BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The international system is based on equality and non-interference

Relations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”.[1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory.[2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”[3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development. [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/sovereignty/ [3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22538,4565c25f437,3b00efe434,0,,,.html
Governments enable censorship to protect their citizens

What censorship is it legitimate to undermine? Censorship is often created in order to protect the people not to strip them of freedoms. This is most obvious when we consider that filters to prevent hate speech or child pornography are forms of censorship that may be enabled with the intention of protecting citizens not repressing them. Iceland for example has recently decided to ban pornography and it would be enabled in a similar way to censorship by regimes like China or Iran.[1] Even harsher censorship that naturally looks more repressive to us may be considered a legitimate means of protecting the people and their values. When a government is using censorship to ensure stability is that censorship not justified when compared to the alternative? While there may be divisions internally about the legitimacy of this censorship it is certainly not legitimate for outside actors to impose their own idea of how much censorship there should be. [1] Kiss, Jemima, “Iceland’s porn ban ‘conflicts with the idea of a free society’, say critics”, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society
This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive

Unless a state wishes to pull the plug on the internet entirely state censorship on the internet is never complete. Dissidents and those who are interested in getting around censorship will manage with or without help from other governments, they will use privately developed software, or proxies to get around censors and protect themselves. Having help from foreign governments to bypass censorship may even put the people this policy is trying to empower in an even worse position. The use of software that is meant to undermine censorship helps to prove that the dissident’s intent is hostile towards the government and the state’s policies – otherwise they would not need to software, and would not resort to using methods developed by foreign countries. Russia is increasingly cracking down on those who have contact or receive help from ‘foreign agents’ particularly foreign NGOs, such a policy could be as easily applied to online help as financial aid.[1] [1] Earle, Jonathan, “Hundreds of NGOs Checked for Foreign Agents, Extremism”, The Moscow Times, 19 March 2013, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/hundreds-of-ngos-checked-for-foreign-agents-extremism/477173.html
Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy

Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability. Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict,[1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”.[2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.   [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-cyberwarfare-nato-manual [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html
Advancing national interests

There is little certainty that undermining an autocracy will benefit the countries that undermine it. No state can full control what goes on in another state; an even more oppressive regime could be the result. Even if there is a transition to a democracy this does not mean it will benefit those who wanted change. This is because democratic governments have to take account of the desires of their own people which may not always be in alignment with the interests of the foreign powers that supported political change. Thus while it would seem that the United States, as a democracy, should be naturally inclined to support a democratic government in Egypt in practice Mubarak operated more in line with US interests by keeping the peace with Israel that the Muslim brotherhood threatens to disrupt.
It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights

It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance.[1] [1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/24/chinese-governance-seen-through-the-people-s-eyes/
It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters

The public are rarely interested in foreign policy and want to keep well clear of foreign entanglements; they may like the idea of promoting democracy but if it means anything more than simple public support then they shy away as shown by only around 20-30% considering it a priority.[1] Undermining censorship may seem to be a cheap option for governments but they then have to own the consequences; such as having to pay to build stability which may be much more costly. The American people may have supported the Iraq war but they were against the immense amounts of wealth that was spent to try to put the country back together again. By undermining censorship revolution is being promoted along with the damage and chaos this can bring so the result may be a costly rebuilding process, possibly with troops on the ground. [1] “Historically, Public Has Given Low Priority to Promoting Democracy Overseas”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2011, http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/04/historically-public-has-given-low-priority-to-promoting-democracy-overseas/
It is legitimate to enable freedom

As foreign states are not the legitimate representative of the people it is not legitimate for them to set themselves up as the arbiter for those whom it believes are being deprived of rights. These states that are meddling in the affairs of others cannot know the full consequences of their actions; circumventing censorship could end up simply undermining a stable state without enabling anything to replace it. This is just as the Arab Spring has undermined the Syrian government but has only resulted in a conflict not the creation of a stable democracy. Countries that undermined the Syrian government cannot say that their contribution has been positive when there have been 70,000 killed[1] as a result of the collapse of the state. [1] Nichols, Michelle, “Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief”, Reuters, 12 February 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE91B19C20130212
Cyber attacks are no different from traditional attacks

The world has developed along with the new digital medium. Lots of crucial business and government services have moved online. While the military modernised in relation to digital developments, a definition of an act of war has not caught up with it yet. It is now being suggested that the digital domain is the new realm of warfare for the 21st century. States have already been using cyber attacks in hostilities and as acts of aggression against each other. For instance, USA and Israel have released a virus Stuxnet that sabotaged parts of Iran's nuclear programme in 2010, followed by retaliatory cyber attacks by Iran on USA [7]. In the 1998 war over Kosovo the USA successfully hacked Serbia's air defence systems, which left Serbia vulnerable to air attacks [8] [9]. Cyber attacks are thus attacks that can be perpetrated by states against other states in an effort to weaken the other state, the same way armed attacks are used. Given these realities large scale cyber attacks should be considered acts of war.
Cyber attacks can do serious damage to the state

