[GA - Failed] Cyberweapons Control Act

Status
Not open for further replies.

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz


ga.jpg


Cyberweapons Control Act

Category: International Security | Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Greater Cesnica | Onsite Topic


Noting with no uncertainty that usage in the past decade of cyberweapons and cyberwarfare tactics have opened up a new arena of conflict in the annals of warfare.

Applauding this esteemed Assembly for successfully passing GAR #378, 'Digital Network Defense', a legislative framework that established basic responsibilities for member states to criminalize and curb criminal and terrorist acts conducted using access to a digital device and access to the internet.

Perturbed however by the current lack of legislation within the General Assembly governing the use of such tactics and actions by state-sponsored or government actors.

Aware of the potential threat posed by electronic warfare devices on a nation's infrastructure, economic system, industrial capability, and defense systems.

Realizing that in a changing society and world, the usage of warfare techniques applied using electronic devices reduces by a certain degree the numbers of casualties that a conflict waged via conventional warfare techniques such as bombing campaigns or ground assaults would incur.

Cognizant of the applications electronic warfare techniques deliver in times of war to a nation's armed forces and allies, and their utilization in strikes on enemy assets with limited collateral damage.

Therefore acknowledging that in order to facilitate a global understanding of the scope of this specialized type of weaponry, a universally binding legislative framework must be established to regulate the use of such electronic tactics.

Hereby defines the usage of electronic devices that cause significant negative political, economic, industrial, or physical damage to another sovereign state an act of warfare, to be referred to as Cyberwarfare.

Establishes these electronic devices or tools as Cyberweapons, to be designated and treated alongside conventional arms and weaponry as:




  • I. A means of causing significant electronic or physical damage that would warrant a proportional diplomatic or military response.
    II. Weaponry to be treated with the same discretion and caution as the usage of conventional warfare technique would warrant.

    III. A warfare technique which shall be held to the same accountability as other warfare tactics.

Designates further the legally binding definitions of the term Cyberwarfare as:



  • I. A warfare technique utilizing and relying on the class of weaponry defined under Clause I as cyberweapons.
    II. A method of warfare which, using cyberweapons, causes significant economic, industrial, political, or physical damage to the target entity.

    III. A warfare tactic that is intended to detriment the target entity in such a manner as to cause damage beyond the intelligence or information-sphere entities of the target entity.

Distinguishes the actions and methods of Cyberwarfare and Espionage under several differing characteristics:



  • I. The action of Cyberwarfare significantly differs from the tactics employed via the action of Espionage, as the former state-sponsored technique strives to cause quantifiable damage detrimental to the immediate safety and stability of the target sovereign state, while the latter technique is designed to gather information or knowledge via illicit state-sponsored surveillance or spying.
    II. Cyberwarfare is a technique carried out exclusively via electronic warfare devices, or cyberweapons as designated in Clause I and Clause II, in contrast to Espionage, which may be carried out via existing electronic surveillance programs or physical placements of spies and diplomatic infiltrations.

    III. Espionage operations are restricted to the information-sphere and intelligence entities and environments of the target state, whereas Cyberwarfare operations are spread out across multiple mediums of targets, with both the government and the private economic and industrial complexes of the target state potential subjects for the operations.

Urges member states to establish a military-operated centre of command from which to launch cyberattacks against target entities, defend from enemy cyberarracks, and regulate the storage and safety of cyberweapons in a manner which shall be governed by the present unified military and defense command of the aforementioned member state.

Prohibits the usage of cyberwarfare and cyberweapons exclusively against protected entities, such as hospitals, evacuation centers, internationally recognized encampments such as refugee camps and other institutions of the such.

Declares the usage of cyberweapons and cyberwarfare against the protected targets designated in the previous clause as war crime offenses to be investigated and prosecuted by existing organizations and courts protecting and upholding civilian and humanitarian rights in times of warfare.

Assured by this resolution's scope and it's validity, hereby enacts the Cyberweapons Control Act into legislative power.

Please vote: For, Against, Abstain, or Present

Sharing detailed opinions along with your vote are encouraged and appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Ministry IFV:
In attempting to protect society from civilian and collateral damages in regards to cyberwarfare, this proposal ultimately is stunted by its murky definitions and unclear language. The leading definition of cyberwarfare appears to encompass any and all ordinance that uses electricity, far overreaching the intended target of this proposal. Furthermore, the proposal attempts to distinguish cyberwarfare from espionage in a rather unnecessary and poorly written clause. The proposal goes on to outline an arbitrary list of potential 'protected sites' without giving any relevant parameters, rendering this resolution fairly unenforceable, especially when the punishment for attacking these undefined 'protected sites' is potential trial for war crimes.

In accordance with the facts stated above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal
 
Last edited:
Leaning fairly against, I dislike the way it addresses espionage and interprets the scope of intent or effect of cyber attacks
 
From discord (by me):

Is it nitpicking to say that ```Hereby defines the usage of electronic devices that cause significant negative political, economic, industrial, or physical damage to another sovereign state an act of warfare, to be referred to as Cyberwarfare```
defines a guided missile system as electronic warfare?

Thoughts?
 
Against.
I don't feel like a cyber attack that inflicts political and economic damage deserves warfare. Also, the definition of cyberweapons is very vague.
 
Last edited:
Against

The definitions appear to make a distinction without a difference. I'm not confident this thing is actually put together correctly.
 
Against.
I have to agree that this proposal has some problems with its definitions. A single laptop can create considerable havoc when tapped into the right network. Are we going to classify all laptops as weapons simply because they are being used in this manner? It would be very much like classifying all vehicles as weapons simply because occasionally they are used in bombings. This proposal doesn't really attempt to separate out the programming, storage, or delivery tool (which may be otherwise benign / useful) from the way it is being misused.
Case in point: Stuxnet. A virus created by the US and Israel governments to specifically cause centrifuges to malfunction in Iranian research facilities, during the upgrading of Uranium. Clearly a cyber weapon. It was delivered by dropping thumb drives in the parking lots of those facilities. It ended up spreading well beyond those facilities. infecting systems around the world, up to and including that on the International Space Station.
The proposal's differentiation between cyber warfare and espionage falls apart under this real-world example.
It's a decent idea, and a tough area to regulate. I don't think this proposal manages to pull it off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top