Table of contentsIntroductionResponse strategies for cyberattacks across bordersResponses of the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia to cyberattacks across bordersConclusionReferencesIntroductionEmergence revolution in the domain of cyberspace has made various online activities become easily accessible to countries around the world. Today, more people than ever use the Internet and it has become an integral part of the economy. Despite the advantages, some disadvantages have proven useful for hackers and nation states to exploit. Cybersecurity is the technology that provides solutions to protect devices and networks against any type of viruses, worms, privacy violations and data theft. However, when the cyber threat reaches a national level and involves state-sponsored actors, many other variables must be configured to address the situation. The response to cyberattacks is not as easy to implement as that of the laws of war, for the underlying reason that the scope of cyberattacks is not as simple as that of conventional wars, especially when the attack comes from another state. . Even greater ambiguity is the inconsistency and confusion regarding the law and its implications across states. States face various challenges in maintaining a coherent framework for combating cyberattacks that is realistic, feasible and operational. However, considering the consequences of a cyberattack, defending critical infrastructure through multi-layered protection is inevitable in this century (Marks, 2013). Cyberspace is widespread throughout the world, which means that countries must take into account relevant events outside of it and find ways to prepare for any external attacks that may occur in the future (Inserra, 2017 ). In this research essay, an initial discussion was conducted on cyberattacks and their prevention as well as possible responses from states that can help eradicate cyberattacks. Next, responses from three different countries were taken into account, and then an analytical comparison between states was presented. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayStrategies for responding to cyberattacks across bordersPlanning and implementing a cyber-resilient system for a state may not be not as simple as it seems. There are several factors and levels of variables that must be examined if one is to prepare an appropriate strategy. The concept of layered protection is extremely important in creating a robust response strategy for a state. This layer consists of both active and passive defenses which are not always followed by states and which often choose to stick to only one type of defense. Therefore, it could be helpful to ensure both strategies are implemented effectively, as there is no international standard dictating how to handle cyberattacks (Marks, 2013). It is therefore up to states to decide whether they will follow traditional laws of war or national criminal laws. The latter option may not be feasible because a cyberattack is not always considered and addressed as a law of war. On the other hand, compliance with national criminal laws may result in a lack of protection against attacks. Therefore, the balance between active and passive defenses is not maintained and States will not be able to guarantee an appropriate way of fightingagainst the attack. Laws must be followed whenever a cyber attack originating from a foreign country takes place. International humanitarian law plays an important role in this matter. This law dictates the do's and don'ts of armed conflict and suggests balanced action that includes reducing the impact of war while weakening the enemy (What Are the Rules of War and Why Do They Matter, 2020). There are two different types of laws of war, one being Jus ad Bellum and the other being Jus in Bello. These deal respectively with the law of conflict management and the law of armed conflict. Jus ad Bellum helps define the scope of states' response to active defenses (Ndi, 2018). Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states that States shall refrain from threatening other States or using force against other States, except in cases where doing so is consistent with the regulations of the Charter of the United Nations (United Nations Charter (full text), 2020). This article, however, has some exceptions, including the use of military forces to achieve international peace and security and the other being the ability to impose self-defense in the event of armed attack. Another subset of self-defense is anticipatory self-defense which does not require states to wait for an attack, but rather allows them to act when an attack is anticipated or suspected. The actions of non-state actors further complicate the issue of jus ad Bellum, as states cannot be blamed for actions taken by the non-state actor against a specific country (Marks, 2013). Over the years, this issue has been addressed and the recent improvement in the framework is more accessible than ever and states are to some extent responsible for controlling the emergence of non-state actors. States must consider whether to respond to the cyberattack, which includes several factors related to attacks carried out by non-state actors. To strengthen the defense and response to a cyber attack, three analytical models are present for the cyber attack. -attacks that help improve the scope of the analysis of these attacks. These are the instrument-based approach, the effects-based approach and the strict liability approach. Among these, the effect-based approach is found to be more effective for cyberattack-based analysis than the other two models. Michael N. Schmitt proposed one of the most effective frameworks for effects-based