The technological advancements of the 21st century have broadened the traditional concepts of warfare and security. This broadened notion of warfare and security contains an important element of cyberspace. Cyberspace is the virtual space created through the linkages of the internet and internet devices. Because of certain developments, cyberspace is now considered the fifth operational domain for warfare, with the other four domains being land, sea, air, and space. This new realm of confrontation has encouraged states worldwide to secure their cyberspaces and build offensive or defensive cyber warfare capabilities as per their potential. Where traditional realists argue that cyber warfare does not fit the concept of warfare (as proposed by Clausewitz), this article justifies otherwise. The study employs content analysis as a method and adopts a qualitative approach to data analysis, posing the following research question: How does cyber warfare fit Clausewitz’s conception of war? In exploring this, the research hypothesizes that an in-depth analysis of Clausewitz’s trinity -- the elements of violence, combat, and policy -- indicates that these elements are also the salient features of cyber warfare, making it a valid form of war despite its anomalies.
}, author = {Nageen Ashraf}, doi = {10.37540/njips.v8i1.183}, issn = {2616-4434}, issue = {1}, journal = {NUST Journal of International Peace \& Stability}, month = {1}, pages = {17-29}, title = {The Paradox of Cyber Warfare and Clausewitz’s Conception of War}, volume = {8}, url = {https://njips.nust.edu.pk/index.php/njips/article/view/183}, year = {2025} } @book{Bode2022, abstract = {"Ingvild Bode and Hendrik Huelss present a study of how testing, developing, and using weapons systems with autonomous features shapes ethical and legal norms, and how standards manifest and change in practice. Autonomous weapons systems are not a matter for the distant future: some autonomous features, such as in air defence systems, have been in use for decades. They have already incrementally changed use-of-force norms by setting emerging standards for what counts as meaningful human control. As United Nations discussions drag on with minimal progress, the trend towards autonomizing weapons systems continues. This book provides an analysis of the normative repercussions of weaponizing artificial intelligence"-- Provided by the publisher. Autonomous weapons systems and international relations -- New technologies of warfare : emergence and regulation -- International law, norms, and order -- Norms in international relations -- How autonomous weapons systems make norms.}, author = {Ingvild. Bode and Hendrik. Huelss}, city = {Montreal}, isbn = {9780228008095}, pages = {281}, publisher = {McGill-Queen's University Press}, title = {Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Norms}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9780228009245}, year = {2022} } @techReport{Boulanin2020, author = {Vincent Boulanin and Neil Davison and Netta Goussac and Moa Peldán Carlsson}, institution = {SIPRI \& ICRC}, title = {Limits on Autonomy in Weapon Systems: Identifying Practical Elements of Human Control}, url = {https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/2006_limits_of_autonomy_0.pdf}, year = {2020} } @techReport{Boulanin2017, author = {Vincent Boulanin and Maaike Verbruggen}, institution = {Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)}, title = {Mapping the Development of Autonomy in Weapon Systems}, url = {https://www.sipri.org/publications/2017/policy-reports/mapping-development-autonomy-weapon-systems}, year = {2017} } @article{Bracey2025, abstract = {This paper is for anyone who wants to understand Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, as it relates to respective armed forces. Indeed, AI will power several new weapon systems used on the military battlefield of the future. This paper uses Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and Karl von Clausewitz’s profound study On War as source works, to give an overview of the role of Artificial Intelligence; and how military technology might be used during future wars. In this respect, governments have an obligation to consider new and more deadly weapons for their national defense. Hence, this work shows how AI will be intricately entwined with arming our respective militaries with autonomous weapon systems. But will countries or governments follow AI technology blindly without considering the negative consequences of using such deadly AI weapons? Finally, this paper asks the question of whether AI manufactured weapons are even necessary. Indeed, using futuristic AI weapons of war might (wholeheartedly) transform our warring world. Only time will tell if human beings will deploy such unconventional measures/weapons — to resolve violent conflicts.
}, author = {Earnest N. Bracey}, doi = {10.22158/sshsr.v6n1p20}, issn = {2690-3636}, issue = {1}, journal = {Social Science, Humanities and Sustainability Research}, month = {3}, pages = {20-32}, title = {Artificial Intelligence (AI), Politics, Military Science and the Art of Future War}, volume = {6}, url = {http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/sshsr/article/view/55896}, year = {2025} } @misc{BusinessInsider2024, author = {Business Insider}, month = {11}, title = {Ukraine's drones behind 80% of Russian frontline casualties: Report}, url = {https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-drones-behind-80-russia-frontline-casualties-report-nyt-war-2024-11}, year = {2024} } @book{Clausewitz1976, author = {Carl von Clausewitz}, editor = {Michael Howard and Peter Paret and Bernard Brodie}, publisher = {Princeton University Press}, title = {On War}, year = {1976} } @article{Cole2020, abstract = {But in war more than in any other subject we must begin by looking at the nature of the whole; for here more than elsewhere the part and whole must always be thought of together.