6th European Conference - Academic Conferences

Ulf Haeussler
defence sector computer networks complements 'ordinary computer hygiene, which keeps security
software and firewalls up to date, and sensors, which detect and map intrusions' (id., 103). Defence
sector networks rely on systems that, using (signals) intelligence warnings, 'automatically deploy
defenses to counter intrusions in real time' (ibid.). 'They work by placing scanning technology at the
interface of military networks and the open Internet to detect and stop malicious code before it passes
into military networks' (ibid.). Moreover, the notion of active defence also covers the effort to detect
intruders who have managed to escape detection at the interface (ibid.).
In sum, the evolving U.S. approach of defensive resilience coupled with active defence and NATO's
emerging notion of preventive deterrence seem to correspond harmoniously. As cyberstrategy
development continues, the impact of NATO's and national approaches on the conduct of military
operations in general and the conduct of hostilities in particular will require associated legal analysis.
Rather than focusing on cyber operations in isolation, this analysis will have to consider that cyber
warfare may become part of a spectrum of military responses available to the relevant policymakers
(cf. Vamosi 2011).
5. Conclusion
From an international law perspective, the choices regarding cyber security and defence made by
NATO's Strategic Concept 2010 correspond to questions related to the legality of use of force (jus ad
bellum) and implicitly defer questions pertaining to the legal framework governing the conduct of
hostilities (jus in bello) to future analysis. National cyberstrategy development points in the same
direction. From an overall perspective, cyberstrategy development has the demonstrated potential to
accelerate consensus building processes regarding the question of whether cyber attacks can be
matters of national security and defence, including through effective deterrence, and in that capacity
also trigger collective security and defence mechanisms like those based on the North Atlantic Treaty.
At the same time, existing and evolving cyberstrategies do not yet provide all necessary insights
regarding important questions such as how to leverage normative models of public health and
environmental protection as well as the adaptation to cyberspaces' realities of the notions of
combatancy and direct participation in hostilities, targetability of civilian objects turned military
objectives, questions answer which still involves challenges in light of technical realities which may
defy the development of prognoses required to develop an expectation regarding collateral damage
and an anticipation of military advantage with a sufficient degree of predictability.
References
Gallis, P. (2003) NATO’s Decision-Making Procedure (CRS Report for Congress, Order Code', RS21510, 05 May
2003), http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21510.pdf
Gates, R.M., U.S. Secretary of Defense (2009) "The National Defense Strategy", Joint Forces Quarterly, issue
52, 1 st quarter 2009, 1-7
Häußler, U. (2010) "Cyber Security and Defence from the Perspective of Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic
Treaty", Tikk, E. and Talihärm, A.-M., International Cyber Security Legal & Policy Proceedings, 100-126
Häußler, U. (2011) "Crisis Response Operations in Maritime Environments", Odello, M. and Piotrowicz, R.,
International Military Missions and International Law (forthcoming: Brill, Amsterdam), 161-210
Ilves, His Excellency Mr. T.H., President of the Republic of Estonia (2010) Opening Address at the June 2010
Cyber Conflict Conference, http://www.ccdcoe.org/conference2010/329.html; cf.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-B2AD4DE6-E0B91B4E/natolive/news_64615.htm?
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia established by the European Union
(2010), Report, Vol II
Lynn, W.J. III "Defending a New Domain – The Pentagon’s Cyberstrategy", Foreign Affairs Volume 89 Number 5,
97-108
NATO (1999) The Alliance's Strategic Concept dated 24 April 1999,
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm
NATO (2008) Bucharest Summit Declaration dated 03 April 2008,
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
NATO (2009) Strasbourg / Kehl Summit Declaration dated 04 April 2009,
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_52837.htm?mode=pressrelease
NATO (2010a) Active Engagement, Modern Defence – Strategic Concept 2010 dated 19 November 2010,
http://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf
NATO (2010b) Lisbon Summit Declaration dated 20 November 2010,
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_68828.htm
NATO Defence Planning Council (DPC) (2003) Decision Sheet, http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2003/p030216e.htm,
cf. Press Release (2003)013 at http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2003/p03-013e.htm
NATO NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (AAP-6) (annually updated publication) (quoted NATO Glossary)
104