US News and World Report’s “Should There Be an International Treaty on Cyberwarfare?”
This exercise requires you to read and analyze a set of opinions on whether an international treaty is the best way to deal with cyberwarfare.
1. Read the brief introduction. What are the major issues related to cyberwarfare? What factors do you think the realist, liberal, and identity perspectives would be most concerned with?
2. Click on the link for Bruce Schneier’s opinion. What factors does he argue promote arms races? How can an international treaty slow down or halt an arms race? What are the obstacles to a treaty being agreed upon and working properly? Which perspective is Schneier writing from?
3. On the main page, click on the link for Martin Libicki’s opinion. What is the relationship between treaties and norms that he points out? Why does he think a treaty would not work? Which perspective is Libicki writing from?
4. On the main page, click on the link for Herbert Lin’s opinion. What does he argue must happen before an international treaty is proposed? What does he mean when he stresses the need for “common ground?” Which perspective is Lin writing from?
5. On the main page, click on the link for Jon Lindsay’s opinion. How does he characterize the weapons of cyberwarfare? What does he make of the interests of different states? Which perspective is Lindsay writing from?
6. From the main page, click on the links for the other analysts’ opinions. After reading them, can you formulate arguments on how to limit cyberwarfare from the realist, liberal, and identity perspectives? At which levels of analysis do those arguments operate?