Meeting the Challenge of Cyberterrorism: Defining the Military Role in a Democracy

Denna forskningskonsumtion strävar efter att utifrån två frågeställningar undersöka dels var det deliberativa samtalets möjligheter och begränsningar ligger, dels undersöka hur det deliberativa samtalet påverkar lärarrollen i klassrummet. Detta sker genom en systematisk litteraturstudie som behandlar ett urval av relevanta svenska författare och även ett par internationella engelskspråkiga författare. Det deliberativa samtalet är en kommunikativ metod där samförståelse, konsensus och demokrati står i fokus. Tomas Englund, en av de mest uppmärksammade förespråkare av metoden beskriver det deliberativa samtalet med en rad punkter. Dessa punkter beskriver samtalet som att det ska ge olika argument utrymme, samtalet ska vara tolerant, samtalet ska ha inslag av kollektiv viljebildning, traditionella uppfattningar ska ifrågaställas och samtalet ska helst utesluta lärarledning. Det deliberativa samtalet har av bl.a. Skolverket lyfts fram som en  metod som ska gynna värdegrundsarbetet i skolan. Runt millenieskiftet hade det deliberativa samtalet samt värdegrundsarbetet fått en allt mer central del i skolan där Tomas Englund var en av de mest framträdande förespråkarna av metoden. Ytterligare styrkor i samtalet kunde även förstås som dess potential i att kunna implementeras i andra kommunikativa situationer inom flertalet ämnen. Trots att förespråkarna av det deliberativa samtalet kan lyfta många styrkor hos metoden finns fortfarande flera invändningar. De främsta styrkorna som lyfts ur det deliberativa samtalet är värdegrundsarbetet och samtalets tillämpningsbarhet, men de mer kritiska författarna vill gärna uppmärksamma hur det tämligen strukturerade samtalet kan påverka klassrummet och dess dynamik mellan lärare och elever. Hur ska exempelvis läraren förena sin position som betygsättande maktfigur med att hålla samtalet så öppet och tolererande som möjligt, oavsett åsikter som tas upp? Hur ska retoriska färdigheter hos eleverna behandlas när samtalet ska vara öppet och inkluderande? Forskningskonsumtionen lyfter även hur sociala och kulturella faktorer spelar in på elevers förmåga att deltaga i samtalet och lyfter genom författarna fram en diskussion om samtalets lämplighet i klassrummet, främst genom dess deltagare som utgångspunkt. Slutsatsen härleds till att lämpligheten hos det deliberativa samtalet i klassrummet kan kondenseras ned till frågan om förutsättningarna i klassrummet. Det deliberativa samtalet är ingen universallösning för värdegrundsarbete, men har samtidigt en rad andra styrkor som är värda att lyfta fram. Författarna saknar även en enhällig lösning över vilken roll läraren ska ha i samtalet och saknar även en riktig diskussion om hur det deliberativa samtalet ska behandla konflikter när samtalet drivs till sin spets

Cybervandalism or Digital Act of War? America\u27s Muddled Approach to Cyber Incidents Will Not Deter More Crises

If experts say a malicious [cyber] code \u27 has similar effects to a physical bomb, \u27 and that code actually causes a stunning breach of global internet stability, is it really accurate to call that event merely an instance of a cyber attack ? Moreover, can you really expect to deter state and non-state actors from employing such code and similarly hostile cyber methodologies if all they think that they are risking is being labeled as a cyber-vandal subject only to law enforcement measures? Or might they act differently if it were made clear to them that such activity is considered an armed attack \u27 against the United States and that they are in jeopardy of being on the receiving end of a forceful, law-of-war response by the most powerful military on the planet? Of course, if something really is just vandalism, the law enforcement paradigm, with its very limited response options, would suffice. But when malevolent cyber activity endangers the reliability of the internet in a world heavily dependent on a secure cyberspace, it is not merely vandalism. Rather, it is a national and international security threat that ought to be characterized and treated as such. Unfortunately, the United States\u27 current approach is too inscrutable and even contradictory to send an effective deterrence message to potential cyber actors. This needs to change

Peeling Back the Onion of Cyber Espionage after Tallinn 2.0

Tallinn 2.0 represents an important advancement in the understanding of international law’s application to cyber operations below the threshold of force. Its provisions on cyber espionage will be instrumental to states in grappling with complex legal problems in the area of digital spying. The law of cyber espionage as outlined by Tallinn 2.0, however, is substantially based on rules that have evolved outside of the digital context, and there exist serious ambiguities and limitations in its framework. This Article will explore gaps in the legal structure and consider future options available to states in light of this underlying mismatch

"Virtual disenfranchisement": cyber election meddling in the grey zones of international law

This Article examines remotely conducted election meddling by cyber means in the context of international law and asks whether such cyber operations qualify as "internationally wrongful acts." An internationally wrongful act requires both a breach of a legal obligation owed by one State to another under international law and attribution of the act to the former. The Article considers three possible breaches related to such meddling-violation of the requirement to respect sovereignty, intervention into the internal affairs of another State, and, when the cyber operations are not attributable to the State from which they were launched, breach of the due diligence obligation that requires States to ensure cyber operations with serious adverse consequences are not mounted from their territory. The Article then examines the various modalities for attributing a cyber operation to a State under international law. Whether cyber meddling in another State's election is unlawful, as well as the severity thereof, determines the range of responses available to the victim State. The Article concludes that the law applicable to remotely conducted meddling in another State's election is unsettled, thereby comprising a normative grey zone ripe for exploitation by States and non-State actors

Artificial intelligence and UK national security: Policy considerations

RUSI was commissioned by GCHQ to conduct an independent research study into the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for national security purposes. The aim of this project is to establish an independent evidence base to inform future policy development regarding national security uses of AI. The findings are based on in-depth consultation with stakeholders from across the UK national security community, law enforcement agencies, private sector companies, academic and legal experts, and civil society representatives. This was complemented by a targeted review of existing literature on the topic of AI and national security. The research has found that AI offers numerous opportunities for the UK national security community to improve efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes. AI methods can rapidly derive insights from large, disparate datasets and identify connections that would otherwise go unnoticed by human operators. However, in the context of national security and the powers given to UK intelligence agencies, use of AI could give rise to additional privacy and human rights considerations which would need to be assessed within the existing legal and regulatory framework. For this reason, enhanced policy and guidance is needed to ensure the privacy and human rights implications of national security uses of AI are reviewed on an ongoing basis as new analysis methods are applied to data