}, author = {Brian Cole}, issue = {1st Quarter 2020}, journal = {JPME Today}, pages = {42-49}, title = {Clausewitz's Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity: The Nature of War as a Complex Adaptive System}, volume = {JFQ 96}, year = {2020} } @techReport{Cummings2017, abstract = { Both military and commercial robots will in the future incorporate 'artificial intelligence' (AI) that could make them capable of undertaking tasks and missions on their own. In the military context, this gives rise to a debate as to whether such robots should be allowed to execute such missions, especially if there is a possibility that any human life could be at stake. To better understand the issues at stake, this paper presents a framework explaining the current state of the art for AI, the strengths and weaknesses of the technology, and what the future likely holds. The framework demonstrates that while computers and AI can be superior to humans in some skill-and rule-based tasks, under situations that require judgment and knowledge, in the presence of significant uncertainty, humans are superior to computers.}, author = {M. L. Cummings}, institution = {Chatham House}, title = {Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare}, url = {https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017-01-26-artificial-intelligence-future-warfare-cummings-final.pdf}, year = {2017} } @techReport{Davison2018, abstract = {UNODA Occasional Papers No. 30, November 2017: Perspectives on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems A legal perspective: Autonomous weapon systems under international humanitarian law DOI:https://dx.doi.org/10.18356/29a571ba-en}, author = {Neil Davison}, doi = {10.18356/29a571ba-en}, institution = {UNODA}, journal = {UNODA Occasional Papers: Perspectives on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems}, month = {11}, pages = {5-18}, publisher = {UNODA}, title = {A legal perspective: Autonomous weapon systems under international humanitarian law}, volume = {30}, url = {https://doi.org/10.18356/29a571ba-en}, year = {2018} } @article{Dimitriu2020, abstract = {This paper re-examines the theoretical underpinnings of Strategic Studies, proposing a novel theory and a new framework for analysing war’s fundamental relationship with politics in line with the Clausewitzian tradition. Throughout modern history, Clausewitz’s concept of politics has been misconstrued as referring only to policy whereas in fact, for him, ‘politics’ was a much broader concept, including domestic power struggles. The political logic of war is defined here as the convergence of the interrelating factors of power struggles and policy objectives within a given polity that restrains and enables these political forces. The analysis of the Clausewitzian political logic of war is conducted through the sociological ‘liquid modern’ lens. It is argued that with power increasingly shifting from centralised state-oriented political leadership towards market forces, non-state actors and other political bodies, the effectiveness of war has been reduced. This is evident in the fragmentation of Western political systems and, as a result, suboptimal strategy and the domination of domestic power struggles in political decision-making concerning war.}, author = {George Dimitriu}, doi = {10.1080/01402390.2018.1529567}, issn = {1743937X}, issue = {5}, journal = {Journal of Strategic Studies}, pages = {645-685}, title = {Clausewitz and the politics of war: A contemporary theory}, volume = {43}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2018.1529567}, year = {2020} } @article{Echevarria2003, abstract = {Over the last two decades, the U.S. military has struggled to understand the center of gravity concept as developed by Carl von Clausewitz and to find practical ways to apply it. In the process, however, each of the services-shaped as they are by different roles, histories, and traditions-has brought individual perspectives to Clausewitz's expression and redefined it in its respective image.}, author = {Antulio J. Echevarria}, issue = {1}, journal = {Naval War College Review}, pages = {108-123}, title = {Clausewitz’s Center of Gravity: It's not What We Thought}, volume = {LVI}, url = {https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA523742}, year = {2003} } @book{Echevarria2007, abstract = {This book sheds light on Clausewitz's purpose in writing On War, and the methodology he employed. While many scholars agree that Clausewitz's work is frequently misunderstood, almost none have explored his methodology to see whether it might enhance our understanding of his concepts. This book lays out Clausewitz's purpose and methodology in a brisk and straightforward style. It then uses that as a basis for understanding his contributions to the ever growing body of knowledge of war. The specific contributions this study addresses are Clausewitz's theories concerning the nature of war, the relationship between war and politics, and several of the major principles of strategy he examined. These theories and principles lie at the heart of the current debates over the nature of contemporary conflict. They also underpin much of the instruction that prepares military and civilian leaders for their roles in the development and execution of military strategy. This book is organized into three parts. The first provides students with background information concerning Clausewitz's purpose and method. The second lays out his theories regarding the nature of war, his ideas concerning the relationship between war and policy, and the complementary balance between friction and military genius. The final part examines his concept of strategy, and several of his strategic principles, particularly the centre of gravity, and reveals how they relate to contemporary war. Together, these themes represent the core of what professional military curricula usually cover of Clausewitz.