Large scale cyber attacks can result in substantial harms to the state equivalent to those of an armed attack. Many states are dependent on flawless functioning of government and financial services online, and attacking them would cause mass disruption. For example, massive cyber attacks can cause serious disruption to economy by targeting financial, banking and commercial services; they can target government websites and steal confidential information that would compromise country's security, as was the case with USA in 2007 [10]; they could target power grids and shut down infrastructure on a massive scale across the country. All these instances cause disruption and leave the targeted country vulnerable with the government unable to operate successfully. This way, for instance, a large scale cyber attack from Russia on Georgia 2008 caused massive disruption to government, banking services, and communication within and outside of the country [11]. For these reasons USA's Pentagon decided to consider a cyber attack that 'produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause' an act of war [12]. Given the damage of possible attacks to the state, large-scale cyber attacks should be considered an act of war.
Currently there is no way to legally respond to cyber attacks by other states

Currently international law on how a state can respond to cyber attacks by another state is lacking: it only covers cyber attacks during armed conflicts or those are tantamount to an armed conflict [15]. An attacked state thus has no legitimate means to respond to cyber attacks. This leaves them no option of self-defence, which is an important element in international law. Moreover, without international law regulating cyber warfare between states, there is no actual illegitimacy for cyber attacks. Despite their far-reaching and grave consequences, cyber attacks by other states do not feature heavily in the news. Few people actually know about cyber attacks between USA and Iran, which would be an unimaginable situation should these states resorted to military attacks. This apparent lack of condemnation and attention in the wider society to cyber attacks further decreases ability of the state to defend themselves or even call out an aggressor publically as there is little to fear from global opinion for such actions
Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors

Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors, such as cyberterrorists or hacktivists (social activists who hack), without any involvement of the actual state. For instance, in 2007 a massive cyber attack launched on Estonia was blamed on Russia due to the then on-going tensions between these two states [17]. However, the attacks on Estonia were generated from all over the world; and even those from Russia could not have been linked to the Russian authorities, who denied involvement. Similarly, a huge wave of cyber attacks dubbed GhostNet that compromised computers in 103 countries in 2009 was blamed on China, not the least for hacking computers of Tibetan authorities. However, it could not be conclusively proven that this was an attack perpetrated by the Chinese authorities [18]. Any retaliation against a state for a cyber attack can never be certain to be against the right target – the state should not be blamed for the actions of its individual citizens.
Cyber attacks are difficult to trace

Cyber attacks are very difficult to trace as cyber attackers hide their digital tracks [20]. Cyber attackers also often launch attacks from poorly protected computers in other countries, which in no way implicates that the state was responsible for attacks – for instance, roughly 10% of spam comes from computers in China, but that is not Chinese spam [21]. The situation is different with traditional warfare, where there is evidence of weapons used, uniforms spotted, and reports of witnesses on site. Of course, we can expect states to lie about launching cyber attacks, thus China and the USA trade accusations about responsibility for cyber attacks, but there is no good way to test the truth. All of this means that an act of war would be judged based on incomplete and misleading information about another state’s involvement, threatening international peace and resulting in the loss of human life for no good reason.
Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague

Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.
Cyber attacks are no different from traditional attacks

An important thing about recognising something as an act of war is that it allows countries to retaliate. This includes military retaliation that causes human casualties, and political and economic sanctions, which impose suffering on the civilian population. The crucial difference between armed conflicts and cyber conflicts, is that in cyber attacks people, military or civilians, do not actually get killed. However, if we recognise cyber attacks as acts of war, this would allow an attacked state to retaliate with force resulting in human casualties. There is no way one could equate disruption in computer services to that of loss of human lives, therefore recognising cyber attacks as acts of war would be disproportional and unjust. Serbia's example that included human casualties following a cyber attack is not relevant as the cyber attack was as a part of a larger military attack.
Cyber attacks can do serious damage to the state

Cyber attacks might be disruptive, but they do not result in destruction, violence, injury and death the same way traditional armed aggressions do. For the majority of businesses and citizens, disruptions to online baking might be very inconvenient, but they are in no way equal to actual bombings and deaths. Targeted power grids, if they result in power outages, is mostly a discomfort in contrast to actual killings and atrocities that happen during wars. Plus, the infrastructure that really matters in a conflict, such as nuclear plants or military weaponry, cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet [13] [14]. Developed countries might be very used to amenities and comfort of online services and computers, however, a definition of armed conflicts as acts of war is much more universal because everywhere a human life is more important than any form of comfort. This is why people have a right to life and not a right to internet.
Currently there is no way to legally respond to cyber attacks by other states

