A methodology for cyber operations targeting and control of collateral damage in the context of lawful armed conflict
Throughout history, the law of warfare has evolved to protect non-combatants and limit collateral damage. The same legal and ethical constraints apply to the conduct of cyber warfare, where it is similarly desirable to limit the effects of offensive actions to specific locations and groups. However, conventional wisdom suggests that this is extremely difficult, if not impossible to accomplish in the cyber domain. In this paper, we argue to the contrary. It is possible to constrain the effects of cyber actions to specifically desired, legitimate targets while significantly limiting collateral damage and injury to non-combatants. To this end we present a generalized methodology for analysis of the targeting and effects of cyber operations with respect to principles of lawful conduct in armed conflict. This methodology includes a framework of effects categories, target attributes and control measures to direct and constrain cyber operations. It also includes a process for evaluating these effects and controls against the principles for lawful conduct in armed conflict. We illustrate the methodology in action by applying it to W32.Stuxnet, software widely considered to be a cyber weapon. Our results indicate that it is entirely possible to analyze complex cyber war problems, identify legally authorized courses of action, and focus effects on desired targets while greatly minimizing collateral damage.
Why Iran Didn't Admit Stuxnet Was an Attack
The Stuxnet computer worm destroyed 1,000 centrifuges used in Iran to enrich uranium. The event is one of the first documented actual computer attacks. The paper discusses various ways Iran might have reacted to the event, and suggests reasons for its choice in the matter.
Bellum Americanum: the U.S. View of Twenty-First Century War and Its Possible Implications for the Law of Armed Conflict
Describes the US view of 21st century warfare and asks how such warfare will influence, and be influenced by, the law of armed conflict. Looks at elements of the law that do not fit well with such a vision. Addresses both the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello.