DISARMAMENT ANDINTERNATIONAL

SECURITYCOMMITTEE

TOPIC: THREAT OF CYBERINTERFERENCE AND DRONE

WARFARE

INDEX

Topic

Page

1. About the committee…………………………………………………………..…Pg.3

2. Committee mission……………………………………………………………....Pg.3

3. Cyber Interference(a) Overview…………………………………………………………..……Pg.4(b) History and information………………………………….….……....Pg.5(c) Current scenario………………………………………..………….....Pg.8(d) Conclusion…………………………………………………...………...Pg.9

4. Drone Warfare(a) Overview……………………………………..…………………….……Pg.4(b) History and information………………………………...…………....Pg.5(c) Current scenario…………………………………...……………….....Pg.8(d) Conclusion……………………………………………………………...Pg.9

5. Questions to consider………………………………………………………......Pg.10

6. Bibliography………………………………………………………….…………...Pg.11

ABOUT THE COMMITTEE:

DISEC (Disarmament and International Security Committee) established on October 24,1945, institutes one of the six committees of the United Nations General Assembly. Allthe 193-member states are invited to attend. DISEC meets for three-four weeks on anannual basis to discuss various issues concerning international security and peace.

It is the Primary Committee which deals with disarmament, worldwide encounters andcoercions to peace that affect the global community and seeks out solutions to thechallenges in the international security regime.

It takes into consideration all the disarmament and international security matters, withinthe room of the Charter or relating to the functions of any other organ of the UnitedNations; the general principles of cooperation in the preservation of global security andpeace, as well as the ideologies governing the disarmament and the regulation ofweaponries; promotion of cooperative arrangements and measures aimed atstrengthening stability through lower levels of arms.

The committee works in close collaboration with the Geneva-based Conference and theUnited Nations Disarmament Commission. It is also the only core committee of theGeneral Assembly entitled to verbatim records coverage.

The First Committee sessions are structured into three distinctive phases:

1. General debate

2. Thematic discussions

3. Action on drafts

COMMITTEE MISSION:

It is the duty of this committee to recognize the threats posed by this situation andaddress this issue at the earliest. Delegates are not only expected to research thetopic well, but also identify ways in which their country can help ease thesituation. Please feel free to contact me regarding any queries that you may have. Ilook forward to hearing all your innovative ideas and solutions!

A: CYBER INTERFERENCE

OVERVIEW:

War is no stranger to this world. The human race has been fighting wars ever since theancient man learnt to make weapons out of simple materials. As the centuries passed,the ways in which war was being fought changed drastically, from sticks to arrows andfrom arrows to bullets. The first two World Wars are the deadliest conflicts to ever takeplace on this planet. After WWII, many believed that the fighting would stop andorganizations like the UN sought to make sure that it would stay that way. But from timeand time again, countries have continued to fight with each other for reasons that theybelieve to be justifiable.

Today, with the advancements of technology, these conflicts have taken up differentforms such as Cyber Interference and Drone Warfare which are the main topics, we willbe covering in our committee sessions.

HISTORY AND INFORMATION OF THETOPIC:

As technology continues to grow and develop as acommodity, it does so as a threat as well. The number ofincidents concerning interference of certain countries inother country’s governmental procedures has increasedat an alarming rate. The Russian interference in the 2016US Presidential elections was a big blow to the idea of‘fair’ democratic elections. According to the USIntelligence officers, the Russians made several attempts in hacking their way intomajor American Institutes which include the White House and the Senate. Surprisingly,very simple tactics were used like sending out volleys of phishing emails and hopingsomeone would take the bait.

This isn’t the first time Russia has been accused of cyber-attacking a country’simportant institutes. Germany has stated that Russian attacks have occurred severaltimes in the Parliament and against its Christian Democratic Party.

These instances are enough to show the great impact of cyber interference.Confidentiality and Security are important factors for a country’s digital welfare. Theworld is moving into the so called ‘Digital Age’ but several factors hinder some countriesfrom achieving this digital peace and security.