While a modification to international law is needed in terms of acknowledging the gravity of cyber attacks, it does not mean that these should be considered acts of war. There are many things that states do that other states do not like and even find harmful, but these things are not considered to be equal with acts of war. Instead they are things that states need to reach agreements over to control. War is the last possible resort in such cases, there are other less drastic options such as sanctions to encourage the hostile state to desist.[27] Moreover, it is not true that cyber attacks are not condemned enough. The reason that countries generally do not engage in cyber attacks openly is because of fear of international condemnation [16].
Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors

In case of non-state actors attack, many practitioners in international law agree that the state can still retaliate in self-defence if another state is 'unwilling or unable to take effective action' to deal with attacks coming from within their territory [19]. This applies to traditional warfare, but the same way it can apply to cyberwarfare. If a country is not doing anything, or not doing enough, in order to ensure cyber security and persecute cyber attackers, then the attacked country has a right to take measures against cyber attackers.
Cyber attacks are difficult to trace

It is unlikely that states would freely attack other states when there is unclear evidence as to who the perpetrator was. In any country that is going to engage in military action regardless of the reason there is intense public debate this would apply all the more if the reason was novel (for instance, those on interfering against Syria's Assad's regime), so we can expect public scrutiny to apply to cyberwarfare as well. Furthermore, there are also cases when cyber attacks can be traced to a particular country hostile country or even particular group within the country. This can happen when the country or groups within it themselves admit to the attack, as the Syrian Electronic Army, sympathetic to Assad's regime, cyber attacking USA in 2013 [22]. Or through intensive investigation. Tools to track cyber attacks are also constantly being perfected. For example, IPv6 (the latest version of the internet protocol) is the most effective at decreasing anonymity of cyber attackers [23]. So there are scenarios when cyber attackers are known and can be tracked, and the states have a right to treat them as acts of war.
Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague

A definition of aggression in traditional warfare is the act that threatens sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state [26] – a definition which is expected to be used with cyber attacks too. It is highly unlikely to see a small scale cyber attack corresponding to this definition. For instance, taking down a media web page (as the Syrian Electronic Army did) does not threaten political independence of another state in a way that taking down all the government websites, and thus rendering the state incapable of functioning, does. Recognising that a cyber attack can be an act of war, does not mean that any cyber attack, will be considered such. In practice this same ambiguity is inherent in war – a country might consider it a casus belli if another’s military chases terrorists onto its territory but this would be similarly ambiguous if there were no casualties and it was not a direct attack.
A nation state can only rely on itself for security

In the security sphere it is national interests that are most important and no state can expect other states to have exactly the same interests. Everyone therefore needs to look after their own. In the case of the EU Britain cannot expect France or Germany to have the same security interests as the UK with its different situation – being an island rather than part of the continent. Germany is much more concerned with Eastern Europe than the UK, France much more with Northern Africa. Freedom from the EU means greater freedom for the UK to focus on its own national interests on security; terrorism, maritime defence, and building up NATO rather than any competing European force.
The EU causes instability

According to Boris Johnson the European Union is “a force for instability and alienation”[1] that increasingly causes security problems such as the migration crisis. The EUs inability to solve its crises such as the economic difficulties of peripheral countries like Greece and Portugal are causing resentment and warnings that one may fall out of the Euro block. It is the EU that is creating these problems by not dealing with its crises but leaving them to fester and grow. In Greece for example only a third of Greeks have a positive view of the EU and only 17% believe integration has been good for Greece.[2] [1] ‘EU referendum: Cameron warns UK exit could put peace at risk’, BBC News, 9th May 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296 [2] Stokes, Bruce, and Goo, Sara Kehaulani, ‘5 facts about Greece and the EU’, PewResearchCenter, 7 July 2015, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/07/5-facts-about-greece-and-the-eu/
Strong control of borders is needed to keep the country secure

Terrorism is often considered the biggest security threat to the UK. Ian Duncan Smith has argued that being in the EU “exposes UK to terror risk” because an “open border does not allow us to check and control people”.[1] The Schengen agreement on the free movement of people makes it easier for terrorists to move about in Europe as shown by the terrorist attacks on Paris which were planned in Brussels. [1] ‘Staying in EU 'exposes UK to terror risk', says Iain Duncan Smith’, BBC News, 21 February 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409