IndexIntroductionCyber ​​Attack Response Strategies Across BordersUS, UK, and Australian Responses to Cyber ​​Attacks Across BordersConclusionReferencesIntroductionThe revolutionary emergence of the cyberspace domain has enabled various Online business to become easily accessible to countries all over the world. Today, more people use the Internet than ever before and it has become an integral part of the economy. Despite the advantages, some drawbacks have proven useful for hackers and nation-states to exploit. Cyber ​​security is the technology that provides solutions to protect devices and networks from all types of viruses, worms, privacy violations and data theft. However, when the cyber threat reaches a national level and involves state-sponsored actors, there are many more variables that need to be configured to address the situation. The response to cyber attacks is not as easy to implement as is the implementation of the laws of war, due to the underlying reason that the scale of the cyber attack is not as simple as that of conventional wars, especially when the attack comes from another state. . Inconsistency and confusion regarding the law and its implications among states constitute an even greater ambiguity. There are several challenges that states face in maintaining a coherent framework for combating cyber attacks that is realistic, achievable and operational. However, considering the consequences of a cyber attack, defending critical infrastructure through layered protection is inevitable in this century (Marks, 2013). Cyberspace is spread across the world, which means that countries must consider relevant events outside of it and find ways to be prepared for any external attacks that may occur in the future (Inserra, 2017). In this research paper, an initial discussion has been conducted on cyber attacks and their prevention, as well as possible responses by states that can help eradicate cyber attacks. Subsequently, responses from three different countries were taken into consideration and then an analytical comparison between states was presented. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Cyber ​​Attack Response Strategies Across Borders Planning and implementing a cyber-resilient system for a state may not be as simple as it might seem. There are different factors and levels of variables that must be explored in depth if you want to prepare an adequate strategy. The concept of layered protection is extremely important in creating a strong response strategy for a state. The layer consists of both active and passive defenses which are not always followed by states and often choose to stick to only one type of defense. Therefore, it could have a great impact to ensure the effective implementation of both strategies because there is no international standard that states how to deal with cyber attacks (Marks, 2013). It is therefore up to states to decide whether to follow the traditional law of war or domestic criminal law. The latter option may not be feasible because a cyber attack cannot always be considered and cannot be treated as a law of war. On the other hand, compliance with national criminal laws can lead to a lack of protection from attacks. Therefore, if the balance between active and passive defenses is not maintained, states will not be able to ensure an adequate way to combat the attack. Laws must be followed everytime a cyber attack occurs from a foreign country. International humanitarian law plays a significant role in this matter. This law dictates the dos and don'ts of an armed conflict and suggests balanced action that includes reducing the impact of war by making the enemy weak (What Are the Rules of War and Why Do They Matter, 2020). There are two different types of laws of war, one is Jus ad Bellum and the other is Jus in Bello. These concern the Conflict Management Law and the Armed Conflict Law respectively. Jus ad Bellum helps define the scope of states' response to active defenses (Ndi, 2018). Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter provides that States should prohibit themselves from threatening other States or exerting pressure against other States, except where this falls within the regulations of the United Nations Charter (United Nations Charter (full text), 2020). This article, however, provides some exceptions which include the use of military forces to achieve international peace and security and the other is the ability to impose self-defense in the event of an ongoing armed attack. Another subset of self-defense is anticipatory self-defense which does not force states to wait for an attack, but rather allows them to act if an attack is anticipated or suspected. The acts of non-state actors further complicate the issue of Jus ad Bellum because states are not to blame for the action taken by the non-state actor against a specific country (Marks, 2013). Over the years, the issue has been addressed and the recent improvement in the regulatory framework is more accessible than ever and States are to some extent responsible for controlling the emergence of non-state actors. States must consider whether they need to respond to the cyber attack, and this includes several factors related to attacks by non-state actors. To strengthen defense and response to a cyber attack, there are three analytical models for cyber attack. -attacks that help broaden the scope of analysis of such attacks. These are the tools-based approach, the effects-based approach and the strict liability approach. Among them, the effect-based approach is more effective for cyber attack-based analyzes than the other two models. Michael N. Schmitt proposed one of the most effective frameworks when it comes to effect-based models. His article consists of six criteria that must be completed in order to be