Cyber Interference is not only a threat for democratic processes but even forcorporations. The infamous ‘Sony’ Hacks in 2014, saw the Entertainment division of thecompany hacked by a group that called themselves the GOP (Guardians of Peace). Tillthis day, many people have labeled North Korea as the perpetrators of this attack. Thiswas reportedly done to protest against the release of the film, The Interview, a filmbased on a plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un. The companyhad gone a through a similar problem in 2011 when the PlayStation Network washacked due to something called an ‘external intrusion’. Both these breaches led to thecompromise of personal information such as email addresses, location and credit cardinformation of millions of employees and registered users, sparking massive outrage.This resulted in losses of almost 1 billion dollars. These events were seen as a wakeupcall to many corporations because they soon realized that they could be susceptible tosuch attacks as well.

Take note of the profile of these cyber-attacks. There is a common thread linking themall---- a motive. There are many groups that go around conducting attacks to make astatement or to highlight an organizations’ mistake or dirty secret. A few such groups areAnonymous, Lizard Squad, Bureau 121, Fancy Bear etc.

The technological developments of modern society do not go unnoticed in theunderworld of global criminal networks, let alone in the governmental buildings incapitals across the continents. The issue of cyber-terrorism; cyber-warfare (or anyactivity related to those terms) is currently one of the most pressing issues on theagendas of world leaders, IT specialists and terrorist units.

The issue of illicit actions surfaced along with the popularization of the Internet in the1980s, but only the rise of ‘traditional’ terrorism (with its most infamous cases of 9/11attacks in New York and bombings in London and Madrid later in that decade) made theproblem a prominent point, studied by both experts in the academia and inside thegovernmental planning machines. As early as in late 1990s there were several cases ofa limited-scale attack on both public and private institutions, usually done by sending alarge number of e-mails, causing the servers to overload.

In 2010 the US officials assessed that the country is “severely threatened” by cyber-terrorism, however the publicized high- profile cases, both in the US and elsewhere,remain limited. In 2007 Estonia became a target of massive attacked, exercised with oneof the most popular methods of cyber- terrorists – DoS (denial of service). The methodessentially involves an attacking party issuing a flood of requests to the attacked server,forcing it to shut down and hence rendering the attacked website/network non-operational until the attack is over or when the administrator of the server blocks theincoming requests. During the 2007 attack virtually all of Estonia’s government websiteswere shut down as well as networks of several of the country’s banks.

CURRENT SCENARIO:

First and foremost, the term ‘cyber- terrorism’ is not something that is universallyadopted and undisputed, either neither in common exchanges nor in the international law.Experts, governmental officials and the media use this term interchangeably with ‘cyber-warfare’ or ‘cyber-crime’, without specifying the details in definition. It is thereforeparamount that any international regime that aims to tackle the rise of cyber-terrorismagrees on the precise definition and scope of the term.

Furthermore, as we currently know, the issue of cyber-terrorism can be relevant to amuch more diverse list of international actors. Cyber-terrorists currently target not onlygovernmental institutions (like ministries, intelligence agencies), but also internationalorganizations (e.g. NATO networks), humanitarian agencies, banks, corporations as wellas media outlets. There are acts of cyber-terrorism on both local and global scale, withtargets such as the website of a local county in England or a provincial court in Polandtargeted one day, with the next day seeing the online systems of JPMorgan orAmerican Express shut down for hours.

As stated earlier, there are numerous networks, groups of individual hackers, ‘lone wolfs’or organized syndicates that attempt to commit cases of cyber-terrorism. Perhaps themost famous is the umbrella movement called Anonymous, vaguely associated with

global anarchist organizations. However, it lacks observable formal structure and thereare numerous cases of attacks committed by organizations claiming to be a localbranch of “Anonymous”, without any proof there is a substantial link between the two.Other examples include hackers calling themselves as “Cyber Caliphate” (allegedlyrelated to the Islamic State terrorist movement) or “The Syrian Electronic Army”(allegedly associated with the Syrian government).

In 2012, UNODC launched a report that aimed to mobilize the UN Member States tofight against the rise of cyber-terrorism. The report highlighted that cyber-terrorist useInternet attacks to spread propaganda and recruit new members. Additionally, it canalso benefit them financial and help fund acts of ‘classic’ terrorism. UNODC alsounderlined that lack of an international framework dealing with the issue is thwartinglocal efforts in this area.

