Similar to the previous discussion on cyber security/defense, I do not think we should try to implement a global policy or treaty on cyber peace to prevent cyber warfare. This is because different …Read MoreSimilar to the previous discussion on cyber security/defense, I do not think we should try to implement a global policy or treaty on cyber peace to prevent cyber warfare. This is because different countries have their own standards, technological capacity, political interests, and security priorities, which makes a global cyber peace treaty very unrealistic and hard to enforce. The only way it could work was if the treaty was very vague–but then it wouldn’t actually be enforceable because its expectations would be too unclear to hold any national accountability.Read Less
I believe a global effort needs to happen for sure to prevent war, now a cyber warfare is very important too, which is why more cooperation on this would be ideal.
No. While the idea of a global cyber peace treaty sounds appealing, it is fundamentally unrealistic given the nature of cyberspace and international politics. Cyber capabilities are neow core …Read MoreNo. While the idea of a global cyber peace treaty sounds appealing, it is fundamentally unrealistic given the nature of cyberspace and international politics. Cyber capabilities are neow core components of national security, intelligence operations, and geopolitical competitions. No major power is willing to limit or disclose its offensive or defensive cyber technologies, let alone submit them to internationlal inspections. Consequently, any treaty would quickly become symbolic, which would be ratified in language but ignored in practice.
Cyber operations also suffer from different contribution problems. Determining the attackers, the orginal address, and the authorization is notoriously difficult. Therefore, enforcement becomes impossible without reliable attribution. State can deny involbement, use proxy groups, or route attacks through third countries, all will maintaining plausible deniability. A treaty that cannot verify violations or punish offenders would be inherently meangless and easily exploited by actors who intends to continue covert operations.
Finally, cyber warfare is driven by not only state but also decentralized hacker group, private contractors, even individuals and other informal networks that not government fully controls. A treaty signed by governments would not bind these no-state actors, leavinbg the mostr disruptive threats outside the framework entirely. Worse yet, authorization regimes and corrupt states could weapenize treaty mechanisms to demand international sympathy while secretly expanding cyber capabilities. Because of these structural limitations, a global cyber peace treaty would not prevent cyvber conflict and may increase the risk by providing a false sense of security while cyber warfare continues unabated. Read Less
Similar to the previous discussion on cyber security/defense, I do not think we should try to implement a global policy or treaty on cyber peace to prevent cyber warfare. This is because different …Read MoreSimilar to the previous discussion on cyber security/defense, I do not think we should try to implement a global policy or treaty on cyber peace to prevent cyber warfare. This is because different countries have their own standards, technological capacity, political interests, and security priorities, which makes a global cyber peace treaty very unrealistic and hard to enforce. The only way it could work was if the treaty was very vague–but then it wouldn’t actually be enforceable because its expectations would be too unclear to hold any national accountability. Read Less
I believe a global effort needs to happen for sure to prevent war, now a cyber warfare is very important too, which is why more cooperation on this would be ideal.
No. While the idea of a global cyber peace treaty sounds appealing, it is fundamentally unrealistic given the nature of cyberspace and international politics. Cyber capabilities are neow core …Read MoreNo. While the idea of a global cyber peace treaty sounds appealing, it is fundamentally unrealistic given the nature of cyberspace and international politics. Cyber capabilities are neow core components of national security, intelligence operations, and geopolitical competitions. No major power is willing to limit or disclose its offensive or defensive cyber technologies, let alone submit them to internationlal inspections. Consequently, any treaty would quickly become symbolic, which would be ratified in language but ignored in practice.
Cyber operations also suffer from different contribution problems. Determining the attackers, the orginal address, and the authorization is notoriously difficult. Therefore, enforcement becomes impossible without reliable attribution. State can deny involbement, use proxy groups, or route attacks through third countries, all will maintaining plausible deniability. A treaty that cannot verify violations or punish offenders would be inherently meangless and easily exploited by actors who intends to continue covert operations.
Finally, cyber warfare is driven by not only state but also decentralized hacker group, private contractors, even individuals and other informal networks that not government fully controls. A treaty signed by governments would not bind these no-state actors, leavinbg the mostr disruptive threats outside the framework entirely. Worse yet, authorization regimes and corrupt states could weapenize treaty mechanisms to demand international sympathy while secretly expanding cyber capabilities. Because of these structural limitations, a global cyber peace treaty would not prevent cyvber conflict and may increase the risk by providing a false sense of security while cyber warfare continues unabated. Read Less