eligible for the analysis of cyberattacks as armed attacks: severity, immediacy, immediacy, invasiveness, measurability, and presumed legitimacy (Schmitt, n.d.). However, this criterion needs to become more global before it can be considered as an international framework that can help achieve uniformity in the analysis of cyber attacks. To effectively respond to attacks that take place outside the country, state accountability needs to be established. The State must consider its duty towards the control of cyber attacks and its prevention policy. First, a state must ensure that investigations into attacks are vigorous, that attackers are punished, and that they help other states that may have been affected by the attack (Payne, 2016). International conventions help achieve these adjectives because they promote the importance of states being aware of their non-state actors and preventing them from proceeding with cyber attacks, as well as supporting the need to treat cyber stacks as a criminal offence. It is also the duty of the State to enforce appropriate laws to prevent cyber attacks rather thanfight them after an attack has taken place (Liu, 2017). This falls under customary international law and general principles of law. These laws allow states to enforce vigorous laws that help prevent attackers from conducting future attacks and empower individuals to be liable for what could cause harm to another individual. To further strengthen attacks from external states, a state's jurists should be consulted (Marks, 2013). Cyberspace is capable of exploiting physical components as it did in the 2015 cyber attack on Ukraine's power grid (Sullivan and Kamensky, 2017). It is essential to implement passive and active defense and work with other countries' militaries and allies to create an action plan to strengthen defenses against cyber attacks. These goals are difficult to achieve due to differences in different countries' political goals and different approaches to solving a crime. For example, countries like China and Russia are unlikely to collaborate on creating guidelines that include privacy and Internet freedom protections for the country's individual citizens. A UN panel of experts has suggested that it is up to the country to ensure that their state is not used for criminal acts that have international effects. Furthermore, they suggested that states resolve their problems peacefully and punish criminals as needed. Different political and economic aspects will determine the final decision whether a state has gone beyond the specified rules or not. Jus in Bello is subsequently used to create a framework that offers an impactful framework (Sexton, 2016). Cyber ​​aggression must be contained by increasing the costs of hacking through retaliatory techniques. Diplomatic actions such as naming and shaming bad actors, cutting off cooperation with them, and limiting trade and travel access of countries known to be linked to cybercriminals can also prove beneficial (Inserra, 2017). For example, because Huawei and ZTE have been accused of intellectual property theft and operate under the Chinese government, the United States should restrict the use of Huawei and ZTE in the United States. Pursuing legal and criminal charges and formal sanctions against criminal entities will make malicious cyber nations wary before attempting any cyber crime. US, UK, and Australian Responses to Cyberattacks Across Borders There have been significant efforts to attack the United States from outside countries over the years. years, the most recent of which was a hacking attempt to steal sensitive information from healthcare organizations (O'Flaherty, 2020). Considering the long-standing conflict between the United States and China regarding cyber espionage, the United States has obviously accused China of being at fault. Even after the scandalous cyberattack against Estonia in 2007, the United States began to create a new and proactive set of strategies and weapons by taking defensive actions (Cold War 2.0 between China and the United States is already a virtual reality, 2020) . The United States has been actively working to develop stronger cyber capabilities. However, there have been efforts by the United States to cooperate with China by addressing the fact that both countries have been victims of cyber attacks (Inserra, 2017). This did not work due to continuously published hacks that occurred under the supervision of the Chinese government until 2015, when the Office of Personnel Management was attacked and was believed to be the work of China. This has pushed the US to take stronger action against cyber attackers, prompting China and the US to reach an agreementpreviously proposed by the United States that both countries would be victims of cyber attacks. The Russian government's break with the 2016 American election cycle was also handled with mediocrity. Therefore, it is clear that the United States should take a more active role in managing cyber aggression. The United States has used the strategy of alerting countries whenever suspicious activity is discovered to reduce the number of attacks. The United States and the United Kingdom had jointly blamed Russia for conducting the NotPetya attack (MCQUADE,2018). The United States also actively responded by imposing sanctions on North Korea, blaming it for the Sony Picture Entertainment hack that leaked several classified information (Haggard, 2015). Regarding relations with China, there have been accusations that China has launched hacking attacks, but no official action has been taken by the government on the matter (Winterford and Winterford, 2020). Despite the constant effort to stay up to date with global progress related to cyber laws and conventions, there are still many areas where Australia lags behind