However, another controversial issue is the alleged actions of world governmentsthemselves, purposefully engaging in the acts of cyber-terrorism to target their enemiesor to obtain secret information of military, economic or political value. Most of thecountries are now recognizing the importance of setting up cyber-defense units. Someexamples include: GCHQ in the United Kingdom, NSA in the US or the so-called “BlueArmy” in China. Nevertheless, some countries are accused of employing (or hiring)specialists to attack critical infrastructure/commercial networks in countries that remaintheir competitors on the global stage.

Cyber security, or as what most reports label it: cyber resilience, is the term used tohighlight the measures taken to combat cyber interference. Recent inspections directedby the Small Business Authority, Symantec, Kaspersky Lab and the National Cyber-security Alliance propose that many establishments are still operating under a falsesense of cyber security. There is no specific mention of cyber warfare in the GenevaConventions or their Additional Protocols. However, the principles and rules in thesetreaties governing the means and methods of warfare are not restricted to situationsthat existed at the time of their adoption. Cyber warfare adds a new level of complexityto armed conflict that often makes it a controversial topic. The norms in internationalhumanitarian law covering such issues as the use of indiscriminate weapons, distinctionbetween military targets and civilians, can and must be applied also to cyber warfare.

Cyber physical societies are becoming reliant upon the cyber domain for everyday life.With cyber warfare increasingly becoming part of future conflicts, new and novelsolutions are needed to assist governments in securing their national infrastructure.Cyber peacekeeping is one such solution: an emerging and multi-disciplinary field ofresearch, touching upon technical, political, governmental and societal domains ofthought. Cyber warfare has never been explicitly discussed in the UN, the delegatesshould use the upcoming sessions as a platform to create resolution points that couldactually be drafted into an actual UN resolution.

***Delegates are expected to dive deeper into the nature of these cyber interferences and understand the situation during the years to comprehend the factors that have influenced the scene today.

Key Powers in the Cyber World : -

United States of America:

America, as a developed country, some reports have stated the power grid may bevulnerable to an attack; attempts to fix any vulnerability have been made, as evidencedby unending patches and versions released on operating systems and programs. Thesemay not be invincible, as there is almost always another way to exploit a system. Onenotable policy the United States has adopted is the five pillars, which outlines howAmerica should prepare itself for internet-based attacks. The main points arerecognition, active defense, defense of critical infrastructure, collective defense, andmaintenance of advantage.

China:

Officials in the United States, India and other countries have reported numerousoccasions when Chinese hackers have allegedly attacked other countries, but theChinese government denies this vehemently. The issue is complicated by privateorganizations in China, which are dedicated to international espionage. Overall, China’smain cyber warfare target is the United States of America, with a reported 61,000 cyber-attacks carried out between the two countries since 2009. Ultimately, although Chinacontinues to deny its use of cyber warfare, it is abundantly clear that various forms ofonline espionage are being utilized by the country’s government and its privateorganizations on a daily basis.

India:

Cyber-warfare first rose to prominence in India in 2004, when the Indian ComputerEmergency Response Team (CERT) was created. This organization was created mainlyto defend the country from growing cyber threats. The numbers of hackings havecontinued to rise from 2011; the government has reported 13,301 threats to nationalsecurity. In response to this, the Indian Government created the National CriticalInformation Protection Center to thwart attacks against banking and other sensitiveareas. Since the creation of this organization, cyber-attacks against India have largelydecreased but the country remains vigilant of threats in the modern age.

Iran :

Iran officially became involved in the realm of cyber-warfare in 2010, when agovernment organization called “The Cyber Defense Command” was created inresponse to a cyber-attack on a nuclear processing facility. This department is asubdivision of the Iranian Military and Armed Forces. In 2012, Iran was accused ofcyber-attacks against the United States and their banks. Furthermore, they allegedlycaused widespread power outages in Turkey in March of 2015 and significant harm toIsrael’s internet infrastructure in August of 2014. Ultimately, Iran’s use of cyber warfareremains under the radar.

