CYBER PEACE PROPOSAL Running head: CYBER PEACE CYBER PEACE2 Introduction The ubiquitous use of the internet for a myriad of purposes has made the internet the most targeted platform for cyber threats and cybercrimes on both individuals and organizations. The impacts of the cyber-crime is so well established. Companies have lost millions of money, internet users committed suicide or plunged into chronic mental conditions as well lives lost through the terrorist conspiracies of the internet (Reich et al., 2012). For this reason, cyber space becomes a quite important for the safety of countries and individuals around the globe. The issue discussed regarding cyber peace is that there is no Genera convention that addresses the cybercrime as propagated through the internet. Despite the rampant rummage of groups on the internet, there lacks infrastructure that addresses cyber peace conducted by the Geneva Convention. Background Until recently, the internet and all its users made a small community that exploited the various functionalities of the internet. However, with the increase in the usage of the internet, there has been a spate in the cybercrimes executed over the internet. As it stands, there are about 2 million people using the internet, and none of them has the level of internet security that can secure them from cybercrime. In the bid to address the issue of cyber peace, the interdependence between countries to face the issue has been focused on (Eriksson & Giacomello, 2007). The interdependence between technologically developed and technologically developing states is the first angle from which the issue can be tackled. States have not yet come to terms with the severe implications of cyber peace. Due to this, there lacks that collaborative effort to ensure the efforts are streamlined towards establishing cyber peace. The Geneva Convention that legislates policies on warfare across the actors is now being glared at to provide solutions aligned to cybercrime. This is in line with the ways in which the Geneva Convention mobilizes countries for the sake of participation in peace keeping. The path to cyber peace is however crippled because of lack of co-operation. The states lack the knowledge of what constitutes cyber-attacks, cyber terrorism and so forth. Therefore, the countries’ security department have for a long time taken a backseat, waiting for the internet developers to design ways to secure users. This has not been very fruitful especially with the up surge in cybercrimes. The most that most of the countries have done is to have national policies addressing the issue of cyber security. The level of implementation of the polices is highly questionable and no specific party has been assigned the duty to ensure cyber peace prevails. On the international co-operative perspective, cyber peace as an issue has always remained in the periphery of the security talks. The states retaliating for cyber-attacks seems to be the m.

1. CYBER PEACE PROPOSAL
Running head: CYBER PEACE
CYBER PEACE2
Introduction
The ubiquitous use of the internet for a myriad of purposes has
made the internet the most targeted platform for cyber threats
and cybercrimes on both individuals and organizations. The
impacts of the cyber-crime is so well established. Companies
have lost millions of money, internet users committed suicide or
plunged into chronic mental conditions as well lives lost
through the terrorist conspiracies of the internet (Reich et al.,
2012). For this reason, cyber space becomes a quite important
for the safety of countries and individuals around the globe. The
issue discussed regarding cyber peace is that there is no Genera
convention that addresses the cybercrime as propagated through
the internet. Despite the rampant rummage of groups on the

2. internet, there lacks infrastructure that addresses cyber peace
conducted by the Geneva Convention.
Background
Until recently, the internet and all its users made a small
community that exploited the various functionalities of the
internet. However, with the increase in the usage of the internet,
there has been a spate in the cybercrimes executed over the
internet. As it stands, there are about 2 million people using the
internet, and none of them has the level of internet security that
can secure them from cybercrime. In the bid to address the issue
of cyber peace, the interdependence between countries to face
the issue has been focused on (Eriksson & Giacomello, 2007).
The interdependence between technologically developed and
technologically developing states is the first angle from which
the issue can be tackled. States have not yet come to terms with
the severe implications of cyber peace. Due to this, there lacks
that collaborative effort to ensure the efforts are streamlined
towards establishing cyber peace.
The Geneva Convention that legislates policies on warfare
across the actors is now being glared at to provide solutions
aligned to cybercrime. This is in line with the ways in which the
Geneva Convention mobilizes countries for the sake of
participation in peace keeping. The path to cyber peace is
however crippled because of lack of co-operation. The states
lack the knowledge of what constitutes cyber-attacks, cyber
terrorism and so forth. Therefore, the countries’ security
department have for a long time taken a backseat, waiting for
the internet developers to design ways to secure users. This has
not been very fruitful especially with the up surge in
cybercrimes. The most that most of the countries have done is
to have national policies addressing the issue of cyber security.
The level of implementation of the polices is highly
questionable and no specific party has been assigned the duty to
ensure cyber peace prevails.
On the international co-operative perspective, cyber peace as an
issue has always remained in the periphery of the security talks.

