Loading…

Cyber Security without Cyber War

Which government agency should have primary responsibility for the Internet? The USA seems to have decided this question in favour of the military—the US military today has the largest concentration of expertise and legal authority with respect to cyberspace. Those in the legal community who support...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of conflict & security law 2012-07, Vol.17 (2), p.187-209
Main Author: O'Connell, Mary Ellen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5a3d92e3732a572ac97379bb831f411749a8424b36dfc2916ad6b500f788fed23
cites
container_end_page 209
container_issue 2
container_start_page 187
container_title Journal of conflict & security law
container_volume 17
creator O'Connell, Mary Ellen
description Which government agency should have primary responsibility for the Internet? The USA seems to have decided this question in favour of the military—the US military today has the largest concentration of expertise and legal authority with respect to cyberspace. Those in the legal community who support this development are divided as to the appropriate legal rules to guide the military in its oversight of the Internet. Specialists on the international law on the use of force argue that with analogy and interpretation, current international law can be applied in a way that allows great freedom without sending the message that the USA is acting lawlessly when it comes to the Internet. Others reject this argument as unnecessary and potentially too restrictive. The USA need not observe international law rules, especially not with respect to the Internet. The way forward is to follow the Cold War strategy of threatening enemies with overwhelming force and preparing to act on these threats. This article also questions the application of international law on the use of force to the Internet. Rather than rejecting international law in general, however, the thesis here is that international law rules governing economic activity and communications are the relevant ones for activity on the Internet. Moving away from military analogy in general and Cold War deterrence in particular, will result in the identification and application of rules with a far better chance of keeping the Internet open and safer for all.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jcsl/krs017
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jcsl_krs017</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26296226</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26296226</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5a3d92e3732a572ac97379bb831f411749a8424b36dfc2916ad6b500f788fed23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9j01LxDAURYMoOI6uXAvdS53kvTRpllL8ggEXzuAyJGmCrSOVJIP039uhw6ze5XG4l0PILaMPjCpc9S7tVt8xUSbPyIJxIUupBJyfcsUvyVVKPZ0ITtWCFM1ofSw-vNvHLo_FX5e_hn0-vj9NvCYXweySvzneJdk-P22a13L9_vLWPK5LhwxzWRlsFXiUCKaSYJySKJW1NbLA2TSmTM2BWxRtcKCYMK2wFaVB1nXwLeCS3M-9Lg4pRR_0b-x-TBw1o_ogpw9yepab6LuZ7lMe4gkFAZMuCPwHhxVLzw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cyber Security without Cyber War</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】</source><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>O'Connell, Mary Ellen</creator><creatorcontrib>O'Connell, Mary Ellen</creatorcontrib><description>Which government agency should have primary responsibility for the Internet? The USA seems to have decided this question in favour of the military—the US military today has the largest concentration of expertise and legal authority with respect to cyberspace. Those in the legal community who support this development are divided as to the appropriate legal rules to guide the military in its oversight of the Internet. Specialists on the international law on the use of force argue that with analogy and interpretation, current international law can be applied in a way that allows great freedom without sending the message that the USA is acting lawlessly when it comes to the Internet. Others reject this argument as unnecessary and potentially too restrictive. The USA need not observe international law rules, especially not with respect to the Internet. The way forward is to follow the Cold War strategy of threatening enemies with overwhelming force and preparing to act on these threats. This article also questions the application of international law on the use of force to the Internet. Rather than rejecting international law in general, however, the thesis here is that international law rules governing economic activity and communications are the relevant ones for activity on the Internet. Moving away from military analogy in general and Cold War deterrence in particular, will result in the identification and application of rules with a far better chance of keeping the Internet open and safer for all.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1467-7954</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-7962</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jcsl/krs017</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Computer law ; Cybersecurity ; Cyberspace ; International cooperation ; International law ; Internet ; Military alliances ; Right of self defense ; Treaties ; War</subject><ispartof>Journal of conflict &amp; security law, 2012-07, Vol.17 (2), p.187-209</ispartof><rights>Oxford University Press 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5a3d92e3732a572ac97379bb831f411749a8424b36dfc2916ad6b500f788fed23</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26296226$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26296226$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>O'Connell, Mary Ellen</creatorcontrib><title>Cyber Security without Cyber War</title><title>Journal of conflict &amp; security law</title><description>Which government agency should have primary responsibility for the Internet? The USA seems to have decided this question in favour of the military—the US military today has the largest concentration of expertise and legal authority with respect to