***Delegates are expected to know the interference made by various countries and other relatedinformation in not only the above-mentioned regions but also other regions such as Singapore,Russia, Africa, Ukraine, etc.

CONCLUSION:While these countries have specifically been involved in cyber warfare, there are othercountries that are of importance as well. It would be wise to align with countries whoshare the same beliefs and values when thinking of resolutions. It’s important tounderstand that any private organization can go into any country’s system at any timeand obtain information that threatens the safety of a country’s government and itscitizens. No one is safe, and it is your duty as a delegate of your country to come upwith the best resolutions that can save this world from cyber-attacks. Hiding behind ascreen and watching on will not do anyone good.

B. DRONE WARFARE

OVERVIEW:

Drones have become a technological sensation. What has once been an aspiringmilitary privilege is now dominating the marketplace and reshaping the way warfare isbeing conducted. However, the plethora of implications arising from their use combinedwith the fact that only some States can obtain them has raised concerns both by thepublic and the academia. Furthermore, the seemingly effortless access to drones hasnever been more troublesome since terrorist groups and radicalisms often resort toutilizing unmanned aerial vehicles to fight back.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly referred to as drones, are aircrafts with

no human pilots aboard. In this case, however, we will specifically discuss UAVs used

for military purposes, for example drone strikes and surveillance. In recent years, UAVs

have redefined expeditionary warfare, and with technology in place, are used more than

ever before. Drones have many benefits. Notably, they allow countries to conduct

surveillance and attack groups that may be in remote locations without stepping on

enemy territory. Supporters of drones emphasize that this technology reduces costs,

keeps troops at home, and is more efficient and effective than any other. On the other

hand, UAVs have also received a lot of criticism with critics questioning the moral

implications associated with the use of drones. There have been many accounts from

both children and adults bringing into light the psychological trauma associated with

drone strikes, not to mention the countless reports of innocent civilians dying in these

strikes. Despite the technological advances made, nations aren’t always sure of the

identities of the drone strike targets. These kinds of drone strikes are called signature

strikes, and have been used by agencies such as the CIA. In most cases, innocent lives

are put at risk for having traits that are similar to those of a terrorist.

Being a relatively new means of military weapon, there have been only some scarceattempts at regulating their use, leaving room for countries with considerable dronecapacity to utilize UAVs in multiple ways while their actions often go unpunished. It is anuncontested truth that drones provide us with a wide spectrum of advanced servicesranging from intelligence sharing to locating insurgent groups. But that mainly dependson who has his hands on this pioneering technology.

In any case, drone market is becoming more and more popular while at the same timeits impact on international security is rapidly increasing. The need to manage theimplications of their use is imperative and undeniably interesting. UAVs sometimesenjoy heavy criticism whilst others are welcomed with great satisfaction. One way oranother, the militarization of drones is gathering a lot of attention and is undeniablyrendered a topical issue for the agenda of the 1st Committee of the General Assembly.

HISTORY AND INFORMATION OF THETOPIC:

“An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard”. UAVsare a component of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), namely an aircraft and itsassociated elements which are operated with no pilot on board. The flight of UAVs mayoperate with various degrees of autonomy: either under remote control by a humanoperator or autonomously by onboard computers.

The feasibility behind the generating idea of the creation of drones was brilliantlysimplistic. Conducting warfare from above, although quite effective, turned out to bedangerous, especially during times where technological advancements still lacked thecapacity to guarantee its success. In an attempt to reinforce the potency of militarystrikes from the skies following a not so welcome scientific effusion that dominated the20th century and the two World Wars that preoccupied humankind, the aspiringundertaking of unmanned aerial vehicles emerged.

Even in the days of the Italian Invasion of Libya back in 1911, the idea of transferringexplosives by air and having them generating their destructive results with utmostprecision was appealing enough. However, the promising project came to nothing by theend of the Great War, only to make its reappearance some years later, when WWIIbroke out. The quintessence of the initial plan remained unaltered: pilotless planes thatcould be of use to the military forces of any country that could employ them. Again, themilitary and political leaders that opposed each other during the Cold War, namely theSoviet Union and the United States of America, turned their backs on drones, despite itspopular concept, and opted for missiles.

