Sample Solution
I believe that current laws that govern cyberspace are indeed inadequate to handle advances in the Internet and computing technologies. The Internet and computing technology have grown exponentially over the past few decades, yet the legal system has largely failed to keep up with them. This is because these existing laws were created before these new technologies emerged, making them irrelevant for many aspects of our digital world today.
One example of this inadequacy is how data privacy is treated under existing international law. Since most countries’ laws were written prior to widespread use of computers, they often do not take into account the fact that personal data stored online can be accessed by a range of parties who may have malicious intentions or seek financial gain from using it (van der Hof et al., 2020). As a result, individuals are left vulnerable without proper protection from those who would abuse their data.
A second example involves criminal justice systems which have been slow to adapt to advances in cybercrime techniques such as phishing or identity theft (Kwok et al., 2018). Without updated legislation in place, law enforcement is often unable to properly investigate and prosecute cases involving these crimes due to lack of knowledge or resources. Additionally, existing penalties for cybercrimes may not reflect the severity of such offenses since the impact on victims can be far greater than what traditional punishments can provide.
Overall, I believe current laws governing cyberspace are insufficient when compared with our rapidly changing digital environment. To effectively address cyber threats facing society today we must create a comprehensive set of regulations that takes into account all aspects of our connected world – from data security and privacy protections to more punitive measures for cybercriminals.
ntentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by