cyberspace. Those in the legal community who support this development are divided as to the appropriate legal rules to guide the military in its oversight of the Internet. Specialists on the international law on the use of force argue that with analogy and interpretation, current international law can be applied in a way that allows great freedom without sending the message that the USA is acting lawlessly when it comes to the Internet. Others reject this argument as unnecessary and potentially too restrictive. The USA need not observe international law rules, especially not with respect to the Internet. The way forward is to follow the Cold War strategy of threatening enemies with overwhelming force and preparing to act on these threats. This article also questions the application of international law on the use of force to the Internet. Rather than rejecting international law in general, however, the thesis here is that international law rules governing economic activity and communications are the relevant ones for activity on the Internet. Moving away from military analogy in general and Cold War deterrence in particular, will result in the identification and application of rules with a far better chance of keeping the Internet open and safer for all.</description><subject>Computer law</subject><subject>Cybersecurity</subject><subject>Cyberspace</subject><subject>International cooperation</subject><subject>International law</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Military alliances</subject><subject>Right of self defense</subject><subject>Treaties</subject><subject>War</subject><issn>1467-7954</issn><issn>1467-7962</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9j01LxDAURYMoOI6uXAvdS53kvTRpllL8ggEXzuAyJGmCrSOVJIP039uhw6ze5XG4l0PILaMPjCpc9S7tVt8xUSbPyIJxIUupBJyfcsUvyVVKPZ0ITtWCFM1ofSw-vNvHLo_FX5e_hn0-vj9NvCYXweySvzneJdk-P22a13L9_vLWPK5LhwxzWRlsFXiUCKaSYJySKJW1NbLA2TSmTM2BWxRtcKCYMK2wFaVB1nXwLeCS3M-9Lg4pRR_0b-x-TBw1o_ogpw9yepab6LuZ7lMe4gkFAZMuCPwHhxVLzw</recordid><startdate>201207</startdate><enddate>201207</enddate><creator>O'Connell, Mary Ellen</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201207</creationdate><title>Cyber Security without Cyber War</title><author>O'Connell, Mary Ellen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5a3d92e3732a572ac97379bb831f411749a8424b36dfc2916ad6b500f788fed23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Computer law</topic><topic>Cybersecurity</topic><topic>Cyberspace</topic><topic>International cooperation</topic><topic>International law</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Military alliances</topic><topic>Right of self defense</topic><topic>Treaties</topic><topic>War</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>O'Connell, Mary Ellen</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of conflict &amp; security law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>O'Connell, Mary Ellen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cyber Security without Cyber War</atitle><jtitle>Journal of conflict &amp; security law</jtitle><date>2012-07</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>187</spage><epage>209</epage><pages>187-209</pages><issn>1467-7954</issn><eissn>1467-7962</eissn><abstract>Which government agency should have primary responsibility for the Internet? The USA seems to have decided this question in favour of the military—the US military today has the largest concentration of expertise and legal authority with respect to cyberspace. Those in the legal community who support this development are divided as to the appropriate legal rules to guide the military in its oversight of the Internet. Specialists on the international law on the use of force argue that with analogy and interpretation, current international law can be applied in a way that allows great freedom without sending the message that the USA is acting lawlessly when it comes to the Internet. Others reject this argument as unnecessary and potentially too restrictive. The USA need not observe international law rules, especially not with respect to the Internet. The way forward is to follow the Cold War strategy of threatening enemies with overwhelming force and preparing to act on these threats. This article also questions the application of international law on the use of force to the Internet. Rather than rejecting international law in general, however, the thesis here is that international law rules governing economic activity and communications are the relevant ones for activity on the Internet. Moving away from military analogy in general and Cold War deterrence in particular, will result in the identification and application of rules with a far better chance of keeping the Internet open and safer for all.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/jcsl/krs017</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1467-7954
ispartof Journal of conflict & security law, 2012-07, Vol.17 (2), p.187-209
issn 1467-7954
1467-7962
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jcsl_krs017
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】; Oxford Journals Online
subjects Computer law
Cybersecurity
Cyberspace
International cooperation
International law
Internet
Military alliances
Right of self defense
Treaties
War
title Cyber Security without Cyber War
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T03%3A27%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cyber%20Security%20without%20Cyber%20War&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20conflict%20&%20security%20law&rft.au=O'Connell,%20Mary%20Ellen&rft.date=2012-07&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=187&rft.epage=209&rft.pages=187-209&rft.issn=1467-7954&rft.eissn=1467-7962&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jcsl/krs017&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E26296226%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-5a3d92e3732a572ac97379bb831f411749a8424b36dfc2916ad6b500f788fed23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26296226&rfr_iscdi=true