misbehavior/irresponsible behaviour . This should be done through 'defence forward': actively disrupting malicious groups and their systems (malware, botnet C2 infrastructure, etc) before they strike (includling through exploitation of vulnerabilities!), and publicly disclosing the information about such operations. To them, this would support better conformity to norms (by preventing them to misbehave?)
There is a number of valid points in the doc. But, there are also many problematic ones; to start with - do you, by preventing someone to misbehave, actually promote adherence to norms? Or are these two distinct issues - norms, and defence/military strategy.
I added number of comments throughout.
||Pavlina|| ||AndrijanaG|| ||JovanK||
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Sep 2021
-
estatements.unmeetings.org estatements.unmeetings.org
-
Third, technological developmentsand digitalisation offer solutions to many of the challenges we collectively face. In Switzerland,there is close cooperationwith universitiesand the private sector to findinnovative technological approaches for developmentand poverty reduction projects. Yet there are risksinvolved.The virtual world is not a lawless zone. Inthe GeneralAssembly, Switzerland works to promoteresponsible state behaviour and the application of international law in cyberspace. It also participates in efforts to combat cybercrime. Geneva plays a role as a global centre for digital policy and networking forthe actors involved.
Switzerland participates in the UN efforts on cyberconflict and cybercrime; Geneva as a hub for digital policy
-
- Jun 2021
-
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
-
a common understanding of how existing international law applies to cyberspace and welcome the work of our Foreign Ministers to promote this approach at the UN and other international fora.
||VladaR||||AndrijanaG||Support for OEWG approach
-
- Apr 2021
-
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
-
there were between fifty and seventy types of argumentation that could be applied to just about every possible debate question.
Can we find more resources about it? This could be interesting for Speech Generator and way how countries frame cybersecurity argument.
||VladaR||||AndrijanaG||||JovanNj||
-