}, author = {Antulio J. Echevarria}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, title = {Clausewitz and Contemporary War}, year = {2007} } @article{Enemark2024, abstract = {This essay assesses the morality of Ukraine’s use of drones to attack targets inside Russia. Following its invasion by Russian forces, Ukraine has had a just cause to wage a war of self-defense. However, its efforts to achieve that cause remain subject to moral limits. Even a state that has been unjustly attacked may not, for example, respond by deliberately targeting the attacking state’s civilian population. To do so would violate the jus in bello principle of discrimination. The essay first describes how drone technology has frequently enabled long-range strikes against Russian military assets as well as other targets inside cities. It then explains why it would be morally wrong for Ukraine to attack its enemy’s population centers. First, Russian civilians are not liable to attack, and this nonliability is undiminished by the injustice of Russia’s invasion or by any in bello wrongs committed by the Russian military. Second, attacking Russian cities with drones would arguably achieve little or no self-defensive benefit for Ukraine, and it could even be counterproductive.}, author = {Christian Enemark}, doi = {10.1017/S089267942400008X}, issn = {17477093}, issue = {1}, journal = {Ethics and International Affairs}, keywords = {Russo-Ukrainian War,civilians,discrimination,drones,escalation,just cause}, pages = {54-63}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, title = {Returning the War to Russia: Drones and Discrimination in the Defense of Ukraine}, volume = {38}, url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ethics-and-international-affairs/article/returning-the-war-to-russia-drones-and-discrimination-in-the-defense-of-ukraine/8625D6F7559C44B3C44E7D9E059919FC#}, year = {2024} } @article{Erickson2021, abstract = {The author applies the insights of military strategist Carl von Clausewitz to operations in the cyber domain and provides recommendations for countering Russian actions in cyberspace.}, author = {Jon. V. Erickson}, issue = {September-October 2021}, journal = {Military Review}, keywords = {English Military Review September-October 2021 Erickson}, month = {10}, pages = {6-11}, title = {Clausewitz's Perspective on Deterring Russian Malign Activities in Cyberspace}, url = {https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2021/Erickson-Clausewitzs-Perspective/ www.freepik.com.}, year = {2021} } @article{Horowitz2018, abstract = {The promise of AI-including its ability to improve the speed and accuracy of everything from logistics and battlefield planning to human decision making-is driving militaries around the world to accelerate research and development. Here's why. Artificial intelligence (AI) is having a moment in the national security space. While the public may still equate the notion of artificial intelligence in the military context with the humanoid robots of the Terminator franchise, there has been a significant growth in discussions about the national security consequences of artificial intelligence. These discussions span academia, business, and governments, from Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom's concern about the existential risk to humanity posed by artificial intelligence to Tesla founder Elon Musk's concern that artificial intelligence could trigger World War III to Vladimir Putin's statement that leadership in AI will be essential to global power in the 21st century. What does this really mean, especially when you move beyond the rhetoric of revolutionary change and think about the real world consequences of potential applications of artificial intelligence to militaries? Artificial intelligence is not a weapon. Instead, artificial intelligence, from a military perspective, is an enabler, much like electricity and the combustion engine. Thus, the effect of artificial intelligence on military power and international conflict will depend on particular applications of AI for militaries and policymakers. What follows are key issues for thinking about the military consequences of artificial intelligence, including principles for evaluating what artificial intelligence "is" and how it compares to technological changes in the past, what militaries might use artificial intelligence for, potential limitations to the use of artificial intelligence, and then the impact of AI military applications for international politics. The potential promise of AI-including its ability to improve the speed and accuracy of everything from logistics to battlefield planning and to help improve human decision-making-is driving militaries around the world to accelerate their research into and development of AI applications. For the US military, AI offers a new avenue to sustain its military superiority while potentially reducing costs and risk to US soldiers. For others, especially Russia and China, AI}, author = {Michael C. Horowitz}, issue = {6}, journal = {Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists}, pages = {1-7}, title = {The promise and peril of military applications of artificial intelligence}, volume = {74}, url = {https://thebulletin.org/2018/04/the-promise-and-peril-of-military-applications-of-artificial-intelligence/}, year = {2018} } @article{ICRC2021, author = {ICRC}, doi = {10.1017/S1816383121000564}, issn = {16075889}, issue = {915}, journal = {International Review of the Red Cross}, pages = {1335-1349}, title = {International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) position on autonomous weapon systems: ICRC position and background paper}, volume = {102}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383121000564}, year = {2021} } @techReport{ICRC2016, abstract = {Debates on autonomous weapon systems have expanded significantly in recent years in diplomatic, military, scientific, academic and public forums. In March 2014, the ICRC convened an international expert meeting to consider the relevant technical, military, legal and humanitarian issues.1 Expert discussions at a Meeting of Experts convened by the High Contracting Parties to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) were held in April 2014 and continued in April 2015 and April 2016.2 As a further contribution to the international discussions, the ICRC convened this second expert meeting, entitled Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons, from 15 to 16 March 2016. It brought together representatives from 20 States3 and 14 individual experts in robotics, law, policy and ethics. This report of the meeting is divided into three main sections: Part I is a summary report of the expert meeting, which was prepared by the ICRC under its sole responsibility. Part II comprises summaries of selected presentations given by individual experts at the meeting, and provided under their own responsibility. Part III is an edited version of the background paper prepared by the ICRC and circulated to participants in advance of the expert meeting in March 2016. The meeting programme and the list of participants are provided in Annexes 1 and 2.