Iran, Victim of Cyber Warfare Case Study
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
General questions
1. (Document A, paras. 1 – 8, 10, 12 – 15, 22 24; Document B, paras. 1, 2, 7 10, 12-13)a. (Document A, paras. 1 3, 5- 8, 10, 15 16, 22 24; Document B, paras. 1, 2, 7 10, 12 13) What distinguishes Stuxnet from other viruses? How did it work? What was its purpose? What were its effects?
b. (Document A, paras. 1 4, 7 8, 12 15; Document B, para. 13) What was to be gained from damaging and destroying the Iranian centrifuges? Who was responsible for the damage and destruction of the Iranian centrifuges? Is attribution under public international law a necessary precondition for an analysis of whether IHL applies?
II. Qualification of the situation
2. (Document A, 1, 2, 10, 11, 21 23; Document B, 2, 10, 12, 13)a. Does IHL apply in the present case? If so, could you classify the conflict? In this case, did an armed attack in the sense of the UN Charter occur? Was the attack an act of violence covered by P I, Art. 49?
b. With respect to the events at the Natanz nuclear facility, could one consider that the applicability of IHL was triggered?
c. If IHL does not apply, which framework regulates the matter? With what consequences?
III. Conduct of hostilities
3. (Document A, paras. 1, 2, 10, 11, 21- 23; Document B, paras. 2, 3, 10, 12, 13)a. Is there a difference between a cyber-attack and an attack under IHL? (P I, Art. 49)
b. (Document A, 1, 2, 10, 11, 21 23; Document B, 2, 10, 12, 13) Did the Stuxnet attack comply with the principle of distinction when it was unleashed? (P I, Art. 48, 51, 52)
c. Were Irans centrifuges a legitimate military objective? Can an attack against a civilian object be considered lawful if the attack does not result in destruction or if its effects are reversible? (P I, Art. 52)
d. (Document B, para. 3) Is the prohibition contained in Art. 56 P I dependent on the type of weapons or methods of warfare used? Was the prohibition violated in the present case? If Stuxnet would have unleashed destructive radiological materials, what would likely have been Tehrans reaction? Why?
e. In general, does the use of Computer Network Attacks (CNA) expand the range of legitimate targets? Why/Why not?
f. Would uniformed military personnel, computer operators launching viruses or accessing the opponents network be considered spies under IHL? Legitimate targets? In the present case? (P I, Art. 46, 48, 52)
IV. Proportionality and Precautions
4. (Document, paras. 2, 21 24; Document B, para. 13)a. What were the incidental effects of the Stuxnet attack? Is the principle of proportionality relevant in the present case? Why/Why not? (P I, Art. 51, 57)
b. Does the injunction to take precautions in both attack and defence apply during peacetime? Are these questions relevant in the present case? (P I, Art. 57, 58)
V. New Weapons
5. (Document A, paras. 13 14)a. In your opinion, did the development of the Stuxnet virus comply with Article 36? Is it feasible to apply Article 36 to situations of cyberwarfare?
VI. Miscellaneous
6.a. Did the use of Stuxnet violate the UN Charter?
b. In your opinion, should IHL be adapted to address the realities of the changing cyber landscape and its potential battlefields?
c. From an IHL perspective, do you see some advantages in cyber warfare? Why?
d. Does the destruction of data constitute an attack under IHL? Can an armed conflict start as a result of such destruction?
e. What is the temporal scope of IHL? Do cyberattacks raise some particular issues in this regard?
f. Did this incident involve the commission of war crimes? In general, do you see some particular problems in relation to the belligerent nexus required for the commission of war crimes and cyber warfare?
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Iran, Victim of Cyber Warfare Case Study
Iran, Victim of Cyber Warfare Case Study