6th European Conference - Academic Conferences

Alexandru Nitu
world and bring it into an intangible, electronic one. Effects previously attainable only through physical
destruction are now accomplished remotely with the silent means of information technology.
These new ways of fighting have been labeled Information Warfare (IW). Definitions and conceptions
of IW are numerous, but generally entail preserving one’s own information and information technology
while exploiting, disrupting, or denying the use of an adversary’s (Shackelford 2009). In US military
doctrine, IW it is part of a much larger strategic shift that was named Information Operations (IO).
Information Operations involve actions taken to affect adversary information and information systems
while defending one’s own information and information systems. Information Operations apply across
all phases of an operation, throughout the range of military operations, and at every level of war.
Information Warfare is Information Operations conducted during time of crisis or conflict, including
war, to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific adversary or adversaries (Joint Chiefs of
Staff 1998).
The new emerging vulnerabilities that information age generates are more likely to be exploited by
opponents of developed states that cannot hope to prevail on the battlefield, or even at the
negotiations table. A lesser-advantaged state hoping to seriously harm a dominant adversary must
inevitably compete asymmetrically. It must seek to counter the strengths of the opponent not head-on,
but rather employing unorthodox means to strike at centers of gravity.
IW offers such asymmetrical benefits. In the first place, in many cases a computer network attack will
either not merit a response involving the use of force, or the legality of such a response could be
debatable, even if the victim is able to accurately identify the attack and its source. Thus, because of
the potentially grave impact of cyber attacks on a state’s infrastructure, it can prove a high gain, low
risk option for a state outclassed militarily or economically. Moreover, to the extent that an opponent is
militarily and economically advantaged, it is probably technologically dependent, and, therefore,
teeming with tempting targets.
2. IW and the ‘use of force’ concept
Several rules govern when force can be used (the jus ad bellum, which focuses on the criteria for
going to war, covering issues such as right purpose, duly constituted authority, last resort) and how
states can use that force in an armed conflict (the jus in bello or ‘law of war’, that creates the concept
of just war-fighting, covering discrimination, proportionality, humanity etc). These rules have diverse
sources, including the U.N. Charter, international humanitarian law treaties, including the 1949
Geneva Conventions, as well as customary international humanitarian law. Some of these existing
laws involve principles of general applicability that could encompass IW. Nevertheless, the gap
between physical weaponry (whether kinetic, biological, or chemical) and IW’s virtual methods can be
substantial, creating translation problems.
The sort of intangible damage that IW attacks may cause is analytically different from the physical
damage caused by the use of armed force in traditional warfare. The kind of destruction that bombs
and bullets cause is easy to see and understand, and fits well within longstanding views of what war
means. In contrast, the disruption of information systems, including the corruption or manipulation of
stored or transmitted data, may cause intangible damage, such as disruption of civil society or
government services. These may be more closely equivalent to activities such as economic sanctions
that may be undertaken in times of peace rather than acts of aggression (Greenberg 1998).
Whether or not an information warfare attack can be considered ‘use of force’ or ‘aggression’ is
relevant to the fact that a forceful response can be justified as self-defense, as well as to the issue of
whether a particular response would be proportionate to the original attack.
Modern law on the use of force is based on the U.N. Charter. An analysis of international law and IW
could begin with the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2(4): ‘All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations’ (Charter of the United Nations, Art.2(4)). The drafters intended to prohibit all types of force,
except those carried out under the aegis of the United Nations or as provided for by the Security
Council, and wanted to restrict the use of force severely by sharply limiting its use to situations
approved by the Security Council (Barkham 2001).
201