}, author = {ICRC}, city = {Versoix}, issue = {March}, institution = {ICRC}, journal = {International Committee of the Red Cross}, month = {3}, title = {Autonomous Weapon Systems Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons}, url = {https://icrcndresourcecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/4283_002_Autonomus-Weapon-Systems_WEB.pdf}, year = {2016} } @article{Jacobsen2014, abstract = {There is no cyberwar. This observation, however, does not render cyberattacks unimportant. This article returns to Clausewitz's On War (1832) and examines the utility of cyberattacks in future wars. In doing so, the article not only targets the misunderstandings and exaggerations prevalent in the literature, but also demonstrates that On War, albeit two centuries old, is a key work in understanding the relationship between cyberattacks and war. Drawing on Clausewitz, the article finds that cyberattacks can be useful tools particularly in the initial phase of war. However cyberattacks remain inferior to conventional military weaponry, ultimately rendering cyberwar unlikely.}, author = {Jeppe Teglskov Jacobsen}, doi = {10.4018/ijcwt.2014100101}, issn = {1947-3435}, issue = {4}, journal = {International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism (IJCWT)}, pages = {1-16}, title = {Clausewitz and the Utility of Cyberattacks in War}, volume = {4}, url = {https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcwt.2014100101}, year = {2014} } @article{Lekea2023, abstract = {Numerous factors are known to impact human decision-making: fatigue, stress, fear, sleep deprivation, organizational culture, ethics, and even substances consumed, among others. Making decisions within the context of a military operation poses exceptional challenges. Time constraints are consistently tight, and military personnel often contend with physical and mental exhaustion, along with substantial stress and fear. Our proactive strategies for addressing these hurdles predominantly revolve around educating military personnel, incorporating both theoretical training and immersive simulations that may include different types of war games, role playing and VR applications that mimic real-world challenges. However, can we extend our efforts further to ensure that military personnel surmount difficulties and consistently make morally and legally sound decisions amidst exceptional situations? Moreover, where does trust lie: in the insights of a comrade, a commanding officer, or the guidance provided by sophisticated algorithms and Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems? Could AI potentially outperform human guidance when it comes to elevating the ethical and legal discernment of military personnel amid the intensity of combat situations?.}, author = {Ioanna K. Lekea and George K. Lekeas and Pavlos Topalnakos}, doi = {10.12681/cjp.35213}, issn = {24593842}, issue = {2}, journal = {Conatus - Journal of Philosophy}, title = {Exploring Enhanced Military Ethics and Legal Compliance through Automated Insights: An Experiment on Military Decision-making in Extremis}, volume = {8}, year = {2023} } @article{McFarland2022, abstract = {In regulating military applications of artificial intelligence (AI), the relationship between humans and the AI systems they operate is of central importance. AI developers commonly frame the desired human-AI relationship in terms of 'trust', aiming to make AI systems sufficiently 'trustworthy' for the task at hand and foster appropriate levels of human 'trust' in complex, often inscrutable, AI systems. Meanwhile, in legal and ethical discussions, the challenge is generally framed as ensuring that humans retain 'control' over AI such that responsible operators can reliably guide the behaviour of AI systems as required by legal and other norms. Surprisingly, few have asked whether the paradigms of 'trust' and 'control' are guiding development of the human-AI relationship in the same direction. This paper outlines the nature of trust and control as they relate to regulation of the human-AI relationship and surveys some challenges which arise in regulating the military uptake of AI systems.}, author = {Tim McFarland}, doi = {10.1093/ijlit/eaad008}, issn = {14643693}, issue = {4}, journal = {International Journal of Law and Information Technology}, pages = {472-483}, title = {Reconciling trust and control in the military use of artificial intelligence}, volume = {30}, url = {https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article/30/4/472/7080465}, year = {2022} } @book{Menthe2024, author = {Lance Menthe and Li Ang Zhang and Edward Geist and Joshua Steier and Aaron B Frank and Erik Van Hegewald and Gary J Briggs and Keller Scholl and Yusuf Ashpari and Anthony Jacques}, city = {Santa Monica, CA}, doi = {10.7249/RRA1722-1}, publisher = {RAND Corporation}, title = {Understanding the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Warfighters: Volume 1, Summary}, url = {https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1722-1.html}, year = {2024} } @article{Meyer2022, abstract = {This article applies grounded theory and epistemological, teleological, ontological, and methodological (ETOM) lenses to describe the prevalent contemporary theories of the centre of gravity concept, originated by Carl von Clausewitz. These include the theories of John Warden, Joe Strange & Richard Iron, Antulio Echevarria II, Milan Vego, Dale Eikmeier, and Jacob Barfoed. The article then compares the theories across 14 deduced theoretical aspects and produces a comparison matrix, that can be used as an analytical tool, and discusses implications as guidance for further research and doctrine development. The article argues that the term “centre of gravity” is polluted, and that the application of the term in military planning and doctrines requires careful attention to the specific theory being applied, so that logical consistency and clear, accurate communication is achieved. Alternatively, the concept may be removed from doctrine altogether, renovated with inclusion of a new unpolluted term, or reconstructed with removal of the centre of gravity, leaving a “critical factor analysis” concept behind. This article also provides a level of granularity to the debate about the concept, that renders critics like Paparone & Davis Jr and Zweibelson partly irrelevant and can provide a more nuanced and qualitative basis for future discussion.