Analysis of Cyber Warfare Terms of Engagement and Global Impact

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of the terms of engagement in cyber warfare, a critical topic in the modern digital age. It begins by highlighting the increasing complexities of cyberspace and the strategic challenges cyber warfare poses to nations, emphasizing the need for globally recognized norms and rules. The essay explores the difficulties in attributing cyber-attacks and applying international law principles, using the 2008 Georgia cyber-attacks as an example. It discusses the challenges in defining the enemy and the blurred lines in cyber warfare, contrasting it with traditional conflicts. The discussion covers the Stuxnet worm and the vulnerability of critical infrastructure systems. The essay examines the creeping cyberwarfare between the USA and Russia, the need for multilateral processes, and the difficulties in identifying the source of attacks. It also touches on the USA's efforts to develop cyberwarfare policies and the principles that should govern state actions in cyberspace. The essay concludes by emphasizing the need for international treaties and agreements on cyber warfare to address the devastating potential of cyber weapons and ensure that retaliatory moves are legitimate and not excessive.

1
Terms of engagement for cyber warfare
Name
Course
Professor
School
City
Date

2
Introduction
The world needs cyber war terms of engagement to manage to the probably devastating cyber
weapons. Regardless of the growing complexities of the cyberspace along with the considerable
strategic challenge cyber warfare could pose vital interest to numerous nations particular rules
for the cyber warfare exist [1]. Countries need to seek to develop as well as maintain cyber
warfare rules to be able to develop the globally recognized norms, as well as mitigate the
problems on the essential governmental, commercial as well as private resources and assist hang
on the belligerent actors more accountable [12]. An example of cyber-attacks which occurred
against Georgia in the summer of the year 2008 provided a contemporary example to the
complexities which are associated to the cyber-attack attribution, application of the law for the
armed conflicts principles to the war as along with the international ineptitude of communities
when it comes to responding.
The terms of engagement of warfare are very clear and they have been spelled out in the Geneva
Convention. Various types of weapon have been banned and certain protection have existed for
the civilian as well as the medical entities [13]. However, when it comes to cyber warfare there
has been no clear policies on how to address on this issues. In this research it will examine the
aspect of terms of engagement for the cyber warfare. The focus will be how the world leader
have highlighted on the cyberwar rules of engagement since it has posed a challenge to many
nations.
The terms of engagement for the deployment of the cyber-weapons needs to be developed by the
nations so as to prevent any event which could arise [15]. The wars have traditionally been
waged between the nations or clearly defined groups which declare themselves in the conflict.
This has yet to happen openly on the internet, despite such accusations have been leveled against

3
countries such as China, Russia as well as other nations [11]. The aspect of the cyber warfare has
been more likely to reflect on the wars which are fought shadowy basically by the terrorist
network such as the Al-Qaeda as comparison to the conflict which exists between the uniformed
national military forces. One aspect of the war is that the lines need to be drawn and there should
be an understanding who is the enemy [12]. When it comes to the cyber-attack it is not possible
to know who to declare war to.
Discussion on rule of cyber conflicts
The discussion on the issue of the cyber conflict occurred after the infamous Stuxnet worm
which blamed for the infecting business control system as well as sabotaging centrifuges at the
contentious Iranian nuclear facilities [14]. Such was the world fist cyber weapon which happened
via the cyber-espionage in most of the guises which unquestionably happened to be practiced by
the intelligence agencies throughout the worldwide for many years. The computer systems
usually underpin the delivery of the essential services which can incorporate the utilities along
with telecoms along with the banking and the government services [16]. The vital national
infrastructure systems are the most privately held in most of the nations. The attack against these
critical systems could be commonplace since they tend to be low to the level of the information
stealing or even the denial of the services exploits [13]. There are many independent who are
expert particularly in the cyber security they are dismissing talk about the cyberwar hype [18].
The rules of the cyberwarfare they seek in the establishment of the protected domains for
example in the schools and the hospital which are off the limit of the attack.
Conflict between the nations

