Prospects for the Regulation and Reduction of the Military Cyberthreat

Abstract

Experts claim that more than 60 states are currently developing military cyber capabilities. At the same time, there are no internationally recognized frameworks that could regulate the information and communication technology (ICT) environment as a sphere of confrontation. The purpose of this article is to fi nd an answer to the question of whether it is possible to conduct meaningful and substantive Russian-American negotiations — given the current state of relations between the two countries — on the reduction of military cyber threats and to achieve positive agreements in this area. To answer this question the authors propose to use analogies from the existing bilateral agreements in the fi eld of strategic stability. They consider three aspects pertaining to any negotiation process: 1) the subject of potential negotiations and general ideas about it; 2) the objectives of the negotiations pursued by both parties; and 3) the presence of political will. They also search for an answer as to whether it is possible to use the existing frameworks for regulation and reduction of the nuclear threat, and, if so, to what extent and in what way. Despite the fact that there is an existing positive groundwork for overcoming bilateral differences in the sphere of strategic confrontation, in the current political atmosphere it is still premature to talk about an analogous treaty between Russia and the US on the reduction of the military cyber threat. Despite this, certain steps can be taken to bring the two countries closer to the conclusion of such an agreement — for example, the resolution of issues of the practical application of international law to incidents in the ICT environment.

References

1. Berger, J. M., and Morgan, J. The ISIS Twitter Census: Defi ning and Describing the Population of ISIS Supporters on Twitter. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 2015, (The Brookings Project on US Relations with the Islamic World, No. 20), URL: https:// www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_twitter_census_berger_morgan. pdf 
2. De Vries, J. V., and Yadron, D. “Cataloging the World’s Cyberforces,” The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2015. 
3. Futter, A. Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons New Questions for Command and Control, Security and Strategy. London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, 2016, URL: https://rusi.org/sites/default/fi les/cyber_threats_and_ nuclear_combined.1.pdf 
4. Gaycken, S., Austin, G. Resetting the System: Why Highly Secure Computing Should Be the Priority of Cybersecurity Policies. New York: EastWest Institute, 2014. URL: http://www.ewi.info/sites/default/fi les/Resetting%20the%20System.pdf 
5. Geers, K. Strategic Cyber Security. Tallinn: CCDCOE, 2011, URL: https://ccdcoe. org/publications/books/Strategic_Cyber_Security_K_Geers.PDF 
6. Ingram, P. “Hacking UK Trident: A Growing Threat,” BASIC, May 31, 2017, URL: http://www.basicint.org/publications/stanislav-abaimov-paul-ingram-executivedirector/ 2017/hacking-uk-trident-growing-threat 
7. Karasev, P. A. “Militarizatsiia kiberprostranstva,” Bezopasnost’ i kontrol’ nad vooruzheniiami 2017–2018: Preodolenie razbalansirovki mezhdunarodnoi stabil’nosti, ed. A. G. Arbatov, and N. I. Bubnov. Moscow: IMEMO RAN; Politicheskaia entsiklopediia, 2018, pp. 247–259. 
8. Kokoshin, A. A. Innovatsionnye Vooruzhennye sily i revoliutsiia v voennom dele: Kratkii ocherk. Moscow: LENAND, 2009. 
9. Krutskikh, A. V. “K politiko-pravovym osnovaniiam global’noi informatsionnoi bezopasnosti,” Mezhdunarodnye protsessy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007, pp. 28–37. 
10. Krutskikh, A. V. “Voina ili mir: mezhdunarodnye aspekty informatsionnoi bezopasnosti,” Nauchnye i metodologicheskie problemy informatsionnoi bezopasnosti, ed. V. P. Sherstiuka. Moscow: MTsNMO, 2004, pp. 85–96. 
11. Krutskikh, A. V., and Strel’tsov, A. A. “Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i problema obespecheniia mezhdunarodnoi informatsionnoi bezopasnosti,” Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn’, No. 11, 2014, pp. 20–34. 
12. Lin, H. “Operational Considerations in Cyber Attack and Cyber Exploitation,” Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World, ed. D. S. Reveron. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2012, pp. 37–56. 
13. Norton Cyber Security Insights Report, 2017: Global Results. Mountain View: Symantec Corporation, 2018, URL: https://www.symantec.com/content/dam/symantec/ docs/about/2017-ncsir-global-results-en.pdf 
14. Nye, J. S. Jr. “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace,” International Security, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2016/17, pp. 54–55. 
15. Peres, K. L. D. K. (ed.) “Doklad Gruppy pravitel’stvennykh ekspertov po dostizheniiam v sfere informatizatsii i telekommunikatsii v kontekste mezhdunarodnoi bezopasnosti,” OON, July 22, 2015, URL: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/ods.asp?m=A/70/174 
16. Savel’ev, A. G., and Karasev, P. A. “Kiberoruzhie i strategicheskaia stabil’nost’,” Razoruzhenie i bezopasnost’ 2013–2014. Strategicheskaia stabil’nost’: problemy bezopasnosti v usloviiakh perestroiki mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii, ed. A. G. Arbatov, and N. I. Bubnov. Moscow: IMEMO RAN, 2014, pp. 217–224. 
17. Schmitt, M. N. Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 
18. Strel’tsov, A. A. “Osnovnye napravleniia razvitiia mezhdunarodnogo prava vooruzhennykh konfl iktov primenitel’no k kiberprostranstvu,” Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriia i praktika, No. 3, 2014, pp. 75–88. 
19. Strel’tsov, A. A., and Smirnov, A. I. “Rossiisko-amerikanskie otnosheniia v oblasti mezhdunarodnoi informatsionnoi bezopasnosti: prioritetnye napravleniia sotrudnichestva,” Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn’, No. 11, 2017, pp. 72–81. 
20. Thomas, T. The Dragon’s Quantum Leap: Transforming from a Mechanized to an Informatized Force. Fort Leavenworth: Foreign Military Studies Office, 2009. 
21. Waltz, K. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1979.