Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 27

Anonymous Versus ISIS: The Role of Non-state Actors in Self-defense
insurgencies, and other influential actors can affect how states operate in this global
space. Additionally, this interaction between entities within the nation-state is making it
increasingly more difficult for state actors to interact with other state actors in a cohesive
and consistent manner. The influence of non-state actors on national security both
within and without the state is becoming more problematic in an increasingly globalized
space that challenges our traditional understandings of Just War Theory.
The role of information and communications technology and its resulting contribution
to globalization is facilitating the rise of non-state actors in asserting themselves in
ways that were once reserved for state actors alone. Technology increasingly enables
the movement of non-state actors into multiple state jurisdictions and cross-border
activities. The use of cyberspace by terrorist organizations for command and control
activities, recruitment, and the dissemination of training materials is of on-going
concern for state actors, and creates a new battlespace outside traditional state borders
and jurisdictional lines toward interventions. With the emergence of non-state actors
such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) openly using cyberspace to spread their
ideology and activities, other non-state actors such as the hacktivist group Anonymous
have declared their intention to attack them anywhere they find them in cyberspace.
In this paper, we examine how non-state actors are beginning to compete
with other non-state actors in cyberspace, and consider how the Just War Theory of
self-defense might apply to this domain. We consider this emerging phenomenon of
non-state actors in conflict with each other by paying particular attention to the recent
confrontation between ISIS and Anonymous and ask what implications can be derived
from the emergence of competing non-state actors who consider themselves beyond
the sovereignty of state actors. In conclusion, we further ask whether it is reasonable
that they be allowed to conduct battle in the cyberspace domain within the previously
established rules of Just War Theory or whether states should create new rules and
adapt these into their respective national security strategies.
Just War Theory and Non-state Actors
The international system that emerged out of the Peace of Westphalia in the midseventeenth
century has relied on state actors and their willingness to recognize
sovereign territory and borders. There have been challenges to these states and
borders since then, but recent conflicts enabled by emerging cyber capabilities present
further obstacles to conventional paradigms and the historic legacies like the Sykes-
Picot agreement of the last century (Dodge 2014). In the world of cyber-conflict, the
question of cost in blood and treasure are terms that still apply even though the cost is not
necessarily a physical one. The mass violence seen in previous wars as well as its impact
at home is certainly not as severe in contemporary conflicts, but its proportionality and
probability of success remain significant to the affected populations.
Just War Theory consists of Jus ad Bellum—the acceptable justifications for
going to war in the first place, and Jus in Bello—the standard of conduct and activity
during that period of conflict. Jus ad bellum contends that for any resort to war to be
justified, a state must have the right reasons for war (Dipert, 2010). Just-war theorist
Brian Orend (2008), in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that some of the
21