Suchergebnisse

"Das Internet als globales Kommunikationsnetzwerk ist diversen Gefährdungen ausgesetzt. Nichtstaatliche Akteure wie experimentierfreudige Programmierer, aber auch Terroristen und Kriminelle, in erster Linie jedoch Staaten beteiligen sich an der so genannten Information Warfare, die sich modernster Technik bedient und in militärischen Konflikten zu Tod und Zerstörung führen kann. Völkerrecht und Abrüstungspolitik stehen vor neuen Fragen." (Autorenreferat)

Cyber warfare is a timely and relevant issue and one of the most controversial in international humanitarian law (IHL). The aim of IHL is to set rules and limits in terms of means and methods of warfare. In this context, a key question arises: Has digital warfare rules or limits, and if so, how are these applicable? Traditional principles, developed over a long period, are facing a new dimension of challenges due to the rise of cyber warfare. This paper argues that to overcome this new issue, it is critical that new humanity-oriented approaches is developed with regard to cyber warfare. The challenge is to establish a legal regime for cyber-attacks, successfully addressing human rights norms and standards. While clarifying this from a legal perspective, the authors can redesign the sensitive equilibrium between humanity and military necessity, weighing the humanitarian aims of IHL and the protection of civilians—in combination with international human rights law and other relevant legal regimes—in a different manner than before.

AbstractThe trend toward the "humanization" of international law reflects a greater emphasis on individuals rather than simply states as objects of concern. The advance of human rights law (HRL) has been an important impetus for this trend. Some observers suggest that humanization can be furthered even more by applying HRL rather than international humanitarian law (IHL) to hostilities between states and nonstate armed groups, unless a state explicitly declares that it is engaged in an armed conflict. This essay argues, however, that a court should not defer to a state's characterization of hostilities, but should base its analysis on whether hostilities meet the criteria for an armed conflict. Applying HRL to hostilities that effectively are an armed conflict but not acknowledged as such risks diluting the legitimacy and normative force of HRL. On the one hand, if a court applies conventional stringent HRL standards, this body of law may be seen as unrealistic and is likely to be ignored. On the other hand, a court that adapts HRL standards to armed conflict may need to take a consequentialist approach at odds with HRL's deontological foundations. Clearly differentiating between HRL and IHL may thus best promote the humanization of warfare.

The trend toward the "humanization" of international law reflects a greater emphasis on individuals rather than simply states as objects of concern. The advance of human rights law (HRL) has been an important impetus for this trend. Some observers suggest that humanization can be furthered even more by applying HRL rather than international humanitarian law (IHL) to hostilities between states and nonstate armed groups, unless a state explicitly declares that it is engaged in an armed conflict. This essay argues, however, that a court should not defer to a state's characterization of hostilities, but should base its analysis on whether hostilities meet the criteria for an armed conflict. Applying HRL to hostilities that effectively are an armed conflict but not acknowledged as such risks diluting the legitimacy and normative force of HRL. On the one hand, if a court applies conventional stringent HRL standards, this body of law may be seen as unrealistic and is likely to be ignored. On the other hand, a court that adapts HRL standards to armed conflict may need to take a consequentialist approach at odds with HRL's deontological foundations. Clearly differentiating between HRL and IHL may thus best promote the humanization of warfare.

The article presents the opposite, but dependent on each other's reality - Revolutionary War information,information security goals and objectives of their study within the scheme "challenge-response", methodological and analytical support, the role of elites and the information society in promoting information security. One of the features of contemporaneityis the global spread of ICT, combined with poor governance and other difficulties in the construction of innovation infrastructures that are based on them in some countries. This leads to the reproduction of threats, primarily related to the ability to use ICT for purposes that are inconsistent with the objectives of maintaining international peace and security, compliance with the principles of non-use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, etc. In this regard, include such terms as "a threat of information warfare", "information terrorism" and so forth. Information warfare, which stay in the policy declared the struggle for existence, and relationships are defined in terms of "friend-enemy", "ours-foreign". Superiority over the opponent or "capture of its territory" is the aim of political activity. And information security, serving activities similar process of political control, including a set of components, is a technology until their humanitarian. From the context and the decision itself is the ratio of the achieved results of information and political influence to the target - a positive image of Russia. Bringing its policy in line with the demands of a healthy public opinion provides conductivity of theauthorities initiatives in the country and increases the legitimacy of the Russian Federation actions in the world.