3. The states retaliating for cyber-attacks seems to be the most
preferred action by the states. Russia and the U.S. for instance
have persistent wrangles because of the lack of cyber peace and
they constantly aim at retaliating for the attacks made on them
by the enemy. For the sake of such developed countries and
those looking up to them, international cooperation on cyber
peace is the vital ingredient in combating cybercrime. This
ought to be done quite strategically, following laid out protocol
to ensure that the countries are well aware of what their roles
are in cyber peace. The factors to be considered in the solution
involve the time aspect and the mechanism of implementation of
cyber peace schemes.
Solution
The solution to cyber peace that was proposed by the
International Telecommunication Union Secretary general
Harmadoun Toure was for countries to sign to an International
Cyber Peace Treaty (Touré, 2011). Under the provisions of this
treaty, each country is to ensure that its internet infrastructure
is used to organize and conduct cyber-attacks. The rationale to
this proposal is considered from a myriad of perspectives on
which it remains realistic. First, a number of developing nations
are receiving national cyber security systems and the dominant
part of these records affirm the part of cybersecurity as a
national security need. To additionally investigate such an
improvement and the idea of national cyber security techniques,

4. the Center has led a near report called the National Cyber
Security Framework Manual. The exploration states that a
complete cyber security technique needs to consider various
national partners with different obligations in guaranteeing
national cybersecurity (Touré, 2011).
The national partners incorporate basic foundation suppliers,
law requirement offices, worldwide associations, PC crisis
reaction groups and elements guaranteeing interior and outer
security. Critically, rather than survey cybersecurity as a blend
of isolated zones or detached partners, the exercises of various
subdomains and regions of ability ought to be facilitated.
Furthermore, there are continuous exchanges about the
relevance of global law to cyber activities. While it is broadly
acknowledged that the internet should be ensured like air, ocean
and arrive, and is plainly characterized by NATO Strategic
Concept as a danger that can achieve a limit setting debilitating
national and Euro-Atlantic thriving, security and strength, there
are just a couple of worldwide assertions that would specifically
address conduct in the internet (Dogrul, Aslan & Celik, 2011,
June). The Geneva conventions held regularly would mandate
countries to sign up to the treaty.
The Geneva Lecture Series for Internet Governance held on
November 2017 revealed legions of insight on the way forward
to cyber peace. The hot discussion that was moderated by the
experts led to the unanimous agreement that not the technology

5. sector, not the civil society, no individual person alone can
successfully foster cyber peace. While assessing the role that
each of these parties played in fueling cyber-crime or curbing it
thereof, all the experts agreed to the fact that having a digital
Geneva Convention would be more compelling than any other
strategy. The arguments they put forth were nothing less than
persuasive and compelling. The call for all these players to
merge their efforts was echoed and to any one, these
collaboration sounds like the ways forward. The most important
aspect is for the governments to fully understand what factors
catalyze cyber insecurity and the reasons why they should make
the responsibility important to their operation.
Conclusion
There are practical answers for the specific issues, of cyber
peace. There are conciliatory answers for specific issues only if
international actors moved past their self-interest and ignorance
on the issue of cyber peace. At last, there are human answers
for such human issues. Peace isn't an unattainable objective; it
is somewhat the strategic arrangement between the rights, lives,
prosperity and security of every person in connection to all
others (JOHNIGK, 2014). The international actors can only
realize the far reaching implication of cybercrime on the
economies, the social life, cultures and the political wrangles
that have always ensued due to the unsolved friction tied to
cybercrime. This broader look, much more than the persuasion

6. from the Geneva Convention will drive international
cooperation towards cyber peace agreements.
References
Dogrul, M., Aslan, A., & Celik, E. (2011, June). Developing an
international cooperation on cyber defense and deterrence
against cyber terrorism. In Cyber conflict (ICCC), 2011 3rd
international conference on (pp. 1-15). IEEE.
Eriksson, J., & Giacomello, G. (Eds.). (2007). International
relations and security in the digital age. Routledge.
JOHNIGK, S. (2014). Cyberpeace, Not Cyberwar. The Art of
Reverse Engineering: Open-Dissect-Rebuild, 149.
Reich, P. C., Weinstein, S., Wild, C., & Cabanlong, A. S.
(2012). Anonymity, Actual Incidents, Cyber Attacks, and
Digital Immobilization. Law, Policy, and Technology:
Cyberterrorism, Information Warfare, and Internet
Immobilization: Cyberterrorism, Information Warfare, and
Internet Immobilization, 170.
Touré, H. (2011). The Quest for cyber peace. International
Telecommunication Union.