DOCSLIB.ORG

Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm by William James Jordan A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2021 © William James Jordan 2021 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. Thedeci­ sion of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner: Col. David Barnes Professor, Department of English and Philosophy United States Military Academy Supervisor: W. Mathieu Doucet Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Brian D. Orend Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Patricia A. Marino Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal­External Member: Veronica M. Kitchen Associate Professor, Department of Political Science University of Waterloo ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my ex­ aminers. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the pub­ lic. iii Abstract Cyberwarfare, military activities in cyberspace conducted by a state against another state and intended to disrupt or destroy computing or communica­ tion systems or data, is a recent addition to the warfaring arsenal. The in­ ternational laws of armed conflict set out an obligation for states at warto protect civilians from the effects of the conflict. As societies continue toex­ pand their activities in the cyber realm, the risk of cyberwarfare negatively affecting the civilian population increases. The international community, recognizing this risk, is engaged in a political dance trying to identify the constraints that international law already places on cyberwarfare while stak­ ing out ground to preserve its effectiveness as a means of influencing other states’ policies. This dissertation project addresses some of the problems posed by the use of computing and network technology as weapons and tar­ gets in the context of international armed conflict. It brings together mate­ rial drawn from computing technology, military handbooks, policy research, international standards for records preservation, non­government organiza­ tions, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the international laws of armed conflict, and real­world examples to reveal the complexity and nuances of using operations in cyberspace to produce ef­ fects in meatspace, the physical world of humans, buildings, equipment, and artefacts. First, I argue that since there is no significant difference between using cyber means of war and conventional means of war, it is appropriate to treat developments in cyberwarfare under the existing international laws of armed conflict. Then I introduce the Tallinn Manual, a handbook on the in­ ternational law applicable to cyber operations, and the events that led to its development. I examine how well the Tallinn Manual documents the pro­ tections, prohibitions, and permissions extended under the laws of armed conflict, concluding that it is a faithful interpretation of international law. The application of international law to warfare is always messy andim­ precise. Its application to cyberwarfare is no different. This does not mean that the constraints of international law are without value or purpose. On the assumption that no state wants to start an international armed conflict, but is prepared to respond to uses of force, I apply some of the principles expressed in the Tallinn Manual to establish qualitative assessments of the severity of initial aggressive cyberoperations against a state, classifying them v as moderate or flagrant attacks depending on the harm they produced. This helps the target state determine whether there is just cause for a use of force, either cyber or conventional, in response, and the constraints that apply to any response that may be permissible under international law. International law also affords protections for human rights, both in peace­ time and during times of conflict. I argue that cyberwarfare exposes more civilian objects, including objects of cultural significance and records needed to safeguard human rights, to harm through both conventional and cyber at­ tacks. If human rights are to be protected, the records (digital or otherwise) that serve as evidence in support of rights claims must be protected as well. I conclude that international law already sets out the obligation for these protections, but the interpretation of international law must make explicit the expectation that all parties in an armed conflict will make efforts to iden­ tify and preserve these objects for the well­being of persons in a post­conflict society. Finally, I demonstrate the breadth and applicability of further work in this area. I point out some other problems that branch off from this partic­ ular project: the separation of information content from its representation in different media, human rights in the cyber domain, the use ofcomput­ ing and communication technology to produce social or economic disrup­ tion, the status of privately­owned satellites under