This essay explores the ethical and legal implications of prioritizing the militarization of cyberspace as part of a roundtable on "Competing Visions for Cyberspace." Our essay uses an ideal type-a world that accepts warfighting as the prime directive for the construction and use of cyberspace- and examines the ethical and legal consequences that follow for (i) who will have authority to regulate cyberspace; (ii) what vehicles they will most likely use to do so; and (iii) what the rules of behavior for states and stakeholders will be. We envision a world where states would take on a greater role in governance but remain constrained by law, including jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria, but also sovereignty, nonintervention, and self-determination. We ask if the net result would mean states causing less harm than they do in kinetic conflicts. Ultimately, our essay takes no position on whether cyberspace should be a militarized domain (let alone one where warfighting is the prime directive). Rather, our goal is to situate a warfighting cyber domain within the reality of a pluralist cyberspace, where ethical imperatives compete or coalesce to support specific governance mechanisms.
CITATION STYLE
Hollis, D. B., & Ohlin, J. D. (2018). What if cyberspace were for fighting? Ethics and International Affairs, 32(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941800059X
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.