in terms of advanced technological threats compared to other leading countries, according to a 2016 report by ACCS. To make up for the delay, there are various measures Australia can take, such as combating cybercrime, protecting critical infrastructure, and research, education and knowledge transfer. The ACSC Threat Report reports that the fact that Australia has not yet suffered any major attacks shows that it is safe from future attacks. However, there may be another way of looking at this, outlined by US theories that Australia may have been attacked but, due to a lack of sufficient protection and awareness, was unable to detect it. The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime was signed by Australia in 2013 together with the United States and the United Kingdom. Compared to the US and Australia, there have been significant actions since the end of the UK which are helping law enforcement agencies abroad to agree on the application of international law and have formed an important part of the Budapest Convention on Crime informatics. However, the fact that many countries deny signing it has reduced the overall impact of the UK's contribution. Therefore, it has been suggested that the UK establishes a broader set of law enforcement agencies and also attempts to try to establish rules that are acceptable to all nations (Sexton, 2016). Since the Snowden incident occurred, there have been efforts by the UK and US governments to combat cybercrime, but there is a risk that private companies will not agree to work with the government to help it analyze activities in cyberspace. Snowden had revealed that the UK government collects all the data it deems important without justifying whether it needs it. He also said Australia's surveillance technique is similar to that of the UK (Australia's mass surveillance is 'dangerous', says Snowden, 2020). Since the Snowden incident, countries' legitimacy has plummeted with respect to their businesses and trades, which has further made it more difficult for countries to access sensitive company information that could be important for monitoring cyber activities. The United States and the United Kingdom had accused North Korea of ​​carrying out the Wannacry attack as a response to the massive hacking of compromised hospital and corporate information. Australia was also hit by this particular attack but, compared to the StatesUnited States and the United Kingdom, the level of breach was lower in Australia and the healthcare sector was not affected. Therefore, the Australian government has followed the approach of educating businesses about the severity and security issues related to Wannacry (Nott, 2020). The UK is also not free from risk and the National Security Strategy/Strategic Defense and Security Review has revealed the threat of cyber attacks associated with the country. The UK's threat level is not very easy to assess when considering the 2015 National Risk Register. It reported that over thirty thousand emails are arriving at government level which need to be blocked to ensure security. ACD is considered a key capability for the UK, but there is insufficient information on which responsibilities should be carried out by which government department. The absence of a common global guideline regarding ACD has affected the UK as well as many other countries. There have been many statements about how ACD should be defined for a country, but there has been no common guideline that has been accepted globally. Overall, it is suggested that the government adopts a revised and realistic policy, implementing an effective CSS to identify and define cyber warfare issues, while helping the government and citizens to be well informed and transparent about its capabilities. Please note: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion This research essay aims to point out the ways in which states can respond in different ways when it comes to mitigating attacks from external countries and thus evaluate the responses of different countries to cyber attacks. The context and information are strongly tied to the current situation and some examples from the past, but the scope of this research essay will expand over the years as cybersecurity, cyber governance and espionage reach new levels every day that passes. It is necessary for states to be aware of the alarming increase in cybercrime and state-sponsored actors that has reached dizzying levels in recent years because it is a cheap attack, faster and easier than that of a traditional war. There should also be separate guidance on preparing for and defending against cyber attacks and responding to cyber attacks. These goals can be achieved by building a strong alliance and taking decisive action together with states committed to fighting crime in cyberspace. While the use of active defense greatly enhances the state's ability to successfully fulfill its responsibilities, there are some limitations related to technical limitations such as attack detection, classification, and tracking that pose significant limitations. Furthermore, the inability of countries to work together as a team to combat cyberattacks is less likely to occur (Inserra 2017). Countries are also not free from this risk, among which USA, UK and Australia were discussed and compared, which further demonstrated the fact that there is a wide range of disagreements that can hinder the successful implementation of cyber defense strategy in effectively at an international level. Australia has a robust cyber security capability that will enable it to combat cyber attacks effectively and provide the ability to adequately defend, detect, respond to and defeat cyber attacks. Nations have an important role to play when it comes to strengthening cyber capabilities and ensuring security.