Cyberconflict
War is not something that any country is unaware of, regardless of where you live you have likely been exposed to war at some point in your lifetime. One specific type of war is cyberwarfare. This is the use of computer technology by an area or organization to attempt to damage or attack another state or organization, especially for strategic or military purposes. This is something that most countries see happening often. However it is always difficult to determine if these wars can be considered just. A just war means that it is a war that is fought for a justified reason. There needs to be conditions like a just cause, good intentions, all other methods exhausted, reasonable chances of success, and more in order to determine a war to be justified. The situation of cyberwar is something that has recently developed between Israel and Iran. According to NBC News, in October 2021, Iran was hit with a cyberattack that caused gas stations across the country to not be of use by people with government issued cards (Silva). While nobody took specific blame for this attack it is not the first time that Iran has been the victim to a cyberattack and it has gone back and forth with Israel for some time. Neither country has taken responsibility for attacking the other. However, there is no need for official confirmation to know who was doing it. Israel has already said that it is not prepared for cyberattacks that pose risk to human life and they fear the growth that Iranian attacks have shown. In The Cyberwar between Israel and Iran Is Heating Up, the author states “It is true that human lives are generally not lost in cyberwarfare. Israel, in particular uses strong safety measures. However, the Iranian attacks are becoming more sophisticated, like the attack on the electricity network and internet servers, which caused serious damage to the banking sector.” This tells us that attacks have become more and more dangerous and are now threatening human lives. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Ubuntu shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because each country is fighting back and forth with attacks that can potentially harm the lives of innocent people.
Michael Boylan is a professor at Marymount University for more than thirty years. He holds a Ph.D in philosophy and has specific interests in ethics, law, social philosophy, and politcal philosophy. He has lectured in fifteen different countries and has authored over one hundred and fourty articles and thirty seven books. In his journal, Can There Be a Just Cyber War? Boylan argues that cyber warfare has to be addressed separatley in order to determine what is a just war. He realizes that the traditional definition for a just war has to be looked at differently in order to adjust more to cyber warfare because it is relatively new. One central concept that Boylan brings up is the difference between sabotage and cyber warfare. It all depends on the degree of what is happening. For example, shutting down a company and stealing information could be seen as a minor crime. A foreing country disabling a U.S Navy fleet for a specific purpose would be an act of war (Boylan).
When you look at the case involving the Iran and Israel cyberwar and try to determine whether or not it is just you can see how Boylan and his concepts can relate. War is something that goes back hundreds and thousands of years and determining if it is just is also something that is traditionally a part of war. In traditional aspects war is something that involved killing, it was a casualty of war. Now in modern times cyber warfare is more popular and killing is not at the forefront of that type of war. When one country uses cyber attacks to target the other it is clear that the affected country is going to retaliate. In order to determine if this war is just one has to determine if the actions are an act of war. Boylan states that it is important to differentiate between sabotage and cyber warfare. This is something we see in the Iran/Israel cyberwar. For example, when Iran targeted systems at Hillel Yaffe Hospital it was serious because it caused staff to work manually putting lives in jeapordy (Amer). One could determine this was sabotage because it forced the way staff works to change. However, I don’t believe it constitutes an act of war because there was no specific purpose other than to disrupt life.
Instead of working to find ways to put an end to these attacks or at least slow them down, each country tends to retaliate against the other which only continues to put the lives of innocent people at risk or it just causes their lives to become harder. Looking from the ethical viewpoint of ubuntu one would understand that this cannot be determined just or ethical. Ubuntu ethics holds the view that humanity is realized through others and humanity is how one attains moral goodness. When it comes to the cyberwar involving Israel and Iran we see that it is not a traditional war, it involves cyber attacks that damage vital systems. However, this has the potential to affect human lives and can even cause death. Ubuntu holds that if one person is affected by something then all people are affected. People are still allowed individuality but morality consists of recognizing how important the community is as well. When Israel or Iran retaliates with attacks they know that the other country will also come back which puts citizens at risk. A war cannot be considered just if it is putting people at risk for no good reason. Instead either country can work to try to stop attacks all together.
Mariarosaria Taddeo is an associate professor and senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institure. She is a philosopher who works heavily with the ethics of digital technologies. She is also published and has works that include topics like ethics of cyber conflicts. In her paper An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare, Taddeo focuses on what exactly contitutes a just cyberwar. She talks about the fact that the just war theroy cannot work alone in determining if a cyberwar is just because it does not necessarily take into account some of the main points of cyber war including violence levels, domains, and more. Despite that fact it is also unwise to reject the just war theory all together. One principle that Taddeo introduces is the idea of more harm than good. She states “..before declaring war a state must consider the universal goods expected to follow from the decision to wage war, against the universal evils expected tov result, namely the casualties that the war is likely to determine.” (Taddeo) What she is saying here is that a cyberwar can only be determined to be just if there is more good done than harm. Specifically the casualties of war or “evils” are less than any of the good that can come from it.
When looking at the case of the Iran and Israel cyber war you can see how some of Taddeos concepts can align with it. It is clear that it is not easy to determine if any one war is just or not, especially when that war is a cyber war. One statement Taddeo makes is, “A state is justified in declaring war when only the goods are proportional to the evil.” (Taddeo) This is not as easy to do when it is a cyber war versus a traditional war. However, it is still possible. A cyber war is not likely to have extensive casualties or physical damage and that is exactly what is happening in Iran and Israel. The back and forth attacks may be redundant and frustrating. However, there has been no significant or physical damage.
In order for a war to be just, it has to be declared as a last result and this is not something that happened when it came to Israel and Iran, instead they continue to fight fire with fire resulting in danger to do nothing but build up. When looking from the ethical viewpoint of ubuntu a person could easily determine that this war was not just. Instead of stopping to consider their community and relationships, what makes them a person, country leaders chose to immediately fight back working to hurt the other. Ubuntu ethics sees the importance of making sure that people recognize their own individuality but it also sees that said individuality can only come from being a part of a community. By choosing to fight this war, both Iran and Israel are choosing to put all people at harm because if one person in a community is at risk then everyone is.
In conclusion, the cyber war that is currently taking place between Israel and Iran has been taking place for over a decade and it is not a just war because it is not a last resort and it does not aim to cause more good than harm. One drawback to this argument is that one could decide the war is just because the threat from either country continues to increase. Israeli attacks have increasingly become larger and more riskier, yet Iran has continued to learn and improve what they are capable of. However, one country, Israel, has obvious superiority and it is not the fact that they have run out of any other options to deter the fact that made them declare war. Any country has to face whether or not a war is just when they decide to enter one and it is important to determine if a war can really be determined just when it comes to an ethical standpoint.
Works Cited
Amer, Adnan Abu. “The Cyberwar between Israel and Iran Is Heating Up.” Middle East Monitor, Middle East Monitor, 8 Nov. 2021, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211108-the-cyberwar-between-israel-and-iran-is-heating-up/.
Boylan, Michael. Can There Be a Just Cyber War? Sept. 2013, http://hdl.handle.net/2115/54138.
Silva, Chantal Da, and Kevil Collier. “Iran Says Sweeping Cyberattack Took down Gas Stations across Country.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 27 Oct. 2021, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cyberattack-blamed-iran-gas-stations-hit-major-disruptions-rcna3806.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria. An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare. International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Jan. 2012, https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2012/01/3_5_Taddeo_AnAnalysisForAJustCyberWarfare.pdf.