Trust but Verify: Diverse Verifiers Are a Prerequisite to Cyber Peace

The topic of Cyber peace is receiving surprisingly little attention. Having considered some characteristics of Cyberspace affecting the topic of Cyber peace and having considered whether we benefit from trying to strictly define what we mean by Cyber peace, the article proceeds to offer a defence for the role that law may play towards Cyber peace. Against this background, the article proposes a focus on the three criteria Alfred Nobel articulated for his famous Peace Prize: (1) advance fellowship among nations, (2) the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and (3) the establishment and promotion of peace congresses, as a suitable point of departure towards Cyber peace. The article concludes that to move towards Cyber peace we need specific, practical, and realistic actions rather than lofty proclamations. Thus, it calls for the establishment of a realistic "Cyber Peace Agenda" and introduces ongoing work towards such an Agenda under the custodianship of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

This contribution investigates elements of cyber conflicts and attacks to determine the current state of cyber peace. The first section examines the current state of the Internet and whether or not it is in a state of cyber war. It analyses the classical concept of peace and war and determines which elements can be adapted to the digital sphere and where such a transformation can be problematic. The term ‘cyber peace’ is then defined and the components that make such a state possible identified. The last section discusses the different roles and their responsibilities to reach and preserve a state of peace in the digital sphere, coming to the conclusion that the Internet is not in a state of cyber war but more in a state of negative or unstable peace. To protect the Internet as a critical infrastructure from being abused as a new battleground, this chapter suggests moving towards a state of stable peace, and proposes increasing the security and resilience on a technical level and building up trust between all actors, ranging from the individual to the state level.

Too often, the international community is focused on responding to the latest cyber attack, disinformation campaign, or escalation. From ranswomware afflicting the City of Baltimore to state-sponsored campaigns targeting electrical grids in Ukraine and the United States, we seem to have relatively little bandwidth left over for asking the big questions, including: what is the best we can hope for in terms of “peace” on the Internet, and how might we be able to get there? More broadly, what are the long-term implications for such pervasive cyber insecurity across the public and private sectors, and how might they be curtailed? This Article dives into the history and evolution of cyber peace, including an analysis of lessons from analogous contexts such as U.N. peacekeeping efforts and the Digital Blue Helmets Initiative. These findings are then contextualized by reviewing recent efforts aimed at promoting cyber peace, including the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, the Christ Church Call, U.N.-centered norm building efforts such as through the Group of Government Experts, Global Commission on Cyber Stability, and the Digital Geneva Convention. These efforts are conceptualized within a polycentric framework, emphasizing practical implications for practitioners and policymakers.

The conceptual debate around the term cyber warfare has dominated the cybersecurity discipline over the last two decades. Much less attention has been given during this period to an equally important question: what constitutes cyber peace? This article draws on the literatures in peace and conflict studies and on desecuritization in critical security studies, to suggest how we might begin to rearticulate the cybersecurity narrative and shift the debate away from securitization and cyberwar to a more academically grounded focus on desecuritization and cyber peace. It is argued that such a move away from a vicious circle where states frame cybersecurity predominantly within a national security narrative and where they seek to perpetually prepare for cyberwar, to a virtual cycle of positive cyber peace, is not only a desirable, but a necessary outcome going forward. We assert that this is particularly important if we are to avoid (continuing) to construct the very vulnerabilities and insecurities that lead to the prioritization of offence and destruction in cyberspace, rather than transformative, human-centred development in information and communications technology innovation.

The encompassing trend of digitalisation and widespread dependencies on IT systems triggers adjustments also in the military forces. Besides necessary enhancements of IT security and defensive measures for cyberspace, a growing number of states are establishing offensive military capabilities for this domain. Looking at historical developments and transformations due to advancements in military technologies, the chapter discusses the political progress made and tools developed since. Both of these have contributed to handling challenges and confining threats to international security. With this background, the text assesses a possible application of these efforts to developments concerning cyberspace, as well as obstacles that need to be tackled for it to be successful. The chapter points out political advancements already in progress, the role of social initiatives, such as the cyber peace campaign of the Forum of Computer Scientists for Peace and Societal Responsibility (FifF), as well as potential consequences of the rising probability of cyber war as opposed to the prospects of cyber peace.

Many leading environmental and security concerns now facing the international community may be traced to the frontiers, that is, the areas historically outside of national jurisdiction including the deep seabed, outer space, Antarctica, the atmosphere, and some argue, cyberspace. From climate change and cyber attacks to the associated challenges of space weaponization and orbital debris mitigation, solutions to all of these issues have at their root some form of regulation over the frontiers, sometimes — though not always accurately — called the “global commons.” Yet the amorphous legal concept of the common heritage of mankind (CHM) that has in part governed some of these spaces since the 1960s is increasingly under stress. Governance is transitioning away from consensual United Nations-centered multilateral treaties to regional and bilateral accords. These burgeoning regime complexes are being influenced by the multipolar state of international relations, advancing technology, and resource scarcity. Environmental and security challenges are proliferating as a result of governance being in flux. This Article makes an original contribution by comparing and contrasting some of the principal issues facing these frontiers of the international community, analyzing how and why existing governance structures are often failing to adequately meet global collective action problems with special coverage on cybersecurity and Internet governance, and proposing a new way forward incorporating lessons from successful regimes as well as the interdisciplinary scholarship on polycentric governance. Multi-stakeholder collaboration is imperative in order to avoid tragedies of the global commons. But this requires recognizing the realities of international relations and crafting nimble twenty-first century governance structures that are both responsive to the titanic geopolitical and technological changes underway, and that promote sustainable development and cyber peace.