}, author = {Eystein L. Meyer}, doi = {10.1080/14702436.2022.2030715}, issn = {17439698}, issue = {3}, journal = {Defence Studies}, pages = {327-353}, title = {The centre of gravity concept: contemporary theories, comparison, and implications}, volume = {22}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14702436.2022.2030715}, year = {2022} } @inproceedings{Rauti2020, abstract = {This study argues that the fundamental tenets Carl von Clausewitz presented about warfare in his influential book On War can be applied to defensive cyberwar. This will help in forming a new multidisciplinary perspective on the topic, which can benefit policy makers, political and military scientists and cyber security specialists alike. Moreover, by applying Clausewitz’s principles of defensive warfare and his concepts of uncertainty and friction to cyberdefense, we outline a conceptual framework for resilient and proactive cyberdefense.}, author = {Sampsa Rauti}, doi = {10.1007/978-981-15-4825-3_27}, editor = {S. Thampi and G. Martinez Perez and R. Ko and D. Rawat}, issn = {18650937}, booktitle = {Security in Computing and Communications. SSCC 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 1208)}, pages = {335-347}, publisher = {Springer, Singapore}, title = {Controlling Uncertainty with Proactive Cyber Defense: A Clausewitzian Perspective}, volume = {1208 CCIS}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4825-3_27}, year = {2020} } @article{Rid2012, abstract = {For almost two decades, experts and defense establishments the world over have been predicting that cyber war is coming. But is it? This article argues in three steps that cyber war has never happened in the past, that cyber war does not take place in the present, and that it is unlikely that cyber war will occur in the future. It first outlines what would constitute cyber war: a potentially lethal, instrumental, and political act of force conducted through malicious code. The second part shows what cyber war is not, case-by-case. Not one single cyber offense on record constitutes an act of war on its own. The final part offers a more nuanced terminology to come to terms with cyber attacks. All politically motivated cyber attacks are merely sophisticated versions of three activities that are as old as warfare itself: sabotage, espionage, and subversion. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.}, author = {Thomas Rid}, doi = {10.1080/01402390.2011.608939}, issn = {01402390}, issue = {1}, journal = {Journal of Strategic Studies}, pages = {5-2}, title = {Cyber War Will Not Take Place}, volume = {35}, year = {2012} } @article{Samus2024, author = {Mykhailo Samus}, issue = {7}, journal = {Russia's War in Ukraine, International Centre for Defence and Security, Estonia}, title = {Drone-Centric Warfare}, volume = {2}, url = {https://icds.ee/en/russias-war-in-ukraine-drone-centric-warfare/}, year = {2024} } @techReport{Sayler2024, abstract = {The United States is the leader in developing many of these technologies. However, China and Russia—key strategic competitors—are making steady progress in developing advanced military technologies. As these technologies are integrated into foreign and domestic military forces and deployed, they could hold significant implications for the future of international security writ large, and will have to be a significant focus for Congress, both in terms of funding and program oversight}, author = {Kelley M. Sayler}, institution = {Congressional Research Service}, journal = {Congressional Research Service}, title = {Emerging Military Technologies: Background and Issues for Congress}, url = {https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46458}, year = {2024} } @techReport{Scharre2016, abstract = {Paul Scharre is a senior fellow and director of the 20YY Future of Warfare Initiative at CNAS.}, author = {Paul Scharre}, institution = {Center for a New American Security (CNAS)}, title = {Autonomous Weapons and Operational Risk: Ethical Autonomy Project}, url = {https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/autonomous-weapons-and-operational-risk}, year = {2016} } @book{Scharre2018, author = {Paul Scharre}, city = {New York}, institution = {W. W. Norton}, publisher = {W. W. Norton}, title = {Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War}, year = {2018} } @article{Shah2018, abstract = {As an integral part of dissertations and theses, research scholars in different disciplines require to write a comprehensive chapter on "literature review" that establishes the conceptual and theoretical foundations of an empirical research study. This, however, poses an intellectual challenge to produce a critical review of the published research on a given topic. Therefore, this paper addresses the students problems of writing the literature review in a thesis or dissertation at the graduate and postgraduate levels. It explains the process and steps of reviewing literature for a thesis chapter. These steps include; a) critical reading and note-taking, b) writing a summary of the reviewed literature, c) organization of literature review, and d) the use of a synthesis matrix. The last part of the paper offers suggestions on how to write critically and make the researcher's voice explicit in the chapter.