models. His article includes six criteria that must be met to be eligible for analysis of cyberattacks as armed attacks: severity, immediacy, directness, invasiveness, measurability, and presumed legitimacy (Schmitt, n.d. ). However, this criterion must become more global before it can be considered as an international framework that can contribute to standardizing the analysis of cyberattacks. To effectively respond to attacks taking place outside the country, state responsibility must be established. to be established. The State must think about its duty to control cyberattacks and its prevention policy. First, a state must ensure that the investigation into attacks is thorough, that the attackers are punished, and that they assist other states that may have been affected by the attack (Payne, 2016). International conventions contribute to obtaining these adjectives because they highlight the importance of states being aware of their non-state actors and preventing them from carrying out cyber attacks, as well as recognizing the need to consider cyber piles as a criminal offense. It is also the duty of the State to enforce the lawsappropriate to prevent cyberattacks rather than combat them once they have occurred (Liu, 2017). This falls under customary international law as well as general principles of law. These laws allow states to enforce strict laws that help prevent attackers from carrying out future attacks and allow individuals to be held responsible for what could cause harm to others. To further strengthen attacks from outside states, a state's legal experts should be consulted (Marks, 2013). Cyberspace is capable of exploiting physical components as it did during the 2015 Ukraine power grid cyberattack (Sullivan and Kamensky, 2017). It is essential to implement passive and active defense as well as work with other countries' militaries and allies to create an action plan to strengthen defenses against cyberattacks. These goals are difficult to achieve due to differences in the policy goals of different countries and different approaches to solving a crime. For example, countries like China and Russia are unlikely to cooperate to create guidelines that include protecting privacy and internet freedom for the country's individual citizens. It has been suggested by a UN panel of experts that it is up to the country to do this. to ensure that their state is not used for criminal acts with international effects. Furthermore, they suggested that states should resolve their problems peacefully and punish criminals if necessary. Several political and economic aspects will factor into the final decision on whether or not a state has exceeded specified rules. Jus in Bello is then used to create a framework to deliver an impactful framework (Sexton, 2016). Cyber ​​aggression must be contained by increasing the costs of hacking through retaliatory techniques. Diplomatic actions such as naming and reporting bad actors, ending cooperation with bad actors, and restricting trade and travel access to countries known to be linked to cybercriminals may also prove helpful (Inserra, 2017). For example, given that Huawei and ZTE have been accused of intellectual property theft and operate under the Chinese government, the United States should restrict the use of Huawei and ZTE in the United States. Legal and criminal prosecutions and formal sanctions against criminal entities will also encourage malicious cyber nations to exercise caution before attempting any cyber offense. years, the most recent being hacking attempts to recover confidential information about healthcare organizations (O'Flaherty, 2020). Given the centuries-old conflict between the United States and China over cyberespionage, the United States has naturally blamed China as the culprit. Even since the scandalous cyberattack on Estonia in 2007, the United States has begun to create a new, proactive set of strategies and weapons while taking defensive measures (The Cold War 2.0 between China and the United States is already a virtual reality, 2020). The United States is actively working to develop stronger cyber capabilities. However, the United States has made efforts to cooperate with China taking into account that both countries have been victims of cyberattacks (Inserra, 2017). This did not work due to the continuously publicized hacks that took place under the supervision of the Chinese government until 2015 when the Bureau of Personnel Management was attacked and was believed to be the work of China. This led the United States to take stronger action againstcyber-attackers, leading China and the United States to reach an agreement previously proposed by the United States under which both countries would be victims of cyber-attacks. Even the Russian government's violation of the 2016 US election cycle was also handled poorly. It is therefore clear that the United States must play a more active role in combating cyber aggression. The United States has used the strategy of notifying countries whenever suspicious activities are discovered in order to reduce the number of attacks. The United States and the United Kingdom jointly accused Russia of carrying out the NotPetya attack (MCQUADE, 2018). The United States also responded actively by imposing sanctions on North Korea, blaming it for the attack on Sony Picture Entertainment which leaked several confidential information (Haggard, 2015). Regarding relations with China, there have been accusations that China is the culprit behind the attack. riots against hacking, but no official action was taken by the government in this matter (Winterford and Winterford, 2020). Despite continued efforts to keep abreast of global advancements