This chapter explores how shared governance through talent mobilization in the form of a global AI service corps can offset the negative impact of nation-states’ economic competition to develop AGI.

Because of the increasing digitalization of the contemporary societies, it is the modes of production (computing organization of companies and industrial equipment), the defence of States (digitalization of the battle spaces and of the armaments), the conservation and the preservation of the public heritages (architecture and art), the personal existences (medical, bank data etc.), that are now totally dependent on computer systems. Consequently, the need for cybersecurity increases, as well for the organizations as for the people, what has direct consequences on the business ethics. Between advanced surveillance policy and right to the integrity and continuity of a digital heritage, the cyber defence become for States a national sovereignty challenge, for business an economic challenge, for people a protection and respect challenge for their identity, integrity and autonomy. If the “encryption” appears as a solution to protect the goods and people, to authenticate the just, in the sense of rightness, in a world which are going to be characterized by the mistrust and by the fear, it means that everything must be “coded” to be protected? What about natural laws of the learning and knowledge? The categories of the good, the right, the truth, the integer, which characterizes the ethics, have a possible autonomy? How to define a new business ethics which can accompany the cyber peace?

This chapter provides a conceptual map of the ways in which ICTs impact state repression. This mapping exercise seeks to identify some initial sites of influence in order to further theorize and empirically evaluate the effects of ICTs on our current understandings of state repression. We begin by outlining a conceptual definition of digital repression informed by the extant literature on state repression. We then derive four constituent components of state repression and trace the impact of ICTs on each of our four components. In conclusion, we discuss how our findings may inform or upend existing theories in the study of state repressive behavior.

The international community is too often focused on responding to the latest cyber-attack instead of addressing the reality of pervasive and persistent cyber conflict. From ransomware against the city government of Baltimore to state-sponsored campaigns targeting electrical grids in Ukraine and the U.S., we seem to have relatively little bandwidth left over to ask what we can hope for in terms of 'peace' on the Internet, and how to get there. It's also important to identify the long-term implications for such pervasive cyber insecurity across the public and private sectors, and how they can be curtailed. This edited volume analyzes the history and evolution of cyber peace and reviews recent international efforts aimed at promoting it, providing recommendations for students, practitioners and policymakers seeking an understanding of the complexity of international law and international relations involved in cyber peace. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

Business and cyber peace: We need you!

현재 사이버 공간에서는 소극적 의미에서부터 적극적이고 포괄적인 의미에 이르기까지 사이버 평화 개념을 둘러싼 다양한 해석이 존재하고 있다. 중요한 점은 사이버 공간이 창출된 이후로 인류가 영위하는 온라인 활동 범위가 비약적으로 확장되었으며, 이에 따라 ‘안전하고 평화적인 사이버 공간’이 갖는 포괄적 의미 역시 한정하기 어려워지고 있다는 점이다. 특히, 증대되고 있는 ‘신흥안보(emerging security)’ 이슈의 부상은 사이버 공간의 평화 개념을 어디까지 확장할 것인가에 지대한 영향을 미치는 주요 변수로 자리 잡고 있다. 그중에서도 가상과 현실이 융합하고 이슈 간 경계를 허물어버리는 사이버 공간의 진화는 사이버 안보뿐만 아니라 사이버 평화의 개념에 대해서도 새롭게 접근해야 할 필요성을 제기한다. 본 연구는 평화 개념을 사이버 공간이 지니는 특징과 연계하여 검토함으로써 전통적 평화론을 넘어선 대안적 사이버 평화론의 필요성을 강조한다. 물리적 세계에서 전통적으로 통용되던 적극적, 소극적 차원의 평화 논의를 넘어, 사이버 공간의 확장이 갖는 경계 구분의 초월성, 이슈 연계 측면의 파급력, ‘과정’으로서의 사이버 평화 지향이 대표적이라 할 수 있다. 이러한 접근은 신흥안보 시대의 대안적 사이버 평화론 정립을 위한 첫걸음이 될 것이다.

Artificial Intelligence in Cyber Peace

Views range widely about the seriousness of cyber attacks and the likelihood of cyber war. But even framing cyber attacks within the context of a loaded category like war can be an oversimplification that shifts focus away from enhancing cybersecurity against the full range of threats now facing companies, countries, and the international community. Current methods are proving ineffective at managing cyber attacks, and as cybersecurity legislation is being debated in the U.S. Congress and around the world the time is ripe for a fresh look at this critical topic. This Article searches for alternative avenues to foster cyber peace by applying a novel governance framework termed polycentric analysis championed by scholars such as Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom that promotes self-organization and networking regulations at multiple levels. This bottom-up form of governance is in contrast to the increasingly state-centric approach to both Internet governance and cybersecurity prevailing in forums like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and the ITU will be used as case studies to explore these different governance models. Analyzing the debate between Internet sovereignty and Internet freedom through the lens of polycentric regulation provides new insights about how to reconceptualize both cybersecurity and the future of Internet governance.

Not only today, but also in the future information technology and the advances in the field of computer science will have a high relevance for peace and security. Naturally, a textbook like this can only cover a selective part of research and a certain point in time. Nonetheless, it can be attempted to identify trends, challenges and venture an outlook into the future. That is exactly what we want to achieve in this chapter: To predict future developments and try to classify them correctly. These considerations were made both by the editor and the authors involved alike. Therefore, an outlook based on fundamentals, cyber conflicts and war, cyber peace, cyber arms control, infrastructures as well as social interaction is given.