These are investigated through a dual case study of the Stuxnet worm deployed against Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility and the rising number of hacking incidents attributed to China. This study addresses these questions by comparing diplomatic responses to two types of cyber-intelligence operations, sabotage and espionage. Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive framework for understanding how and why states respond diplomatically to cyber-intelligence operations. In the absence of a common set of rules for addressing cyber-intelligence transgressions, states have exhibited a range of formal and informal responses that appear to be ad hoc and reactive in nature. Yet, it is not easy to respond to an activity that is secretive, difficult to attribute to the responsible party and which is not clearly defined in international law. Cyber-intelligence operations attract significant media exposure and public accusations when they come to light and they often lead to important diplomatic repercussions for the implicated states.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |