Anonymous Armies: Modern “Cyber-Combatants” and Their Prospective Rights Under International Humanitarian Law

Cyber-attacks take many forms, only some of which are applicable to the law of war. This Comment discusses only those attacks sponsored by a government or non-state entity that have the goal of affecting morale or gaining political advantage, or those attacks amounting to tactical strikes on state or civilian infrastructure. In that vein, this Comment proposes the adoption of a new legal framework for determining the threshold that marks a participant in such a cyber-attack as a “cyber-combatant” by adapting the framework set by the Geneva Conventions and existing custom. This definition should encompass cyber-attacks perpetrated by states, unrecognized states, and non-state groups. It should set the rules of engagement for cyber-attacks and operations conducted for political advantage, morale boost, and tactical purposes. Whether they act on the orders or in support of States or non-state groups, those perpetrating cyber-attacks that have material effects upon the morale or infrastructure of a sovereign nation during armed conflict should be treated as “combatants” for purposes of international law, and the legality of their actions should be defined. Because the standard governing what constitutes a lawful combatant under any reasonable reading of the Geneva Conventions is muddled as applied to combatants in cyber-warfare as presently conducted, this paper takes the position that under present custom, cyber-combatants may likely be effectively considered illegal combatants under International Law. Part II of this Comment provides a framework for defining “cyber-combatants,” reviewing the traditionally accepted definition of “combatants” under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law as restated through the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Part III explores the alleged cyber-operations of sovereign States, including Israel’s C4i Cyber Warfare Unit and The United States’ USCYBERCOM and its sister agencies, some or all of which may have been responsible for the Stuxnet attack on Iran; Russia’s coordinated cyber-attacks perpetrated during its war with Georgia in 2008 and in the conflict in Ukraine in 2014 and 2015; and China’s PLA Unit 61398. Part IV introduces the unique problem posed by cyber-attacks perpetrated by agents of unrecognized states and organized terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Finally, Part V concludes by proposing alternative definitions for cyber-attacks, and consequentially, cyber-combatants

Young people's beliefs about intergenerational communication - An initial cross-cultural comparison

This article examines young people's perceptions of their conversations with older people (age 65-85) across nine cultures-five Eastern and four Western. Responses from more than 1,000 participants were entered into a cross-national factor analysis, which revealed four initial factors that underlie perceptions of intergenerational conversations. Elder nonaccommodation was when young participants reported that older people negatively stereotyped the young and did not attend to their communication needs. On the other hand, elder accommodation was when older people were perceived as supportive, attentive and generally encouraging to young people. A third factor was respect/obligation and a fourth factor labeled age-irrelevant positivity described a situation where young people felt conversations with much older people were emotionally positive and satisfying, age did not matter: Examining cross-cultural differences, some East versus West differences were observed, as might be expected, on the basis of simplistic accounts of Eastern collectivism versus Western individualism. However the results challenge commonsense notions of the status of old age in Eastern versus Western cultures. On some dimensions, participants from Korea, Japan, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines appear to have relatively less positive perceptions of their conversations with older people than the Western cultures-the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But there was also evidence of considerable cultural variability, particularly among Eastern cultures-variability that has heretofore all too often been glossed over when global comparisons of East versus West are made. A range of explanations for these cultural differences is explored and implications for older people in these societies are also considered

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee