mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored  Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide; [1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” [2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore.  It is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control.  [1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004,   [2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945,
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Everyone would benefit from the potential closure of a zone of possible future conflict. While cyber warfare may give a smaller state a brief advantage due to some low cost methods of attack ultimately the superior resources, both in defence and attack in cyberspace of the richer state would be telling. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) alone has a budget of $1.54billion for research into cyber offence from 2013-2017 [1] considering that there are numerous other agencies involved in cyber warfare or defence, or monitoring the internet it is clear that cyber-attacks are not some wonder weapon that can even the odds between states.  [1] Kallberg, Jan and Thuraisingham, Bhavani, ‘Cyber Operations: Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority’, Joint Force Quarterly, Vol.68, no.1, January 2013,
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks The use of the internet undermines the state by demonopolizing the use of force  Ever since the state rose to ascendancy over powerful internal actors, such as the nobility in a feudal system, the state has had a monopoly on the use of force. The state quickly became the only institution with the resources to maintain military forces and has become the only legitimate wielder of force. The internet however changes this. Cyber-attacks are often by individuals or groups who can carry out a cross border attack without the aid of their home country.  In 2011 CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress “when it comes to national security, I think this represents the battleground for the future. I've often said that I think the potential for the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber-attack.” [1] If cyber-attacks are so important it stands to reason that the groups who are able to engage in such activities should be as limited as possible. While it is not always possible states try to make sure that the weapons of war for the most part remain in the hands of responsible actors. This should apply as much in cyberspace as elsewhere. While terrorist groups do exist – and are occasionally armed by states – for the most part they are seen by every government as being illegitimate.  [1] Serrano, Richard A., ‘U.S. intelligence officials concerned about cyber attack’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2011,
africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge No mechanism to prevent crises and war exists  Within countries it is the state that ensures that conflict does not occur: the state has a monopoly on the use of force so ensures law and order. There is no such hierarchy between states. African nations, as with most other states in the world, believe in the sovereign right of states to manage their own affairs. In the same document as there is a pledge to end war “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each of its [AU’s] Member States” is reaffirmed. [1] While states are considered sovereign there is no possible way to create a mechanism to ensure that conflicts do not happen. The AU cannot dictate to its members to ensure they avoid internal conflicts even if the AU knows a conflict is coming as those members are the stakeholders. [2] All that the AU can do is react to ongoing conflicts when it is already spilling out of control and encourage good practice.  [1] African Union, 2013, p.1  [2] Williams, 2011, p.9
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Not all nations are equal. In an area where high technology is essential rich nations may be able to monitor all cyber intrusions but there will be many countries without the necessary systems. This treaty would therefore in effect be making poor countries without cyber defences into fair game. In theory they would be protected by the treaty, in practice with no monitoring there would be nothing they could do.
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks States will monitor each other, and an international body could be set up  Once a treaty is set up to limit or eliminate cyber-attacks monitoring is unlikely to be a problem because states will be willing to monitor each other. States in order to defend themselves from cyber-attacks already monitor the cyber-attacks that occur – the United States for example already has several cyber defense forces. [1] If that is not enough then there are numerous private groups that will be monitoring cyber-attacks as most are made against corporate rather than government targets. For example private company Mandiant exposed a unit of the People’s Liberation Army for its cyber-attacks in February 2013. [2] Once a cyber-attack has been traced and evidence gathered if the appropriate domestic authorities won’t deal with the culprit then an independent international institution can decide on the punishment for the government that is not living up to its treaty commitments.  If there is a need for international monitoring rather than simply a dispute settlement mechanism then there are models available through current treaties; a UN organisation similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency or International Criminal Court could be set up that can investigate incidents when asked.  [1] US Department of Defense, ‘The Cyber Domain Security and Operations’   [2] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013,
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war 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].
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act 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
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war 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.
africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge The Solemn Declaration  The Solemn Declaration did not just highlight the goal but also that it would be achieved through three techniques: by 1, addressing the causes of conflicts – economic and social disparities, strengthening judicial systems to ensure accountability, and reaffirming collective responsibility, 2, preventing emerging sources of conflict such as piracy getting a foothold, and 3, engaging in conflict prevention. [1]  Africa has been building the African Peace and Security Architecture to address these causes of conflict. It has created the Peace and Security Council that facilitates the AU’s response to crises; it can engage in actions from humanitarian assistance to military intervention if there are particularly grave circumstances such as genocide. [2] When it does authorise action, this action is coordinated by the AU commission. When it comes to peaceful resolution of conflict, the AU has a ‘Panel of the Wise’ made up of former presidents and others with lots of influence and moral authority who use preventative diplomacy to try to resolve conflicts. [3]  [1] African Union, 2013, p.5  [2] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011,  , p.7  [3] Ibid, p.12
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war 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.
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks While it is true that governments for the most part seek to prevent non-state actors that engage in violence we should not assume that the response will be the same for activities that are not violent. The rise of multinational companies has sometimes (particularly in the 1970s) been mentioned as a threat to the state (particularly poorer states where the MNC may be richer than the state) yet many countries promote their MNCs because they bring them wealth and therefore power. [1] Similarly having non state groups that are able to engage in cyber-attacks bring an advantage to those states that have them as they provide benefits both in conflicts (essentially creating a cyber-militia) and in peace where they engage in espionage so damaging competitors businesses.  [1] Kobrin, Stephen J., ‘ Sovereignty@Bay : Globalization, Multinational Enterprise, and the International Political System’, The Oxford Handbook of International Business, 2000,
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.” [1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability.  [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war 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.
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war 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.
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war 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.
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks There is no reason to assume that nations cannot get along on the issue of cyber security just because cooperation has not been prevalent so far. The US and China despite regularly accusing each other of launching cyber-attacks have set up a joint US-China working group on cyber security. [1] There is clearly a willingness to work together on this issue.  As to working out who is behind attacks the United States at least claims to be capable of doing this. Panetta says the Department of Defence can track attacks so “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests.” [2] That computers in multiple countries should be taken over in order to launch an attack should simply provide another reason why all nations should want to be involved in preventing cyber-attacks.  [1] ‘US-China cyber security working group meets’, BBC News, 9 July 2013,   [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war 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.
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act 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.
africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge Not all conflict is war  What is War? The AU’s declaration does not define it. Ending all conflict is ambitious, ending only inter state war in Africa on the other hand is not. The vast majority of conflicts in Africa have been internal. The only true inter state conflicts have been the wars between Israel and Egypt, the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, the Uganda-Tunisia war, and the Second Congo War. [1] None of these are ongoing. The only conflicts that might count as inter-state that might be considered ongoing are the situation in Western Sahara and border clashes between the Sudans. Western Sahara might be considered to be frozen with very few deaths as a result of it and the Sudan conflict is in large part a result of the border being new.  [1] Wikipedia, ‘List of conflicts in Africa’, accessed 10 January 2014,
global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3]  Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,   [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,   [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,