[GA - DEFEATED] Regulating Digital Warfare

Status
Not open for further replies.

Caius

The Minister
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
United States of Dictators
Discord
cayus.code
ga.jpg

Regulating Digital Warfare
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SherpDaWerp, Co-authored by: Greater Cesnica | Onsite Topic


The General Assembly;

Noting the proliferation of electronic attacks as an alternative to conventional warfare, capable of damaging nation-states’ critical infrastructure without great loss of life, and

Seeking to ensure that these attacks remain discriminate in their application,

Hereby:
  1. Defines:
    1. "cyberattack" as any unauthorised disruption of a computer system where digital input is executed to destroy, deny service by, gain unauthorised access to, or otherwise compromise a computer system or related infrastructure, and
    2. "cyberwarfare" as any cyberattack or series of cyberattacks primarily made, sponsored, or encouraged by national, state, local or otherwise government-based actors;

  2. Resolves that:
    1. member states must not conduct cyberwarfare on any legitimate medical institutions or civilian infrastructure,

    2. member states must not conduct cyberwarfare on any individual citizens of a nation, except where:
      1. the individual is a member of that nation’s military, or
      2. the individual is a member of that nation’s government or direct governmental staff, or
      3. the individual is actively involved in conducting attacks of any sort on the member state, its citizens, any of the member state's treatied allies, or any of the member state's treatied allies' citizens, or
      4. conducting cyberwarfare against that individual is absolutely necessary to prevent imminent loss of life, or
      5. conducting cyberwarfare against that individual constitutes enforcing extant WA legislation;
        and the information or infrastructure targeted by the member state's cyberwarfare is immediately relevant to the grounds for attacking that individual,

    3. member states must limit the damage caused by cyberwarfare they conduct, with the goal of limiting further cyberattacks or exploitation by opportunistic third parties, and

    4. member states must neither enable nor encourage non-compliant nations to conduct cyberwarfare.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!


ForAgainstAbstainPresent
01200

"Regulating Digital Warfare" was defeated 2,599 votes (17.3%) to 12,308 (82.7%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV

Overview
This resolution aims to create legislations in regulating the use of cyberattacks as a means of warfare. It does so by laying out various guidelines on the use of cyberattack, such as by defining targets which cannot be attacked, as well as forcing member states to limit the damage caused by the attack.

Recommendation
While the proposal is well-intentioned, problems with the definition of key terms, as well as the clunky wording of some of its clauses, has rendered the proposal ineffective. In its definition of cyberwarfare, the proposal fails to legislate against cyberattacks meant for the stealing of state secrets and sensitive data. The proposal also makes exceptions for cyberattacks against individuals directly employed by the state, which would potentially include teaching professionals and janitors for government facilities, given the current definition.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the GA resolution at-vote, "Regulating Digitial Warfare".

Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against

This proposal is way too simplistic to be considered a GA resolution. Furthermore, it does not list any punishments for intentionally engaging in cyberattacks or cyber-warfare, it only lists what nations should and should not do regarding cyberattacks.
 
Oh how I thought this might be worth supporting when I saw the title...and then was horribly disappointed. Overall, it's a good subject to legislate on, however I don't believe that it adequately covers it.

Against.

NPA Personnel
 
Against

This proposal is way too simplistic to be considered a GA resolution. Furthermore, it does not list any punishments for intentionally engaging in cyberattacks or cyber-warfare, it only lists what nations should and should not do regarding cyberattacks.
It's a GA Resolution, it doesn't need to set out punishments. If a nation doesn't comply, they get sent to the Compliance Commission.

This is a quite common sense set of guidelines over cyber warfare. I understand it may not be great, but it has no holes and gets the job done. A resounding For.
 
Last edited:
Against - I think this needs a lot of work, and there's more than a few holes in it, particularly with its definition of cyberattack.
 
It's a GA Resolution, it doesn't need to set out punishments. If a nation doesn't comply, they get sent to the Compliance Commission. This is a quite common sense set of guidelines over cyber warfare. I understand it may not be great, but it has no holes and gets the job done. A resounding For.
Continued to think about this: Freg made some compelling arguments in the WALL thread and I'm flipping Against.

Hulldom:
It's a GA Resolution, it doesn't need to set out punishments. If a nation doesn't comply, they get sent to the Compliance Commission.
This, however, does stand.
 
Author here. I'd be interested to know, specifically, what all these concerns are, considering nothing was brought to me over 3 months of drafting.
My TGs are open, as are my discord DMs, as is the on-site forum thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top