Reliable Old Wineskins: The Applicability of the Just War Tradition to Military Cyber Operations

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Edward T. Barrett
• 关键词：Military cyber ; Just war ; Forfeiture ; Jus ad bellum ; Jus in bello ; Information ethics ; Attribution ; Tallinn Manual
• 刊名：Philosophy & Technology
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：September 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：28
• 期：3
• 页码：387-405
• 全文大小：247 KB
• 参考文献：Brady, J. B. (1987). A ‘rights-based-theory of punishment. Ethics, 97, 792-95.View Article
  Carr, J. (2010). Inside cyber warfare (pp. 45-5). Cambridge: O’Reilly Media.
  Dipert, R. (2010). The ethics of cyberwarfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 384-10.
  Dipert, R. (2012). Distinctive ethical issues of cyberwarfare. In C. Czosseck, R. Ottis, & K. Ziolkowski (Eds.), 4th international conference on cyber conflict. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publications.
  Dipert, R. (2013). Other-than-Internet (OTI) cyberwarfare: challenges for ethics, law, and policy. Journal of Military Ethics, 34-3.
  Floridi, L. (1999). Information ethics: on the philosophical foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 1.
  Floridi, L. (2008a). Information ethics: its nature and scope. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Moral philosophy and information technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Floridi, L. (2008b). Information ethics: a reappraisal. Ethics and Information Technology, 10.
  Haksar, V. (1986). Excuses and voluntary conduct. Ethics, 96, 319-29.View Article
  Harman, E. (2004).? Can we harm and benefit in creating?”?Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 89-13.
  Hurka, T. (2005). Proportionality in the morality of war. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 33 (1).
  Klocksiem, J. (2012).? A defense of the conterfactual comparative account of harm.? American Philosophical Quarterly , 49, 285-00.
  McMahan, J. (2003). Killing in war. New York: Oxford University Press.
  Melzer, N. (2009). Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law (pp. 70-1). Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
  Rid, T. (2013). Cyber war will not take place. London: Hurst & Company.
  Rodin, D. (2003). War and self-defense. Oxford University Press. 779-3.
  Schmitt, M. (2011). Cyber operations and the jus in bello: key issues.? In R. Pedrozo?& D. Wollschlaeger (Eds.), International law and the changing character of war.? US Naval War College International Law Series, 87, 89-10.
  Schmitt, M. (2012). International law in cyberspace: the Koh speech and the Tallinn manual juxtaposed. Harvard International Law Journal, 54, 26-7.
  Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2013a). The Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Schmitt, M. (2013). Five myths in the debate about cyber war. 23 September 2013.
  Taddeo, M. (2012a). An analysis for a just cyber warfare. In 4th international conference on cyber conflict. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publications.
  Taddeo, M. (2012). Information warfare: a philosophical perspective. Philosophy and Technology, 25.
  
• 作者单位：Edward T. Barrett (1)
  
  1. Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, USA
  
• 刊物主题：Philosophy of Technology;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：2210-5441

文摘

This article argues that the traditional jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria are fully capable of providing the ethical guidance needed to legitimately conduct military cyber operations. The first part examines the criteria’s foundations by focusing on the notion of liability to defensive harm worked out by revisionist just war thinkers. The second part critiques the necessity of alternative frameworks, which its proponents assert are required to at least supplement the traditional just war criteria. Using the latter, the third part evaluates ethical issues germane to responding to cyber force, including casus belli, moral aspects of “the attribution problem,-and respective rights and duties when attacks involve innocent third-party states. The fourth part addresses in bello issues, including compliance with discrimination, necessity, and civilian due care imperatives; whether civilians may be targeted with sub-“use of force-cyber-attacks and the permissibility of using civilian contractors to conduct cyber-attacks. Throughout these analyses, conclusions are brought into conversation with those of The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare.