Carl Von Clausewitz

Carl Von Clausewitz’s definition of an act of war substantiates particular state sponsored cyber-attacks as acts of war. Clausewitz’s definition requires cyber-attacks to meet three elements to elevate to the level of an act of war. Categorization of the perpetrator to determine the intent and nature of their attack is imperative in determining whether a cyber-attack meets Clausewitz’s definition. John Stone correctly advocated in “Cyber War Will Take Place!” that an act of force isn’t necessarily an act of violence when determining whether a cyber-attack is an act of war. Clausewitz’s definition of an act of war requires cyber-attacks to meet three elements to elevate to the level of an act of war. Clausewitz defined an act of war as, “…an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will,” with a purpose that, “…is a political intention…,” and …show more content…
Cyber-attacks known as “Netwar” committed by non-state actors are criminal acts under international law. State sponsored cyber-attacks constituting sabotage , espionage , or subversion ordinarily are casus belli and not acts of war under the international law of armed conflict. Whether a cyber-attack meets the political intention element will be fact specific and depend on the category of perpetrator. Non-state actors engaging in “Netwar” are committing criminals and not acts that have a political intent as defined by Clausewitz. State sponsored cyber-attacks that have an objective against a state or states will meet the political in nature element. Not all state sponsored cyber-attacks escalate to the level of acts of war due to the “act of force” element of Clausewitz’s definition. Whether a state sponsored cyber-attack meets the “act of force” element was a subject of debate between authors John Stone and Thomas