State opinio juris and international humanitarian law pluralism

International humanitarian law has developed through a pluralistic process. Its history reveals a pattern of rough proportionality between State opinio juris and non-State expressions of law. These diverse sources have maintained a respectable yet realistic balance between humanity and military necessity. However, current IHL dialogue presents a stark contrast to the vibrant and pluralistic exchanges of the past. The substantive input of non-State actors such as non-governmental organizations, tribunals, and scholars far outpaces the work of States. Parity of input, especially in quantitative terms, is surely too much to demand and surely not necessary given the special status of State opinio juris. However, States’ legal agencies and agents should be equipped, organized, and re-empowered to participate actively in the interpretation and development of IHL. This article, extracted from a larger work, argues that reinvigorating opinio juris would reestablish the pluralistic IHL dialogue that formerly tested, updated, and enriched the balance between military necessity and humanity

DB1000N SOFTWARE AS UKRAINE’S MILITARY UTILITY TO COUNTER RUSSIAN INVASION IN 2022

As Russia launched an invasion in every domain of warfare, including cyberspace, Ukraine employed an Information Technology (IT) army equipped with software called db1000n on March 2022. This article seeks to explain how the use of db1000n helps Ukraine against the 2022 Russian invasion. Using a case study as the research method and Susan Martin’s military utility concept as the analytical framework, this article found that db1000n helps to support Ukraine’s cyber warfare effort by being Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack software that possesses three types of military utility, namely technical utility, tactical utility, and strategic utility. Nevertheless, db1000n still has some limitations that cannot secure an easy victory in cyber warfare.

Artificial Intelligence, International Competition, and the Balance of Power (May 2018)

World leaders, CEOs, and academics have suggested that a revolution in artificial intelligence is upon us. Are they right, and what will advances in artificial intelligence mean for international competition and the balance of power? This article evaluates how developments in artificial intelligence (AI) — advanced, narrow applications in particular — are poised to influence military power and international politics. It describes how AI more closely resembles “enabling” technologies such as the combustion engine or electricity than a specific weapon. AI’s still-emerging developments make it harder to assess than many technological changes, especially since many of the organizational decisions about the adoption and uses of new technology that generally shape the impact of that technology are in their infancy. The article then explores the possibility that key drivers of AI development in the private sector could cause the rapid diffusion of military applications of AI, limiting first-mover advantages for innovators. Alternatively, given uncertainty about the technological trajectory of AI, it is also possible that military uses of AI will be harder to develop based on private-sector AI technologies than many expect, generating more potential first-mover advantages for existing powers such as China and the United States, as well as larger consequences for relative power if a country fails to adapt. Finally, the article discusses the extent to which U.S. military rhetoric about the importance of AI matches the reality of U.S. investments.LBJ School of Public Affair

Cyber Analogies

This anthology of cyber analogies will resonate with readers whose duties call for them to set strategies to protect the virtual domain and determine the policies that govern it. Our belief is that learning is most effective when concepts under consideration can be aligned with already-existing understanding or knowledge. Cyber issues are inherently tough to explain in layman's terms. The future is always open and undetermined, and the numbers of actors and the complexity of their relations are too great to give definitive guidance about future developments. In this respect, historical analogies, carefully developed and properly applied, help indicate a direction for action by reducing complexity and making the future at least cognately manageable.US Cyber CommandIntroduction: Emily O. Goldman & John Arquilla; The Cyber Pearl Harbor:James J. Wirtz: Applying the Historical Lessons of Surprise Attack to the Cyber Domain: The Example of the United Kingdom:Dr Michael S. Goodman: The Cyber Pearl Harbor Analogy: An Attacker’s Perspective: Emily O. Goldman, John Surdu, & Michael Warner: “When the Urgency of Time and Circumstances Clearly Does Not Permit...”: Redelegation in Nuclear and Cyber Scenarios: Peter Feaver & Kenneth Geers; Comparing Airpower and Cyberpower: Dr. Gregory Rattray: Active Cyber Defense: Applying Air Defense to the Cyber Domain: Dorothy E. Denning & Bradley J. Strawser: The Strategy of Economic Warfare: A Historical Case Study and Possible Analogy to: Contemporary Cyber Warfare: Nicholas A. Lambert: Silicon Valley: Metaphor for Cybersecurity, Key to Understanding Innovation War: John Kao: The Offense-Defense Balance and Cyber Warfare: Keir Lieber: A Repertory of Cyber Analogies: Robert Axelro

The Decline of International Humanitarian Law Opinio Juris and the law of Cyber Warfare

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the link in this record

Future War, Future Law

Advancing technology will dramatically affect the weapons and tactics of future armed conflict, including the “places” where conflicts are fought, the “actors” by whom they are fought, and the “means and methods” by which they are fought. These changes -- including continuing cyber conflict, increased use of autonomous weapon systems, the development of nanotechnology, and evolving virology capabilities -- will stress even the fundamental principles of the law of armed conflict, or LOAC. While it is likely that the contemporary LOAC will be sufficient to regulate the majority of future conflicts, the international community must be willing to evolve the LOAC in an effort to ensure these future weapons and tactics remain under control of the law. Though many of these advancing technologies are still in the early stages of development and design, the time to act is now. In anticipation of these developments, the international community needs to recognize the gaps in the current LOAC and seek solutions in advance of the situation. As the LOAC evolves to face anticipated future threats, it will help ensure that advancing technologies comply with the foundational principles of the LOAC and future armed conflicts remain constrained by law