The Ethical Imperative of Information: Just War Considerations for Global Information Strategy

Abstract

This article examines the implications of Just War Theory, an ethical framework governing the use of lethal force by governments, for the use of information warfare in the 21st century. The author posits that ethical considerations demand a robust, integrated approach to information operations, both as a means of averting armed conflict and for accomplishing strategic objectives with minimal human harm or suffering. Classical ethics theories are applied to the requirement for and application of information warfare in the modern context.

Introduction

Navigating the ethical challenges of competition and warfare in the 21st century is daunting at best and treacherous at worst. Warfighters and policymakers must leverage creative and unconventional approaches to navigate a complex environment rife with threats. America, which for decades has served as the de facto guarantor of the current international order, has an ethical obligation to respond to each of these threats, both for the good of its own citizens and for the good of the entire world. Doing so, however, is akin to walking a minefield blindfolded; one strategic move in the wrong direction could have second- or third-order effects that send nukes flying or innocent civilians to their graves. It is imperative that the United States and its allies pursue ethical means of dealing with threats to stability in the modern era, especially in ways that lie below the threshold of all-out war. In this context, gray-zone tactics like information warfare present a valuable ethical tool to address the actors seeking to undermine a secure global environment. By adhering to Just War theory principles, the U.S. can ethically leverage information as a soft-power tool to pursue the common good while avoiding the destruction brought on by full-scale military conflict.

Just War Considerations in the Modern Era

Just War theory, first outlined by Augustine of Hippo in the sixth century and further developed by the philosopher-theologian Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae, provides a framework to evaluate the morality of the use of deadly force as a tool of statecraft. The principles of Just War theory have long informed discussion as to whether a nation or other entity can ethically engage in war, even in the modern era.

 Principles of Just War Theory

• Legitimate Authority. According to Just War Theory, only a state, not a civilian group or individual, may lawfully declare war. In the case of the U.S., Congress holds this authority for a formal declaration of war, though the President may authorize the use of military force in scenarios outside the realm of traditional state-on-state conflict.
• Just Cause. War may only be declared if there is a grave reason justifying the use of force, such as defense against aggression or the correction of a serious injustice, and not for reasons such as revenge or conquest.
• Right Intention. War must be waged to advance the common good, not to simply benefit a select group or for national interest outside that which would be considered a just cause.
• Last Resort. All other means (diplomacy, economic enticement, information strategy) must be exhausted before committing to the use of force.
• Even if war is conducted, combatants are still bound by ethical considerations in how the war is fought. The means of destruction must be proportional to the military ends achieved, and all steps must be taken to minimize damage to civilians or property. Simply, the harm done by war must not outweigh the good accomplished.

The Costs of Modern War

Considered in the light of Just War theory, the costs of modern warfare raise serious concerns as to the ethics of full-scale war. On one hand, great powers vie for influence on the global stage with military buildups and real or threatened invasions of sovereign neighbors, gray-zone tactics, and predatory economic policies seeking to solidify their posture against their adversaries and rewrite the international order. The cost of traditional war between great powers in the modern era is massive. Nuclear weapons alone present a nearly incalculable cost to human life and infrastructure, not to mention the suffering that the economic and geopolitical fallout of a war of this kind would present. For example, according to the United Nations, more than 50,000 civilian casualties have occurred as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.  Similarly, the United Nations reports that the Israel-Hamas conflict has displaced nearly 2 million civilians from their homes in Gaza. A war with North Korea could see nearly $40 trillion in a worst-case scenario on top of millions of military and civilian casualties, according to expert analysis. Geopolitically, the effects of war must be considered. In the case of China’s threatened invasion of Taiwan, such an act would fly in the face of international norms of sovereignty and undermine the stability of the entire Indo-Pacific region. Simultaneously, rogue states, terrorist groups, and other non-state actors seek to wrest local or regional control away from the established order with weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, transnational crime, and more. Additionally, in the information age, cyberattacks and disinformation impose substantial costs on civilian populations to the tune of billions of dollars and a psychological degradation in one’s own ability to trust what they see, read, or hear online. Russian and Chinese propaganda, for example, propagated substantial disinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 pandemic, threatening global public health outcomes and trust in government institutions.  In sum, the costs of modern war present a compelling need to reevaluate how states interact in times of conflict or crisis, and especially so given the moral obligation of leaders to pursue the common good. Just War theory provides one such ethical compass by which one can navigate these waters, and in so doing calls for a revamped approach to conflicts.

The Ethical Necessity of Information Warfare

Given that full-scale war is so costly, how can nations seek to justly promote the common good while not provoking destruction on a massive scale? The answer lies in the use of information warfare amid other gray-zone tactics, seeking to accomplish national objectives against adversaries while remaining below the threshold of war. The information tool of national power relates in part to a nation’s ability to disseminate information into a given environment and thereby influence a specific audience. This can occur through various means; public diplomacy, psychological operations, cultural exchanges, and even cyber capabilities serve to shape narratives and deter adversary actions that would lead to conflict. As a soft-power tool, the use of information can and should be exhausted before, and even during and after, conflicts break out, according to the Last Resort principle of Just War theory. Since little to no physical destruction or death occurs as a direct impact of information warfare, it certainly meets the criteria of Proportionality. Moreover, since the scale of information warfare can be tailored to the specific environment, states can modify their approaches to remain beneath a threatening threshold and avoid war while still advancing the common good. That said, information warfare must still be governed by the same ethical boundaries as other tools of national power, and, considering the moral and operational consequences of unethical information activities, extra care must be taken to ensure that the highest standards are made clear and always adhered to.