4
Currently, USA and Russia are engaged in the creeping cyberwarfare against one another [14].
They have gone to an extend of disabling or even undermining each other critical infrastructure.
The potential has deadly between these two countries and it has affected them adversely since
they are not subjected to any rudimentary rule or even mutual agreement which has existed to
govern them. There would be a need to fix, through the multilateral process which are under the
auspices of the United Nations [15]. Nonetheless, according to the British government sources
they highlighted to the BBC that they are not much convinced that there is need for a treaty
which could govern on the cyberspace conflict. Moreover, based on their view they think that
there is a need for a discussion on the proportional response especially on the attribution of the
source of the attack [3]. It is important to note that to identify the source of the cyber-assault that
could easily be launched from the networks which is compromised by the third-party.
There is need for the countries to agree on the basic notions for example what could constitute an
attack or even illegal intervention, as opposed to just the mere nuisance, and what has retaliatory
moves are more legitimate or even excessive [18]. The cyber security incidents such as the one
alleged that the Russian hacked the Democratic National Committee on their emails clearly
shows that in the USA as well as other major power they have not established any terms of
engagement such as those which governed their behavior in the cold war [17]. The problem
might be even more serious since the defense thinkers have only now begun to grapple on this
aspect when it comes to how the international conflict in the cyber arena could play out. An
example when it comes to the nuclear weapons there is a bold line which is established between
the use of the nuclear weapons and not using them, but when it comes to the cyber-crime there is
no such guidelines [11]. However, like the nuclear exchange, the computer warfare could be
whole lot easier to begin to manage. The basic question in relation to the second day of this war

5
have just begun to be asked; the technology has run much ahead of this doctrine to the extent of
the unmatched when it comes to the annals of the warfare.
View in regards to terms of engagement for the cyber warfare
The countries are beginning to develop their own cyberwarfare policies to be able to protect their
national interests, but defending themselves especially from the borderless internet may prove
very problematic [10]. There has been speculation among the politician as well as the pundits
that the aspect of war would soon extend to the internet, based on the recent report that the USA
department of Defense would introduce on the cyberwarfare doctrine [5]. The war has
traditionally been waged between the nation and this is yet to happen openly on the internet,
although this accusation has not been leveled against countries such as China as well as Russia.
As nations enters into the new era where there has been advancement in attackers which has
increased effort in order to steal the nations intellectual property, USA has been putting final
touches when it comes to the terms of engagement so as to respond to the cyber-attacks.
Moreover, the USA has been running stories on the new framework for having an effective cyber
response [9]. The rules which govern on the state action particularly in the cyberspace are much
similar to those which govern on the state behavior in other areas. When waging on the
cyberwar, there is need of ensuring that the attack as well as tactics are militarily important and
distinguishable between the combatants as well as the noncombatants and which is the force that
is used is much proportional to which gain has been achieved [7]. On the draft document which
is aimed to facilitate security aspect on the issue of cybercrime calls for the fresh definition of
the nation state with the new territories as well as the cyberspace which is beyond the
government [8]. In the proposal it clearly highlights that the ambiguity in regards to what
constitutes to the cyber conflict is the delay for the international policy to deal with the idea of

6
peace or even war which is simple in regards to the internet age when the world might find itself
in a third other than the war mode. Other countries are also following suit to be able to curb on
the issue of the cyber-crime such as UK they are developing the cyber weapons programs which
will have attacking capability in order to help counter growing of the threats to the national
security on the cyberspace [7]. Moreover, Australia has also highlighted that they are also
developing cybersecurity strategy to be in a position of confronting on the growing threat which
has been posed by the electronic espionage, theft as well as state sponsored cyber-attacks.
Laws on cyber warfare
According to the principle of jus ad bellum it means the right to war. This aims to limit the
rightful reason as to why state could fight by defining what kind of the action would constitute to
the act of the war and in a derivative sense, prescribed to what state actions are as well as not
acceptable especially during peacetime [6]. Based on this principle therefore, there is no
experience of the cyberwar since there is no state which has every declared one, even though
there has been cyber-conflict which has been common among the countries [4]. An example, in
Ukrainian power grid attack was part of the ongoing conflict, thus, it was an act of the war.
Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that despite widespread consensus in regards to who was
ultimately behind the attack there was no nation that reacted on the act of aggression nor did they
sought some recompense through the international legal avenues.
Over the years there has been major difficulties when it comes to prescribing to the right to a just
war when it comes to cyber [5]. This is because of the aspect of the attribution of the attack
which is either still not very good or even it entails release of the classified, sensitive
information, and confirming the identity of the aggressor is very difficult. It is through the
government and the private organization will they profess on the improvement of the capabilities