}, author = {Sayyed Rashid Shah and Fasih Ahmed and Reena Khan}, doi = {10.31703/glr.2018(iii-i).09}, issn = {26633299}, journal = {Global Language Review}, pages = {136-153}, title = {Writing a Critical Review of Literature: A Practical Guide for English Graduate Students}, volume = {III}, url = {https://www.glrjournal.com/article/Writing-a-Critical-Review-of-Literature:-A-Practical-Guide-for-English-Graduate-Students}, year = {2018} } @article{Taddeo2016, abstract = {In this article I propose an ethical analysis of information warfare, the warfare waged in the cyber domain. The goal is twofold: filling the theoretical vacuum surrounding this phenomenon and providing the conceptual grounding for the definition of new ethical regulations for information warfare. I argue that Just War Theory is a necessary but not sufficient instrument for considering the ethical implications of information warfare and that a suitable ethical analysis of this kind of warfare is developed when Just War Theory is merged with Information Ethics. In the initial part of the article, I describe information warfare and its main features and highlight the problems that arise when Just War Theory is endorsed as a means of addressing ethical problems engendered by this kind of warfare. In the final part, I introduce the main aspects of Information Ethics and define three principles for a just information warfare resulting from the integration of Just War Theory and Information Ethics.}, author = {Mariarosaria Taddeo}, doi = {10.1007/s11245-014-9245-8}, issn = {15728749}, issue = {1}, journal = {Topoi}, pages = {213-224}, title = {Just Information Warfare}, volume = {35}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9245-8}, year = {2016} } @article{Templier2015, abstract = {Given that the synthesis of cumulated knowledge is an essential condition for any field to grow and develop, we believe that the enhanced role of IS reviews requires that this expository form be given careful scrutiny. Over the past decade, several senior scholars have made calls for more review papers in our field. While the number of IS review papers has substantially increased in recent years, no prior research has attempted to develop a general framework to conduct and evaluate the rigor of standalone reviews. In this paper, we fill this gap. More precisely, we present a set of guidelines for guiding and evaluating IS literature reviews and specify to which review types they apply. To do so, we first distinguish between four broad categories of review papers and then propose a set of guidelines that are grouped according to the generic phases and steps of the review process. We hope our work will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating, and/or interpreting reviews in our field.}, author = {Mathieu Templier and Guy Paré}, doi = {10.17705/1cais.03706}, issn = {15293181}, issue = {Paper 6}, journal = {Communications of the Association for Information Systems}, pages = {112-137}, title = {A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews}, volume = {37}, url = {https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/6/}, year = {2015} } @article{Tsotniashvili2024, abstract = {In an increasingly digitized world, cyber conflicts are emerging as a critical domain of modern warfare and international relations. This paper examines the legal and ethical standards that govern cyber conflict, aiming to define clear rules of engagement. Through a detailed analysis of current international laws, national legislation, and ethical theories relevant to cyber operations, this research identifies gaps and challenges in the existing frameworks. Case studies of notable cyber incidents illustrate the practical implications of these legal and ethical standards. The study proposes a set of refined rules of engagement designed to address these deficiencies, ensuring ma ore coherent and consistent application of legal and ethical principles in cyber conflict. The findings suggest that while international consensus and cooperation are crucial, there is also a need for dynamic and adaptable rules that can keep pace with rapid technological advancements. This paper contributes to the growing discourse on cyber conflict by providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal and ethical dimensions and offering actionable recommendations for policymakers, legal experts, and cybersecurity practitioners.}, author = {Zaza Tsotniashvili}, doi = {10.25077/jds.1.2.119-132.2024}, issue = {2}, journal = {Journal of Digital Sociohumanities}, month = {7}, pages = {119-132}, publisher = {Universitas Andalas}, title = {Defining the Rules of Engagement: Legal and Ethical Standards in Cyber Conflict}, volume = {1}, url = {https://jds.unand.ac.id/index.php/jds/article/view/16}, year = {2024} } @article{TysonBrown2024, author = {Zachary Tyson Brown}, issue = {1 (Extracts, March 2024)}, journal = {Studies in Intelligence}, title = {Future of Intelligence: “The Incalculable Element”: The Promise and Peril of Artificial Intelligence}, volume = {68}, url = {https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/643e18ba5bf779749a14059019db53b2/Article-The-Promise-and-Peril-of-Artificial-Intelligence-Studies-68-1-March-2024.pdf}, year = {2024} } @misc{UNHumanRightsMonitoringMissioninUkraineUN-HRMMU2025, author = {UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (UN-HRMMU)}, journal = {news.un.org}, month = {2}, title = {Short-range drones: The deadliest threat to civilians in Ukraine}, url = {https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160016}, year = {2025} } @book{Valeriano2018, abstract = {This book examines how states integrate cyber capabilities with other instruments of power to achieve foreign policy outcomes. Given North Korea’s use of cyber intrusions to threaten the international community and extort funds for its elites, Chinese espionage and the theft of government records through the Office of Personal Management (OPM) hack, and the Russian hack on the 2016 US election, this book is a timely contribution to debates about power and influence in the 21st century. Its goal is to understand how states apply cyber means to achieve political ends, a topic speculated and imagined, but investigated with very little analytical rigor. Following on Valeriano and Maness’s (2015) book, Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System, this new study explores how states apply cyber strategies, using empirical evidence and key theoretical insights largely missed by the academic and strategy community. It investigates cyber strategies in their integrated and isolated contexts, demonstrating that they are useful to managing escalation and sending ambiguous signals, but generally they fail to achieve coercive effect.