The idea was sidelined but never abandoned. In the late 90s, the American air forceovercame any technicalities or practical issues that were hindering the utilization ofdrones and after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York firing missilefrom unmanned vehicle became a fearful reality. Since then drones have beenmassively used by national forces or other non-state actors in their efforts to levelthemselves against the enemy coming from above.

Before moving on with any further analysis, it is worthy of briefly mentioning therelatively recent story of Daraz Khan. In 2002, Khan along with two other friendscollected scrap metal somewhere in Southern Afghanistan under the watchful eye of theAmerican Predator (drone). The pilotless vehicle collected information regarding thethree Afghanis, such as the items of clothes they were wearing. Judging by their outfits,Khan’s taller height than the other two and by the fact that they were placed in an al-Qaeda suspected area, the three men we considered targets. Khan specifically wasconsidered to be Osama bin Laden himself. All of them were killed. None of them wasOsama bin Laden or anyhow linked to the terrorist group.

The above outlined story vividly portrays the unraveling, yet limited, capacities ofdrones. The easiness of labeling someone as a priority target, only to find out later thathe was an ordinary citizen beyond any suspicion. No matter how disrupting, this storygracefully exposes the drawbacks of what till now appeared to be an only beneficialadvancement of the technological progress, but above all uncovers the unpleasantsurprises drones may bestow upon international security.

CURRENT SCENARIO:

To this day, there remains a lack of legislation that clearly sets international boundaries

for drone usage, mainly because of its ambiguous place in Humanitarian Law. Many

people against UAVs continue to argue for the lives of civilians. Critics claim that UAVs

pose risks on civilians' lives and wellbeing, while advocates of the program argue that

war isn’t meant to be easy. Although DISEC does not have the power to impose rules

on unwilling countries, we must set a standard for which countries can strive towards in

terms of balancing civilian safety and military interest.

Drone strikes continue to occur, and more countries are attempting to develop their own

drone arsenals. Many countries are not willing to invest in a UAV program; instead they

choose to purchase them from another country. The trading of drones has allowed

countries like Israel, the largest exporter of drones, to continue investing in its drone

programs, allowing for more sophisticated weapons. This scramble for better drones

has led to the question of whether this could possibly lead to another modern arms

race.

Civilian lives must be kept as a priority when conducting any kind of attack or strike.

Minimizing drone collateral damage may seem like an obvious priority, but the lives of

the innocent are often overlooked. Statistical data regarding the death count and

number of injuries caused by a drone strike are often inaccurate or broad estimations;

identities of those killed by UAVs often go unaccounted for as well. Creating accurate

records and making them accessible to the international community is a must in order to

lower future collateral damage.

As of now, ten countries are believed to own UCAVs – with many more havingannounced plans to develop such technology. Reconnaissance drone technology isbelieved to be more widely spread, as it is much more accessible. Given theseprospects, the US monopoly over UAVs could crumble within the next decade –especially now that the demand for drones manufactured in China is increasing. Inrecent years, combat and reconnaissance drone programs have generated muchcontroversy. Proponents praise unmanned aerial systems for their precision and range.They also note that the use of drones practically eliminates the human risk associatedwith targeted killing missions. Meanwhile, critics argue that too many of those killed in

drone strikes are civilians and that the continued use of URAVs could spur tensions anddistrust. They also fear that military interventions will become a more frequentphenomenon, now that the use of drones is becoming the norm. It is not surprising thatthese diverging opinions have given rise to a heated global discussion about the useand proliferation of UCAVs and URAVs.

The media played a significant role in igniting this debate. Over the past few years,drone programs, especially that of the US, have moved evermore into the spotlight. 36Several news outlets, such as the Al Jazeera Media Network, invest vast amounts ofresources into their reportage of drone strikes in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Other organizations, such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism or Airways,construct enormous databases, recording all kinds of information pertaining to dronestrikes. They document the number of strikes, the location thereof and the number ofvictims. On top of that, they also try to use local sources to verify the victims’ identities.Clearly, the media has placed the issue regarding the use of combat andreconnaissance drones into the public eye. Yet, one should be careful to assume thatincreased public scrutiny has resulted in increased public discontent – especiallyamongst the US population.