the multiple international treaties and conventions during times of armed conflict, and the assignment of peacetime responsibility for safeguarding data essential for the protection and provision of human rights. vi Acknowledgements The journey from burned­out software designer to doctoral candidate in philosophy has been a long one. Along the way I have benefitted from the encouragement (and only rarely the kind from a metaphoric boot), support, and advocacy of more people than I can mention here. I am grateful to Shelly Jordan, my wife and friend. Shelly introduced me to philosophy while she was a graduate student at the University of Calgary. Richard Zach and Elaine Landry (now at University of California, Davis) showed me that I, too, could learn to do philosophy, and the conversations I had with them and Marc Ereshefsky led me to consider doing graduate studies. Elaine specifically pointed me to Waterloo as the place to explore my philosophical interests. Jeremy Clark (University of Canterbury) encour­ aged me to start this journey sooner rather than later. I had no idea what I was in for, but I am glad that I did this. The department at Waterloo has been wonderful. Tim Kenyon (currently at Brock University) and Dave DeVidi took a chance on admitting this late­ comer to philosophy. They also advocated for me during a time ofdeep personal struggle. Dave supervised my research area in logic and, with Matt Doucet, coached me through the research area in cyberwar. Brian Orend’s lunchtime talk on cyberwarfare, coming on the heels of the Stuxnet and Flame attacks, inspired the research area and this dissertation. Patricia Marino, Shannon Dea (now at the University of Regina), Doreen Fraser, Carla Fehr, Richard Holmes, and Joe Novak have all helped me stay afloat during times of potential disaster. For these I thank them, and I hope I have not disappointed them too badly. I acknowledge the generosity of the donors to the University of Water­ loo and the Department of Philosophy for the conference travel awards and dissertation completion award. The conversations and friendships with graduate student colleagues An­ dria Bianchi, Tracy Finn, Nathan Haydon, Eric Hochstein (University of Victoria), Kurt Holukoff, Ashley Keefner, Catherine Klausen, Ian MacDon­ ald, Kirsten MacDonald, Dylon McChesney, Micheal McEwen, Andrew Mor­ gan, Corey Mulvihill, Ben Nelson, and Angella Yamamoto will not quickly fade. Thank you for the laughter and encouragement. Greg Andres has been a great friend and mentor in pedagogy. I am not sure that I am forgiven for convincing him to lead a textbook project. It was vii one crazy ride, and the process of writing a textbook unlocked the flow of words needed to write this dissertation. Thank you for that opportunity. Bill Abbott, Vanessa Correia, Sandie DeVries, Dylon McChesney, Jamie Sewell, Andy Stumpf, Chris Wass, and Sara Weaver were fellow collaborators, and I am thankful for their work and inspiration to keep writing stuff. Greg, let’s do this again soon. This dissertation grew out of a research area in the applicability ofin­ ternational law to cyberwarfare. That research area produced two confer­ ence presentations. I appreciate the responses and feedback from attendees and commentators, who helped assure me of the value of further develop­ ing the project. The members of my internal dissertation committee have all provided invaluable guidance. Matt Doucet, my supervisor, helped me keep intermediate goals in view rather than getting lost in the shadows lurk­ ing just beyond where I was working. Patricia Marino’s initial support of the project and her ongoing affirmation that it was on a good philosophi­ cal track helped me keep going. Brian Orend, in addition to sparking the project, has been more than generous in his comments on earlier versions of the dissertation. I expected Brian to be the toughest critic of this work. He did not disappoint, but I was amazed by the encouraging manner in which he provided that criticism. Brian’s commentary was on­point and inspiring. He corrected some misunderstandings, gave helpful suggestions for further development of ideas, identified ways to sharpen the focus of the disserta­ tion, and provided reason to expand my book collection. The dissertation is much improved because of his feedback. I hope to have the opportunity to pay this debt forward. Debbie Dietrich, Trish van Berkel, Angela Christelis, and Tawnessa Carter, the department’s graduate administrators during my time at Waterloo, have all been key in navigating the University’s processes and the glitches that always seem to arise. I thank Mikhael Evstafiev for permission to include his photograph of Vedran Smailović in this dissertation. The academy is not the only source of support I have had. Ithankmy circles of friends, and in particular those whom I have met in Waterloo, for practical help and encouragement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Cyberwarfare Ethics As It Pertains to Civilian Computer Networks/Infrastructures