}, author = {Brandon Valeriano and Benjamin Jensen and Ryan C. Maness}, doi = {10.1093/oso/9780190618094.001.0001}, journal = {Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, title = {Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion}, year = {2018} } @article{VanDiggelen2025, abstract = {Foreign information operations on social media platforms pose significant risks to democratic societies. With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this threat is likely to intensify, potentially overwhelming human defenders. To achieve the necessary scale and tempo to defend against these threats, utilizing AI as part of the solution seems inevitable. Although there has been a significant debate on AI in Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), it is equally likely that AI will be widely used in information operations for defensive and offensive objectives. Similar to LAWS, AI-driven information operations occupy a highly sensitive moral domain where removing human involvement in the tactical decision making process raises ethical concerns. Although AI has yet to revolutionize the field, a solid ethical stance is urgently needed on how AI can be responsibly used to defend against information operations on social media platforms. This paper proposes possible AI-enabled countermeasures against cognitive warfare and argues how they can be developed in a responsible way, such that meaningful human control is preserved.}, author = {Jurriaan Van Diggelen and Jazz Rowa and Eugene Aidman and Julian Vince}, journal = {ArXiv}, month = {4}, title = {Designing AI-Enabled Countermeasures to Cognitive Warfare}, volume = {abs/2504.11486.}, url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11486}, year = {2025} } @article{Winczewski2023, abstract = {The article discusses selected theoretical and practical problems of the ongoing Russian Ukrainian war since 2014 from the perspective of Carl von Clausewitz’s political theory of war. It argues, first, that defining the first phase of the conflict as “hybrid war” on theoretical grounds is an unnecessary exercise that obscures the methodologically important difference between war and peace. Second, despite technological innovations, the concepts of “fog of war” and “friction” remain relevant. Third, the current phase of the conflict shows that the spontaneous and grassroots involvement of citizens in the war was a transitional phenomenon that became subordinated to central command structures. It also shows that from the perspective of Clausewitz’s theory, Russia’s strategic failure in the first part of the second phase of the conflict is completely understandable.}, author = {Damian Winczewski}, doi = {10.15804/athena.2023.80.14}, issn = {15052192}, issue = {4}, journal = {Athenaeum Polskie Studia Politologiczne}, title = {War in Ukraine and Enduring Relevance of the Clausewitzian Theory}, volume = {80}, year = {2023} } @article{Yeremyan2022, abstract = { INTRODUCTION. The world has many times faced cardinal changes triggered by technological development. Creation of the Internet and the emergence of the artificial intelligence have become the major trend of the ongoing changes with the signifi-cant potential to affect all spheres of live, including the military affairs and the geopolitical phenomena in general. In this paper, in particular, we discuss the opportunities and challenges of the rapid technological development in the defense sector in the context of globalization. The pace and the nature of changes in defense dictate the necessity to analyze the current and future challenges of our digitized age in search of adequate and timely legal and strategic practical solutions. Cyber means of warfare are the weapons of the present. Over the past decades, cyber means of warfare have been frequently used against states in the context of international and non-international armed conflicts, as well as outside of such context. Thus, the fundamental scientific questions that arise are the following: a) are the current legal regulations at international and national levels sufficient to address all the challenges caused by the spillover of armed conflicts into the virtual domain and by the future advancement of cyber weapons, and b) are the current cyber weapons or those of the future capable of changing the nature of “war” described by General Carl von Clausewitz yet in the 19th century as a violent method of forcing its political will by one party of the conflict to the other. We have analyzed the above-mentioned questions in the light of the cyber weapons, which already exist and are being used for military purposes, in the light of possible advancement of cyber weapons and integration of AI into them, as well as in the light of the Big Data management. We have reflected on the dangers, which the smart and entirely data driven world would face, from legal and geopolitical perspectives, through the several possible scenarios of development, emphasizing, in particular, the probable military (defense) aspect of data management. While most frequently the specific problems of application of International Law to the traditional cyber warfare situations become subject for academic debates and discussions, we stress the necessity to also analyze the legal and practical implications of further advancement of cyber weapons, as well as the necessity to consider the role of Big Data management in changing the nature of war and, consequently, also the applicable legal solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The works of academics and international scholars in the field of international law and, specifically, international humanitarian law, and military theorists, as well as international treaties, commentaries to international treaties, and national cyber defense and cyber security strategies comprise the theoretical basis for the