Key Powers in the Cyber World : -

United States of America:While the United States is currently heavily invested in autonomous weapons research,it publicly states its willingness to approve international treaties that limit or banautonomous weapon systems.

China- Currently working on its own autonomous weapons research, China has beenconcurrent with rest of the world in its willingness to approve treaties limiting theproliferation of autonomous weapons systems.

Russia- The Russian Federation is currently one of the only United Nation member states thathas shown resistance to the limiting of autonomous weapon technologies. Furthermore,Russian military officials have repeatedly stated the move towards unmanned militarytechnologies and fully independent companies of robots armed for combat.

European Union- European States have stated their desire to ban the use of autonomous weapons as aresult of humanitarian concerns.

African Union- African member states have agreed with the current desire to open discussions onautonomous weapons bans in the United Nations. Many of these states are cognizant ofthe threat of fully automated armies could pose to peace.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation- Standing with most other states in the United Nations, members of the OIC have agreedto open discussions on the banning of proliferation of autonomous weapons systems inthe United Nations.

***Delegates are expected to know the DRONE usage made by various countries and otherrelated information in not only the above-mentioned regions but also other regions such asSingapore, Russia, Africa, Ukraine, etc.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ANDCONTROVERSIES-

Whether or not the UN should assert a firm stance on military drone usage is a major

controversy that needs to be addressed; consequently, should a firm stance be

beneficial, the next question is what that stance should be. There are many possible

courses of action, ranging from complete support and incorporation of drones to UN

efforts to a total ban, as well as continued silence on the issue. Any direction within this

spectrum will support some countries and hinder others, and it is therefore a balancing

act of a number of key issues including, but not limited to military development,

technological development, and humanitarian responsibilities.

Militarily, drones are obviously beneficial, performing strikes without endangering troops.

Ethically, the separation of killing from killer is rather questionable, although no more

disconcerting than the idea of killing itself. If a terrorist would be killed anyway, why not

use a simpler and safer weapon? Moreover, the area still has great room for

development, and innovations in drone technology could continue to revolutionize not

just warfare, but other aspects of the world. Drones can only be beneficial as a military

technology, and to hinder their use would also be to hinder the development of

technology and the furthering of human creativity.

However, drones are clearly to the detriment of those in high-traffic areas. Although

cleaner killings are arguably more ethical, the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder too often

associated with exposed to drone usage cannot be ignored. Additionally, errors in drone

use, although possibly fixable through further development, can result in unintended

death; the direct assassination of an innocent bystander seems somewhat different from

unpreventable deaths in an uncontrollable strategic bombing.

CONCLUSION:

Military or commercial, problematic or not, drones have come to stay. Their transitionfrom the battlefield to the various military forces and finally to the hands of the everydaycitizen has proved to be effortless, yet full of risks. Implications arising from their use areinnumerable, but most importantly closely interwoven with international law and security.The difficulty of holding the states accountable for their actions and sometimes to evenbe informed of their intentions to embark on drone campaigns against their enemies isindicative of the dangers UAVs pose to the international community.

The potential or de facto violations of the threats to the citizens’ security deriving fromcommercial or military pilotless devices are only adding insult to injury. Furthermore, thelegislative gap, mainly attributed to the recent utilization and systematic weaponizationof drones, requires now more than ever a timely and definite response.

In any case, the speculation circulating the use of drones is neither ephemeral norinexplicable. Using drones as means of conducting war, deviates from the traditionalwarfare breaking all the unwritten rules that have defined martial behaviors and customsover the past centuries. Besides, since drones belong only to those who can afford

them, there are countries which face dire straits – militarily speaking – because of theirintrinsic financial fragility.

The concept of attacking a foreign military force or eliminating a target without worryingthe least for your own bodily integrity or facing the suffering and eventual killing of yourenemy automates war, presenting it to be as something almost procedural. Removingthe emotional aspect of something as horrific as war results, be it unwillingly orunconsciously, in its dehumanization.