    Analysis of Cyberwarfare Ethics as It Pertains to Civilian Computer Networks/Infrastructures Vanessa Paradine Terms of Reference and Scope The Department of Defense (DoD) currently operates more than fifteen thousand different computer networks across four thousand military installations around the world, with as many as seven million DoD computers and telecommunications tools in use in eighty-eight countries.1 These networks experience over six million unauthorized probes per day.2 Due to the close integration of DoD and commercial networks, an attack within the cyber domain may significantly impact critical civilian infrastructures and networks. For the purpose of this article, the following definitions are pro­ vided: • Cyberspace, as defined by the National Security Presidential Di­ rective 541H0meland Security Presidential Directive 23, is "the interdependent network of information technology infrastruc­ tures, and includes the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers in critical industries."3 • Cyberspace operations is defined as "the employment of cy­ berspace capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve military objectives or effects in or through cyberspace."4 • Cyberwarfare/cyberattack has not been defined by the Depart­ ment of the Defense (DoD); however, according to Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III, it can include a range of things-"from exploitation and exfiltration of data to degrada­ tion of networks to destruction of networks or even physical equipment, physical property."5 • Cyber Threats6 o Virtual-nonkinetic threats to DoD information networks that are just as real and damaging as physical threats. 34 Internatianal Journal of Intelligence Ethics, Vol. 4, No. 1 / Spring/Summer 2013 Analysis of Cyberwarfare Ethics 35 o Physical-kinetic threats mixed with nonkinetic threats; can severely impact the effectiveness of military joint operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 97 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2007 At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W. Brenner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Susan W. Brenner, At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 379 (2006-2007) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9702-0379 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 97. No. 2 Copyright 0 2007 by NorthwesternUniversity. Schoolof Low Printedin U.S.A. "AT LIGHT SPEED": ATTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE TO CYBERCRIME/TERRORISM/WARFARE SUSAN W. BRENNER* This Article explains why and how computer technology complicates the related processes of identifying internal (crime and terrorism) and external (war) threats to social order of respondingto those threats. First, it divides the process-attribution-intotwo categories: what-attribution (what kind of attack is this?) and who-attribution (who is responsiblefor this attack?). Then, it analyzes, in detail, how and why our adversaries' use of computer technology blurs the distinctions between what is now cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyberwarfare. The Article goes on to analyze how and why computer technology and the blurring of these distinctions erode our ability to mount an effective response to threats of either type.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Sonicwall Cyber Threat Report
    2020 SONICWALL CYBER THREAT REPORT sonicwall.com I @sonicwall TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 A NOTE FROM BILL 4 CYBERCRIMINAL INC. 11 2019 GLOBAL CYBERATTACK TRENDS 12 INSIDE THE SONICWALL CAPTURE LABS THREAT NETWORK 13 KEY FINDINGS FROM 2019 13 SECURITY ADVANCES 14 CRIMINAL ADVANCES 15 FASTER IDENTIFICATION OF ‘NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN’ MALWARE 16 TOP 10 CVES EXPLOITED IN 2019 19 ADVANCEMENTS IN DEEP MEMORY INSPECTION 23 MOMENTUM OF PERIMETER-LESS SECURITY 24 PHISHING DOWN FOR THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR 25 CRYPTOJACKING CRUMBLES 27 RANSOMWARE TARGETS STATE, PROVINCIAL & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 31 FILELESS MALWARE SPIKES IN Q3 32 ENCRYPTED THREATS GROWING CONSISTENTLY 34 IOT ATTACK VOLUME RISING 35 WEB APP ATTACKS DOUBLE IN 2019 37 PREPARING FOR WHAT’S NEXT 38 ABOUT SONICWALL 2 A NOTE FROM BILL The boundaries of your digital empire are In response, SonicWall and our Capture Labs limitless. What was once a finite and threat research team work tirelessly to arm defendable space is now a boundless organizations, enterprises, governments and territory — a vast, sprawling footprint of businesses with actionable threat devices, apps, appliances, servers, intelligence to stay ahead in the global cyber networks, clouds and users. arms race. For the cybercriminals, it’s more lawless And part of that dedication starts now with than ever. Despite the best intentions of the 2020 SonicWall Cyber Threat Report, government agencies, law enforcement and which provides critical threat intelligence to oversight groups, the current cyber threat help you better understand how landscape is more agile than ever before. cybercriminals think — and be fully prepared for what they’ll do next.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Security Threat Report Volume 24 | February 2019