7
of attribution, hence providing the aggressor beyond any reasonable doubt to enable them face
the hurdles.
There has been international policy making time as well as effort which has been deployed
towards the development of the norms for the state behavior which is much way below the
threshold for the war and of the confidence building measures particularly for the cyberspace [2].
An example, is the Tallinn manual 1.0 which has begun development for the second version
which focuses on the international legal framework which applies to the cyber-operations which
should be below the threshold for the war.
Conclusion
The world today it needs the terms of engagement when it comes to the cyber warfare to be in a
position of coping with the devastating cyber weapons which have arisen over the years due to
the development of internet. When it comes to the cyber weapons they have attributes which
have not been seen previously with the traditional weapons nor are they considered when it
comes to the development of the current laws of war. The cyber weapon can deliver in the blink
of an eye the widest behavior which could be reproduced and at the same time transferred when
lacking the target discrimination. There is need for the international treaties which would govern
the countries when it comes to the cyber warfare which has significantly affected many nations.
The countries need to engage and agree on the basic notions for example on what constitutes to
the attack or even the illegal intervention as compared to the mere nuisance and what retaliatory
moves are legitimate or even excessive when addressing on the issue of the cyber warfare. There
should be terms of engagement which are developed between the countries to enable them guide
one another. In USA NATO have presented the second edition of the Tallinn Manual which
clearly examines on the current international laws which can be applied to the issue of the cyber

8
warfare. This manual was compiled based on the Cyberattacks which have occurred globally.
The terms of engagement policies needs to be developed to respond on the attack of cyber war
that could occur. In this research, it has examined on the aspect of terms of engagement for the
cyber warfare which has been a predominant issues that is not addressed fully. The research has
provided a clear guidelines on how different nations are approaching on the issue and the
possible laws which are being applied to address it with emphasis with some recommendations.

9
References
[1] Andress J, Winterfeld S. Cyber warfare: techniques, tactics and tools for security
practitioners. Elsevier; 2013 Oct 1.
[2] Beidleman SW. Defining and deterring cyber war. ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE
BARRACKS PA; 2009 Jan 6.
[3] Carr J. Inside cyber warfare: Mapping the cyber underworld. " O'Reilly Media, Inc."; 2011
Dec 12.
[4] Caso JS. The rules of engagement for cyber-warfare and the Tallinn Manual: A case study.
InCyber Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), 2014 IEEE 4th
Annual International Conference on 2014 Jun 4 (pp. 252-257). IEEE.
[5] Crawford BC. Information warfare: Its application in military and civilian contexts. The
Information Society. 1999 Nov 1;15(4):257-63.
[6] Farwell JP, Rohozinski R. The new reality of cyber war. Survival. 2012 Sep 1;54(4):107-20.
[7] Greengard S. The new face of war. Communications of the ACM. 2010 Dec 1;53(12):20-2.
[8] Hoisington M. Cyberwarfare and the use of force giving rise to the right of self-defense. BC
Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.. 2009;32:439.
[9] Kelsey JT. Hacking into international humanitarian law: The principles of distinction and
neutrality in the age of cyber warfare. Michigan Law Review. 2008 May 1:1427-51.
[10] Lewis JA. The" Korean" Cyber Attacks and Their Implications for Cyber Conflict.
[11] Lindley-French J. Terms of engagement. The paradox of American power and the. 2002
May.
[12] Lynn WJ. Defending a new domain: the Pentagon's cyberstrategy. Foreign Affairs. 2010
Sep 1;89(5):97-108.
[13] Reich PC, Weinstein S, Wild C, Cabanlong AS. Cyber warfare: a review of theories, law,
policies, actual incidents–and the dilemma of anonymity. European Journal of Law and
Technology. 2010 Oct 7;1(2).
[14] Robinson M, Jones K, Janicke H. Cyber warfare: Issues and challenges. Computers &
security. 2015 Mar 31;49:70-94.
[15] Schaap AJ. Cyber warfare operations: Development and use under international law. AFL
Rev.. 2009;64:121.

10
[16] Schmitt MN, editor. Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare.
Cambridge University Press; 2013 Mar 7.
[17] Swanson L. The era of cyber warfare: Applying international humanitarian law to the 2008
Russian-Georgian cyber conflict. Loy. LA Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.. 2010;32:303.
[18] Tirenin W, Faatz D. A concept for strategic cyber defense. InMilitary Communications
Conference Proceedings, 1999. MILCOM 1999. IEEE 1999 (Vol. 1, pp. 458-463). IEEE.