Accepting drones as an integral part of the revised status quo is of crucial importance.Making it, however, one’s number one priority to regulate the side effects their use mayentail is infinitely more significant.

POINTS TO BE DISCUSSED:1. Could the existing legal framework be adequate in the cyber sphere?

2. Could there be a globally accepted definition of a cyber- attack?3. How can states prevent future wars as well as cyber wars?4. By what measures can states build capacity in addressing the threats in cyber

security?5. Is cyber security necessary? Or is it dishonest for a government to hide

information from its citizens?6. Are “hacktivists” a threat to national security? If so, how can they be regulated?7. Could the focus on confidence building aid to restart international dialogue on

cyber security? 8. How to identify and prosecute individuals or organizations that perpetrate acts of

‘cyber-terrorism’?9. What should be the international measures to help smaller or developing countries

defend themselves against the acts of ‘cyber- terrorism’?10. How and if the world governments should be engaged in protecting the computer

networks of private companies against cyber-attacks?11. How to ensure that the international fight against cyber-terrorism does not infringe on

the rights of citizens?12. How does the use of military and commercial use endanger the security of

international community?13. How can implications from the use of drones, mainly circulating issues of data

protection, affect their militarization and eventually impact international security?14. How can States be restricted from conducting signature strikes arbitrarily? 15. Are signature strikes as harmful as some claim to be, and if so, are there ways

to eliminate them? 16. Are there ways to ensure that the proliferation of drones will not be within the

reach of militant groups?

17. In what way can the States be hold accountable for their actions? What should the international community do to establish and further implement the principle ofresponsibility?

18. How could the use of UAVs by States with considerable drone capacity be rendered more transparent?

19. How will countries that do not own UAVs be protected from the ones that do? 20. Could anti-drone technology be used as a means of combatting drone use and

the implications arising from its proliferation? 21. Are anti-drone mechanisms generating more problems that those they attempt to

solve? 22. Is the legislation regulating Unmanned Aerial Vehicles sufficient?

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

i. www.thenation.com/article/brief-history-drones/.ii. http://www.jhumunc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DISEC-Final-Formatted-1.pdfiii. http://teimun.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SC_TEIMUN_CyberWarfare.pdfiv. http://www.thessismun.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1st-GA-A.pdfv. C:/Users/User/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/Study-guide-DISEC.pdf

vi. C:/Users/User/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/Final-Cybersecurity-Background-

Guide.pdfvii. C:/Users/User/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/Background_Guide_DISEC.pdfviii. C:/Users/User/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/1st-GA-B.pdfix. https://www.csis.org/programs/cybersecurity-and-warfare/technology-policy-

program/other-projects-cybersecurityx. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/12/09/wikileaks.cyber.attacks/index.htmlxi. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2017/0320/How-China-is-

preparing-for-cyberwarxii. https://phys.org/news/2017-01-india-ai-cyber-warfare-threats.htmlxiii. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X18302831xiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.09616.pdfxv. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/cyber-warfare

xvi. https://capcoverage.com/index.php/10-ways-to-prevent-cyber-attacks/xvii. https://securityintelligence.com/what-is-the-current-state-of-cyber-resilience/xviii. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/12/18/the-sony-pictures-

hack-explained/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a6e81ee5825axix. https://www.securityweek.com/cyber-interference-changing-face-electionsxx. https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/global/document/van_de_velde_cyber_interf

erence_in_elections_06.14.2017.pdfxxi. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_182365.pdf

xxii. https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/events/election-interference-digital-age-building-resilience-cyber-enabled-threats_en

xxiii. https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/other-publications/election-interference-digital-age_en

xxiv. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/16/qa-russian-hackers-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-us-presidential-election

xxv. https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/democracy/zarate-cyber-attacks-on-democracy.htmlxxvi. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/cyber-threats-democracy-fire-two-fronts/

Background guide by –

Vipul Girish Kumar

Tejas Kishore

Shetty

Khushi Singh

Saarthak

Manesh Trivedi

Dev Thakkar