    ISTRInternet Security Threat Report Volume 24 | February 2019 THE DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE DISCLAIMED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DISCLAIMERS ARE HELD TO BE LEGALLY INVALID. SYMANTEC CORPORATION SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE FURNISHING, PERFORMANCE, OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THIRD PARTY SOURCES IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, BUT IS IN NO WAY GUARANTEED. SECURITY PRODUCTS, TECHNICAL SERVICES, AND ANY OTHER TECHNICAL DATA REFERENCED IN THIS DOCUMENT (“CONTROLLED ITEMS”) ARE SUBJECT TO U.S. EXPORT CONTROL AND SANCTIONS LAWS, REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS, AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO EXPORT OR IMPORT REGULATIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. YOU AGREE TO COMPLY STRICTLY WITH THESE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ANY LICENSES, PERMITS OR OTHER APPROVALS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO EXPORT, RE-EXPORT, TRANSFER IN COUNTRY OR IMPORT SUCH CONTROLLED ITEMS. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 BIG NUMBERS YEAR-IN-REVIEW FACTS AND FIGURES METHODOLOGY Formjacking Messaging Cryptojacking Malware Ransomware Mobile Living off the land Web attacks and supply chain attacks Targeted attacks Targeted attacks IoT Cloud Underground economy IoT Election interference MALICIOUS
    [Show full text]
  • Systematization of Vulnerability Discovery Knowledge: Review
    Systematization of Vulnerability Discovery Knowledge Review Protocol Nuthan Munaiah and Andrew Meneely Department of Software Engineering Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 {nm6061,axmvse}@rit.edu February 12, 2019 1 Introduction As more aspects of our daily lives depend on technology, the software that supports this technology must be secure. We, as users, almost subconsciously assume the software we use to always be available to serve our requests while preserving the confidentiality and integrity of our information. Unfortunately, incidents involving catastrophic software vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed (in OpenSSL), Stagefright (in Android), and EternalBlue (in Windows) have made abundantly clear that software, like other engineered creations, is prone to mistakes. Over the years, Software Engineering, as a discipline, has recognized the potential for engineers to make mistakes and has incorporated processes to prevent such mistakes from becoming exploitable vulnerabilities. Developers leverage a plethora of processes, techniques, and tools such as threat modeling, static and dynamic analyses, unit/integration/fuzz/penetration testing, and code reviews to engineer secure software. These practices, while effective at identifying vulnerabilities in software, are limited in their ability to describe the engineering failures that may have led to the introduction of vulnerabilities. Fortunately, as researchers propose empirically-validated metrics to characterize historical vulnerabilities, the factors that may have led to the introduction of vulnerabilities emerge. Developers must be made aware of these factors to help them proactively consider security implications of the code that they contribute. In other words, we want developers to think like an attacker (i.e. inculcate an attacker mindset) to proactively discover vulnerabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum
    The Unjustness of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum by Dan G. Cox us post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of Jjus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning, as one has to calculate how much collateral damage is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has recently been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the long-term well-being of the people it has defeated. This has led to a concerted outcry for post-war nation-building, which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations, nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether, replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest—liberal imperialism.1 Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition, even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This article is an exploration of the current incantation of jus post bellum. The concept of an incantation was chosen purposively, as proponents of jus post bellum are engaging in a dogmatic approach to war termination oblivious to the complexities and realities of conflict and, in fact, in violation of just war theory itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Warfare.Pdf
