This paper concludes that the Chinese government has adopted a strict positivist reading of the UN Charter’s limitations on the use of force that brooks no exceptions for humanitarian interventions and with a narrowly construed exception for self defense. Since China has not shown any willingness to abandon this legal approach to the law of jus ad bellum codified in the Charter, it is unlikely that China will embrace the US legal approach to cyberwarfare. Rather, China will probably use its restrictive reading of the UN Charter to garner political support among other countries to criticize and deter offensive US cyberwarfare. This sharp divide between the US and Chinese legal positions calls into question the efficacy of longstanding US government efforts to convince China to accept and apply international law to cyberwarfare.
Western civilization is in decline. And it begins with Western nations no longer having children to keep up with the 2.1-per-woman replacement rate, which means immigration to the West will explode from poorer nations that continue having children above the replacement rate.
Unfortunately, like many national security debates these days, our national discussion about how to address the growing North Korean threat has quickly become polarized between two extreme positions. In one corner, President Trump has threatened a preemptive military strike in response (I’m paraphrasing his remarks into more analytic terms) to new threats from the North Korean regime.
On August 11, 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted that “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely.” Many observers have interpreted the president’s statement as doubling down on his earlier threats to use military force against North Korea.
If you are stuck for a book to read on the beach this August, I recommend Stefan Zweig’s “Decisive Moments in History.” Originally published in 1927, Zweig’s book is now largely forgotten.
