MARSHALL LAW AND CYBERSPACE

---

Realistically, there are a number of scenarios, each of varying degree, in which information warfare might be utilized in the future in cyberspace, and thus bring about Marshall Law. In the most apocalyptic scenario, information warfare will be waged in conjunction with conventional warfare, to determine the hegemon of the Information Age. Many scholars have put forth arguments concerning the formation and survivability of hegemonic powers. It is possible, that in this point in time, the instability of information technology requires the constancy only a hegemon can provide. Under this scenario, realist concerns run rampant, as the United States has a vested interest in becoming the hegemon for the next power cycle. However, a full-scale information war will be very costly, and it is highly unlikely that the hegemon will be able to salvage any value from the rubble of battle. A scenario where stability and consistency for information technologies are derived from cooperative international endeavors to promote and facilitate global prosperity is more likely. In the Information Age, Third Wave nations have legitimate aspirations to create a global information system that adds value to their existing information infrastructures. Information technology is cooperative by nature and tremendous benefits can be derived from greater interconnectivity. Therefore, nations will seek out ways to integrate their networks with the international network. Once that integration takes place, each connected nation will have an interest in maintaining the stability and survivability of the overall network. Each nation has a vested interest in preventing global information warfare and Marshall Law.

Despite collective interests, information terrorism will continue to be a viable national security concern for all Third Wave nations. Unfortunately, the U.S. options concerning terrorism are extremely limited. By increasing security and gathering intelligence regarding any plans that might be in consideration, the United States can ensure that the threat of terrorism is contained to isolated incidents from which this country can recover. Unfortunately, as the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks on the WTC and Pentagon showed, the environment under which the United States currently operates can make no such promise, therefore, it is essential that this issue be addressed now.

Other likely scenarios include the use of information warfare for blackmail or for limited short-term gains. These scenarios present other difficult political dilemmas that must be addressed at a global level. Will nations allow information warfare threats to be used as blackmail? Will the United States allow limited information warfare in order to pursue strategic or comparative political and economic gains? Or is the fear of escalation an adequate deterrent to such ambitions? These questions must also be addressed.

The Information Age promises to change many aspects of society. Life in cyberspace is more egalitarian than elitist, and more decentralized than hierarchical. It serves individuals and communities, not mass audiences. One might think of cyberspace as shaping up exactly like Thomas Jefferson would have wanted: founded on the primacy of individual liberty and commitment to pluralism, diversity, and community.

As a society, we have much to learn about ourselves through this new medium of communication. As a nation, the United States must make sure that the structure it is building has a strong foundation and that weaknesses in that structure are not used to destroy it. It is a difficult task, because the constitutionally guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens must be upheld in the process. However, it is a task the United States must undertake. These are issues the United States must address. If the United States does not address these issues now, the future of our country will be jeopardized. A handful of concerned citizens attempt to bring issues surrounding cyberspace to our attention every day. Some of these issues concern national security; others concern individual privacy.

Cyberspace has empowered the average person to explore and question the structure of our society and those that benefit from the way it is operated. Fundamental issues arise from hacker explorations. The United States must decide how, as a nation, it wishes to deal with these issues. Recent efforts in cloning produced a human fetus. The scientists that achieved this remarkable feat immediately halted research, arguing that a public debate must arise to deal with the ethical and moral issues surrounding this technology. They argued that before experimentation in cloning continued, the United States must decide as a society, which direction that the new technology will go, what ends it hopes to achieve, and what the limits on the use of this new technology should be. A similar debate on the issues of cyberspace must take place. There is no need to stop the technology, but the United States must decide what direction it wants the technology to take, and what rules will govern the use of this technology. The United States must do this now, before the technology starts dictating the rules—before it is too late to make changes in the basic structure of cyberspace without destroying the whole concept.

The United States certainly is, as ex-Vice President Al Gore noted, in the midst of an Information Revolution. Methods of warfare will continue to evolve as the revolution progresses. Conceptions of national security will have to evolve as well. Information warfare and information security must be incorporated into the national security agenda of any nation that is making the transition into the Information Age. Isaac Asimov (noted science fiction author) notes that waiting for a crisis to force the United States to act globally, runs the risk of making them wait too long. The United States cannot allow this to be the case where information technologies are concerned, because information technologies are the foundation for that which the United States aspires to become. Similarly, philosophy comes bundled with every new technology; when one is embraced, the other is there as well. The United States has already embraced the technology of the Information Age; it must prepare itself to deal with the philosophy that comes with it. The United States must be prepared to deal with a philosophy that changes the distribution of power, changes political relationships, and challenges the essence of nation states. Only then can the United States rightfully justify a leading role in the Information Age.

---