    1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5 Evolution of Non-Kinetic Warfare 6 Origins 6 Psychological Warfare (PsyOps) 7 Electronic Warfare (EW) 7 Cyberwarfare 8 Information Warfare 8 Cognitive Warfare 9 Goals of Cognitive Warfare 11 Destabilization 12 Case 1: Destabilization through Confusion 13 Case 2: Destabilization by Sowing Division 15 Case 3: Destabilization as a Means to Influence 17 Influence 20 Case 1: Influencing to Recruit 21 Case 2: Influencing Policy Enactment 22 Case 3: Influencing as a Means to Destabilize 23 Future Threats 27 Looking Ahead 27 Threat 1: Ease of Selection and Virality 29 Threat 2: A New Age of Truth 30 Threat 3: Cyber-induced Institutional Discomfort and Distrust 31 Threat 4: Biological and Therapeutic Emotional Manipulation 32 Threat 5: Enhanced Recruitment of Agents 33 Strategy Recommendations 35 Threat Recognition Framework and Criteria 35 Risk Assessment 36 Organizational Implementations 37 Offensive Considerations 39 Closing Thoughts 40 Bibliography 41 2 Executive Summary Warfare has shifted dramatically over the past several decades, moving away from the physical threats of conventional warfare. War now moves towards the social and ideological threats brought about by mass media and advances in technology. The advent of this new type of warfare is different from anything we have seen before. Although it takes elements from previous types of hybrid warfare, the reach and level of impact it possesses make it far more dangerous than its predecessors. We have dubbed this new way of war cognitive warfare. ​ ​ Cognitive warfare, although sharing various similarities to other non-conventional and non-kinetic types of warfare/operations, is ultimately unique in its execution and purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Cox, Abstract, the Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum
    The Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum Dan G. Cox, Ph. D., School of Advanced Military Studies, US Army, [email protected] 9137583319 Abstract: Jus post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of jus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning as one has to calculate how much collateral damage, even if allowed for in just in bello, is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the well-being of the people and/or nation it has defeated. This has led to a concerted cry for post-war nation-building which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest; liberal imperialism1. Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This paper will explore the genesis and evolution of the jus post bellum concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewed Through the Prism of Clausewitzian Strategy
    CYBERWAR – VIEWED THROUGH THE PRISM OF CLAUSEWITZIAN STRATEGY Commodore Vishwanathan K Ganapathi, VSM Introduction In a globalised world where speed and reliability of information exchange is thesine qua non of technological advancement, the importance of cyberspace to a country is immeasurable. Knowledge and awareness, which derive from the degree to which cyberspace can be exploited for rapidly storing, manipulating and disseminating data, have become important measures of a nation’s power.1 As a consequence, the destruction or disruption of any of the constituent elements of cyberspace from a cyber attack would not just blunt a country’s ability to gain strategic advantage from its technological superiority but would gravely threaten its security as well. Depending on their intensity and complexity, cyber attacks can inflict a wide spectrum of damage ranging from less dangerous depredations like the theft of personal information and digital heists to highly destructive actions like the disruption of critical infrastructure- ‘the facilities, systems, sites and networks necessary for the delivery of essential services and functions’2 - industrial sabotage, subversion, data destruction or theft of sensitive information. It is the latter category, most often believed to be orchestrated for political reasons by a potential adversary, which has transformed cyber attacks from being perceived as a trivial problem befitting address by an IT professional to one that merits the focus of policy planners and strategists alike.3 The concerns of governments about the gravity of the threat from cyber attacks stem from the certitude that easily accessible destructive technologies are being exploited by state and non-state actors alike to launch attacks even against powerful adversaries several thousand miles away.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuing Airworthiness Management Its Contribution to Identifying Evidence of Ageing in Aircraft
