Interesting paper, but not a smart approach. Well, a very ...uhm American approach to the problem. Unilateral.
Better would be to think about an internationally accepted (within the UN framework) mechanism to deal with these attacks. Define what is permissible and what is "over the line". Then define required actions and accepted sanctions when an attack occures.
Governments will always blame it on some "hackers". But a mechanism could define how a government MUST procede when a grave attack is carried out from within its territory. Maybe it MUST accept that law enforcement of the target nation has the right to check equipment used in the offending nation.
Overall, such an international mechanism should be set up to make it more difficult to sneakily carry our those attacks and hide behind some "hackers" accusation.
However, I doubt that the US would be willing to submit to such a mechanism. Because I believe they would be sitting more often on the offending site than on the target site. Until now, the US has not even submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and similar important mechanisms to stop and procecute attrocities against humanity committed during war. The US knows very well why they don't submit to such a court, of course. Same would most likely be the case for any international mechanism against government cyber crimes.
No, they have Security Council veto votes. This has nothing to do with the UNSC.
However, it would only be useful if nations like the US and China could be made to participate, so negotiating this would not be easy. At the end however, it would be beneficial for all participants.
Now, why would it be a bad idea? Any argument, or "just because"?
A lot of people don't like the UN.
A lot of people don't like the ICJ.
How does the UN or ICJ provide "similar important mechanisms to stop and procecute attrocities against humanity committed during war" ?
The whole war crimes thing is kind of a farce, if we look at the Nuremberg counts 1 & 2; we must ask ourselves how was russia on the bench instead of in front of it? There are much better critiques than I can muster right now.
«how was russia on the bench instead of in front of it?»
They didn't lose a war; if I recall correctly, it wasn't until Stalin died and Khrushchev gave the Secret Speech that we learned of how bad Stalinist abuses were.
Counts:
1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
Russia & Germany planned to divide Poland; how was Russia's invasion different than the Germans?
As to the comment - "They didn't lose the war" is exactly my point, that's not justice.
Your discussion goes into the completely wrong direction. And you are discussion something that happened 60 years ago. Not only the microchip, the international system too, has evolved a lot since then. A lot.
>> that's not justice.
Nobody ever said it was justice. The UN and the ICJ are only just a first step to finally free the international system from anarchy. Think of it as programming by punching holes in cards. There is still a long way ahead, but it is a good beginning.
Well, "a lot of people" don't like courts, either. But we still have them, because its the best system we have come up with, so far, to make the world a better and more livable/secure place for everybody. Maybe there is a better way, but humanity hasn't discovered it yet.
Violence and threats have, in the past, shown that they are always the worse option in the long term. Unilatral violence just looks appealing to the simple minded, because its easy to understand. I still hope that politics is not entirely many by the simple minded, though.
If you want to learn about the UN or ICJ, there is a lot of academic material out there on the tubes. It is a much to complex issue to be "quickly" discussed on a hacker board. You probably would not discuss Erlang in a political science forum either ;)
I am pretty well informed on both the UN & ICJ and while I can say I agree with what their goals are I think the means and implementation are completely incorrect. I think that not intervention and human relief/asylum/evacuation are the ways to deal with international problems.
I prefer a loosely integrated system where it's hard for anyone group to gain control. This requires decentralization & a lack of strong international organizations.
I'd like to note, that I'm interested in stability & corruption - worst case scenarios, etc. If you have anything you recommend that addresses those issues I'd like to read it. And lastly, I'd like to quote milton friedman: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
I agree with you view on crisis reaction, that is not intervention and hunman relief. And the UN does that most of the time. That is why Blue Helmets are usually regarded as "useless" by many, because they don't fight. Unfortunately, that leeds to bad press and public opinion.
The UN is important as a mechanism of creating trust between nations, as a standardized communication platform. That is its main purpose. It publishes treaties, it has specialized forums to deal with different policy topics and create common rules, etc.
A loosely integrated system leads to the most physically powerful group to control everybody else, with no rules what so ever. Then Rumsfeld's "Enemy Fighters" (for who the Genevoa Convention does not count according to the Bush Government) would be the norm, not the shameful exception. That does not sound like a good idea.
I agree that the UN and the ICJ have tons of shortcomings, but its the best humanity has been ably to come up with so far to organize the international system.
Better would be to think about an internationally accepted (within the UN framework) mechanism to deal with these attacks. Define what is permissible and what is "over the line". Then define required actions and accepted sanctions when an attack occures.
Governments will always blame it on some "hackers". But a mechanism could define how a government MUST procede when a grave attack is carried out from within its territory. Maybe it MUST accept that law enforcement of the target nation has the right to check equipment used in the offending nation.
Overall, such an international mechanism should be set up to make it more difficult to sneakily carry our those attacks and hide behind some "hackers" accusation.
However, I doubt that the US would be willing to submit to such a mechanism. Because I believe they would be sitting more often on the offending site than on the target site. Until now, the US has not even submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and similar important mechanisms to stop and procecute attrocities against humanity committed during war. The US knows very well why they don't submit to such a court, of course. Same would most likely be the case for any international mechanism against government cyber crimes.