current paper. The research has been conducted via general and specific scientific methods of cognition, in particular the dialectical method, comparative legal method, method of interpretation, as well as methods of deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, and others. RESEARCH RESULTS . The ongoing changes taking place in the world have resulted in a situation, when cyber domain is considered one of the traditional war domains. In this context the international community is now debating more flexible interpretations of international legal regulations in order to most efficiently address the new reality. It is also important that states at national level undertake measures to timely and adequately address the challenges already created and those that potentially may take place as a result of the globalization along with the rapid evolution of the cyber technologies and their military use. In the current article we conclude that the categories of the present generation of cyber weapons are lawful. However, the future developments in cyber weapon technologies, as well as the possible quasi-military implications of Big Data management raise many theoretical and practical questions deserving attention. The efforts of the international community and individual states in the field of legal regulation of cyber technologies should be directed toward creating guarantees that the products of the technological development are used for the benefit of humankind. As one of such measures The Authors indicate national cyber security and cyber defense strategies, which according to the Authors, should be elaborated giving due consideration to the possible future developments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In this paper we analyze the peculiar features of evolution of the world in the 21st century and argue that wars are not static and autonomous phenomena isolated from the global context and all the changes taking place in the world. In particular, we address one of the most popular debates among the scholars in the field of military affairs concerning the issue whether the nature of war has changed or will change overtime, referring to Carl von Clausewitz’s thoughts. With regard to the current generation of cyber weapons, we conclude that even if they might prima facie seem to be inherently indiscriminate (such as, for example, nuclear weapons) in reality cyber weapons are not per se indiscriminate, but rather are weapons with a very high potential of being used indiscriminately or in violation of the principle of discrimination. However, the high potential of indiscriminate use of cyber weapons does not outlaw the cyber weapons as such. We also agree with the widely accepted opinion that the cyber weapons, which are currently used, are sufficiently regulated by the International Law. At the same time, the future tendencies for advancement and improvement of military cyber technologies, inter alia, via integration of artificial intelligence, may seriously call into question the possibility of their application in compliance with the international legal regulations. Finally, the possible scenarios of advancement of Big Data management have led us to the conclusion that big data management per se has the potential of being used as a weapon with less lethal or even non-lethal consequences, however equally effective in enforcing one’s policy as the traditional weapons or potentially kinetic cyber-weapons. If big data analysis at its current stage of development does not produce very accurate predictions, the well-distributed and structured informational flow in the cyber domain is capable of influencing and manipulating behaviours. In such case if Big data monopoly (including both: hardware and soſtware) vests in one of several actor, it could drastically change the nature of war by making the element of violence redundant and consequently alter the geopolitical balance. One of the measures for early response to future challenges, in our opinion, could be through reflecting on lex ferenda in cyber security and cyber defence national strategies. From the analysis of the content of different strategies we could conclude that most states acknowledge cyberspace as a military domain like land, air or maritime, analyse the main specific characteristics of current generation of cyber weapons, and set state objectives and action plan for cyber offense, cyber defense and cyber deterrence respectively. While the future advancement of cyber means of warfare and the quasi-military dimension of the big data management seem to be overlooked by states in general. }, author = {A. Yeremyan and L. Yeremyan}, doi = {10.24833/0869-0049-2022-2-85-100}, issn = {0869-0049}, issue = {2}, journal = {Moscow Journal of International Law}, pages = {85}, title = {International Law Issues of Cyber Defense}, url = {https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/2690?locale=en_US}, year = {2022} } @article{lebir2022, abstract = {The center of gravity concept is one of contemporary military science’s fundamental yet highly controversial pillars. Although, over the past decades, the center of gravity has become the modus operandi of the planning and conduct of (major) military operations in a number of armed forces, the concept remains insufficiently understood and is often poorly applied in practice. In this light, we have sought to improve its theoretical comprehension by identifying the conceptual dimensions that the most influential authors commonly highlight. Using the structural method for the concept analysis, we have identified seven entities frequently understood as the potential centers of gravity. These are: (1) fielded military, (2) leadership, (3) industry, (4) infrastructure, (5) population, (6) public opinion, and (7) ideology.}, author = {Miha Šlebir}, doi = {10.21830/19006586.979}, issn = {25007645}, issue = {40}, journal = {Revista Cientifica General Jose Maria Cordova}, month = {10}, pages = {1025-1044}, title = {Re-examining the center of gravity: Theoretical and structural analysis of the concept}, volume = {20}, url = {https://revistacientificaesmic.com/index.php/esmic/article/view/979}, year = {2022} }