    AAPWG Paper 013 Ageing Aircraft Programmes Working Group (AAPWG) Paper 013 Continuing Airworthiness Management its Contribution to Identifying Evidence of Ageing in Aircraft Martin Hepworth Final Issue June 2017 ii 1. DISTRIBUTION Task Sponsor Dr Steve Reed, Dstl Mrs Mandy Cox, MAA-Cert-Structures4-Gen AAPWG Members AAPWG Members at time of paper release iii 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Defence Science and Technology Laboratories (dstl), with the support of the Military Aviation Authority through the Ageing Aircraft Programmes Working Group (AAPWG), have initiated a research and development programme titled “Understanding Ageing Aircraft”. This paper contributes to the dstl programme by seeking to explore continuing airworthiness management activities that might identify the onset of ageing. The UK MOD policy for ageing aircraft centres round carrying out an Ageing Aircraft Audit (AAA) 15 years after a type’s in-services date or at the mid-point between the declared ISD and the initial planned Out of Service Date (OSD) whichever is soonest. Repeat audits should be conducted at 10 year intervals thereafter. However, it is recognised that ageing is a progressive process that commences from manufacture and an in-service programme of monitoring ageing would be advantageous. The responsibilities of both a Type Airworthiness Authority (TAA) and a Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO) include data collection and associated analysis, functions which are recognised as essential tools in identifying potential ageing in aircraft. The concept of an Operator’s CAMO was first introduced as a Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) requirement; this was later subsumed into EC2042/2003[1] the European Aviation Safety Authority’s regulation for Continuing Airworthiness (CAW).
    [Show full text]
  • Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts
    Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts Susan W. Brenner* with Leo L. Clarke** ABSTRACT Civilian-owned and -operated entities will almost certainly be a target in cyberwarfare because cyberattackers are likely to be more focused on undermining the viability of the targeted state than on invading its territory. Cyberattackers will probably target military computer systems, at least to some extent, but in a departure from traditional warfare, they will also target companies that operate aspects of the victim nation’s infrastructure. Cyberwarfare, in other words, will penetrate the territorial borders of the attacked state and target high-value civilian businesses. Nation-states will therefore need to integrate the civilian employees of these (and perhaps other) companies into their cyberwarfare response structures if a state is to be able to respond effectively to cyberattacks. While many companies may voluntarily elect to participate in such an effort, others may decline to do so, which creates a need, in effect, to conscript companies for this purpose. This Article explores how the U.S. government can go about compelling civilian cooperation in cyberwarfare without violating constitutional guarantees and limitations on the power of the Legislature and the Executive. * NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology, University of Dayton School of Law. ** Associate, Drew, Cooper & Anding, P.C., Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1011 1012 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law [Vol. 43:1011 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Civilian Starvation and Relief During Armed Conflict: the Modern Humanitarian Law
    GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW VOLUME 19 1989 NUMBER 1 CIVILIAN STARVATION AND RELIEF DURING ARMED CONFLICT: THE MODERN HUMANITARIAN LAW Charles A. Allen* I. INTRODUCTION A. The Multilateral Setting: The Geneva Conference of 1974-1977 and Protection of Civilians In 1977, after four years of intense negotiations by a diverse group of representatives from the world community, the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions' (the Protocols) were finalized. The Geneva Conference that produced the Protocols was the first international conference aimed at the progressive development * Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps; presently serving as Staff Judge Advocate for the Commander, Iceland Defense Force, Keflavic, Iceland. A.B. Stanford University, 1974; J.D. University of Georgia School of Law, 1982; LL.M. National Law Center George Washington University, 1987. This article is based on a thesis submitted as part of the author's LL.M. degree at George Washington University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. I Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Dec. 12, 1977, U.N. Doc. A/32/144, Annexes I & II, reprinted in 16 I.L.M. 1391 (Protocol I), 1442 (Protocol II) (1977); and in, 72 AM.
    [Show full text]