related to cybersecurity laws and conventions, there are still many areas where Australia lags behind in terms of advanced technological threats compared to other leading countries. , according to a 2016 ACCS report. To compensate for this delay, Australia can take various measures, such as combating cybercrime, protecting critical infrastructure, as well as research, education and knowledge transfer. The ACSC threat report says the fact Australia has yet to face major attacks proves it is safe from future attacks. However, there might be another way of looking at it, as US courts point out that Australia could have been attacked, but due to a lack of protection and awareness it was not in able to detect it. The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime was signed by Australia in 2013, alongside the United States and the United Kingdom. Compared to the United States and Australia, significant actions have been taken in the United Kingdom which have contributed to foreign law enforcement agencies agreeing on the application of international laws and have been an important part of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. However, the fact that many countries deny having signed it has reduced the overall impact of the UK's contribution to this project. Therefore, it has been suggested that the UK should put in place an extensive set of law enforcement measures and also attempt to establish rules that will be acceptable to all nations (Sexton, 2016). Since the Snowden incident, efforts have been made. by the British and American governments to combat cybercrime, but there is a risk that private companies will not agree to work with the government to help them analyze activities in cyberspace. Snowden revealed that the British government collects whatever data it deems important without justifying whether it needs it. He also mentioned that Australia's surveillance technique was similar to that of the UK (Australia's mass surveillance is 'dangerous', says Snowden, 2020). Since the Snowden incident, countries' legitimacy has fallen to the benefit of their companies and trade, making it even more difficult for countries to access confidential company information that could be important for tracking cyber activities. The United States and the United Kingdom hadaccused North Korea of ​​carrying out the Wannacry attack in response to the massive hacking of hospital and business information. Australia was also affected by this particular attack, but compared to the United States and the United Kingdom, the level of breach was lower in Australia and the healthcare sector was not affected. Therefore, the Australian government followed the approach of informing businesses about the severity and security concerns related to Wannacry (Nott, 2020). The UK is not immune to risk either and the National Security Strategy/Strategic Defense and Security Review has exposed the threat. cyberattacks associated with the country. The UK's threat level is not very easy to assess when taking into account the 2015 National Risk Register. It was mentioned that over thirty thousand emails arrive at government level and need to be blocked for guarantee security. ACD is seen as a key capability for the UK, but there is insufficient information about which responsibilities should be carried out by which government department. The lack of a common global guideline regarding ACD has affected the UK, like many other countries. There have been many assertions about how ACD should be defined for a country, but there is no common guideline accepted worldwide. Overall, it is suggested that the government should have a revised and realistic policy, implementing effective CSS to detect and define issues related to cyber warfare while helping the government and citizens to be well-informed and transparent on his abilities. Keep in mind: this is just a sample.Get a custom paper from our expert writers now.Get a custom essayConclusionThis research essay aims to indicate the ways in which states can respond in different ways when it This involves mitigating attacks from outside countries and then assessing different countries' responses to cyberattacks. The context and information are strongly related to the current situation and some examples from the past, but the scope of this research essay will expand over the years as cybersecurity, cyber governance and espionage reach new heights every day. States must be aware of the alarming increase in cybercrime and state-sponsored actors, which has reached new heights in recent years due to the fact that it is an economic attack, faster and more simpler than that of a traditional war. There should also be separate guidelines on preparing for and defending against cyberattacks, as well as responding to cyberattacks. These goals can be achieved by building a strong alliance and implementing firm actions alongside states engaged in the fight against crime in cyberspace. Although the use of active defense significantly improves the state's ability to successfully discharge its responsibilities, there are some limitations related to technical limitations such as detection, classification and tracing of attacks, which pose challenges. important limitations. Additionally, the inability of countries to work together as a team to combat cyberattacks is less likely (Inserra 2017). Countries are also not immune to this risk, among which the USA, UK and Australia were discussed and compared, proving once again that there is a wide range disagreements that can hinder the effective and efficient implementation of a cyber defense strategy at the international level. Australia has a concrete cybersecurity capability that will enable.