Morality in Information Warfare

As mentioned, information presents a highly ethical means of advancing national interests and promoting peace, justice, and stability around the globe. Uniquely, information activities can be used to counter many of the immoral gray-zone tactics like propaganda and disinformation employed by adversarial nations and actors, as well as disrupting their activities outside of the information domain and building resilience among civilian populations. To be effective, however, information warfare must adhere to strict ethical guidelines. All information campaigns must seek to promote the common good and not seek to manipulate for self-serving or exploitative reasons, lest they be perceived as predatory. An audience’s loss of trust in a messaging campaign would immediately degrade credibility in the sources of information and undermine the effectiveness of future operations. An exception to this guideline is the use of deception in military operations, which seeks to influence enemy decision-making. In these cases, deception can be morally justified as it seeks to protect friendly forces’ lives and leads to a greater chance of operational success. This differs from strategic misinformation, which suppresses or distorts truth among civilian populations, denying them the fundamental human right to truthful information.

As seen, information, whether truthful or deceitful, does have the capacity to cause both direct psychological harm and, indirectly, can lead to real physical damage. The second and third-order effects of a given information activity should be wargamed and adjustments made to ensure that any harm that could arise is proportional to the good achieved. Despite risks, information affords the opportunity to achieve strategic objectives with far less harm done to innocent parties than kinetic activities, and every effort should be made to reduce risks to civilians while still placing adversaries at a disadvantage.

Finally, a unique aspect of ethical information activities is the requirement to be culturally attuned. Culturally misaligned information operations alienate audiences, as was seen in some psychological operations (PSYOP) products utilized in Afghanistan, and give the adversary an opening to turn the information environment in their favor. Conversely, messaging that aligns with cultural norms builds credibility and shows respect for local customs and values, increasing the potential for effectiveness in future messaging. This can include messaging conducted in the target language, utilizing images and themes that resonate with local mythologies or values, or otherwise appealing to local senses of social or cultural identity. For example, PSYOP forces during the Korean War relied on themes of a shared national identity to encourage defection from North Korea to the South. This creates a requirement for cultural and linguistic training for information warfare practitioners and analysts, and benefits further from integration with local experts and organizations that can verify the cultural alignment of messages before they are published.

Addressing Risks, Accountability, and Measuring Effectiveness

History is rife with examples of information activities used to harm populations, such as the works of the infamous Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels and the modern-day North Korean propaganda state, as well as the aforementioned instances where information activities have backfired. These risks are compounded when using disinformation as a means of influence, which dramatically degrades credibility and alienates populations. If planned or executed poorly, the use of information can escalate tensions with adversaries or nudge neutral parties toward an adversarial position, all of which complicate the chances of avoiding conflict or reaching national goals. To prevent this conundrum, information activities should be subject to rigorous oversight, and policy should be crafted at the highest levels of government to provide clear themes and ethical guidelines governing the use of information. Internal reviews at various levels in the chain of command should assess the ethics of information activities and ensure they align with strategic objectives. International cooperation in information operations, too, is paramount to enable a unified commitment to ethical norms. Both domestically and internationally, visibility should be maximized wherever possible in the pursuit of accountability to the citizenry. While operational security concerns demand a degree of secrecy as to the details of ongoing information activities, the population of a country seeking to exercise information warfare should have the right to demand that their government do so ethically and in pursuit of goals that benefit the common good.

The effectiveness of information activities should be measured as accurately as possible to ensure proper use of resources. Assessment results should then be reported to department-level headquarters at the Department of State, Defense, or intelligence agencies undertaking information activities, and wherever possible, should be shared with Congress for a further layer of accountability. Analyzing the effectiveness of messaging campaigns can be accomplished in direct means, such as behavioral observation or surveys of target audiences, or even through sentiment analysis on social or mass media. That said, measuring shifts in attitudes and perceptions, especially in potentially adversarial environments, is incredibly difficult. In such cases, effectiveness can be viewed in a theory-of-victory approach in which information activities and products, coupled with informed assumptions, account for subjectivity in assessments and can still be considered successful despite a lack of concrete evidence.

Additionally, as the global information environment becomes more complex, international cooperation will become crucial to building effective ethical information campaigns. Allies and partners around the globe should discuss and codify ethical regulations governing information warfare and seek to maximize the interoperability of their information activities. This way, multiple parties can present a cohesive, unified narrative to counter other states or groups who seek to undermine the stability of the global order.

Finally, future innovations in information warfare can be fueled by artificial intelligence, big data, and other emerging technologies, which make messaging more precise, effective, and reduce the risk of harm to innocent populations. By leveraging big data and artificial intelligence (AI) tools, practitioners can glean insights as to which messages might resonate with a given audience, as well as streamlining the planning and message development processes to maintain operational tempo. Of course, AI and big data usage come with their own considerations. Any use of these tools must respect the privacy and rights of civilians, and all AI-created plans or messages should be vetted by human approval authorities prior to publication to ensure all ethical guidelines are being met.

Conclusion

In a complex global environment where conventional war presents immeasurable costs, America and its allies have a moral obligation to pursue every possible nonviolent means to promote peace and stability. Information warfare, especially when informed by sound ethical principles, presents precisely the tool required to navigate international challenges and promote the common good. By remaining below the threshold of conflict, information activities create a venue for truth and freedom while simultaneously countering adversarial narratives and avoiding deadly conflict. While the risk of war will never be zero, and a strong defense posture should be maintained to respond to global threats, American policymakers, strategists, and ethicists alike prioritize the ethical use of information to promote national interests and ensure a just, stable global order.

The post The Ethical Imperative of Information: Just War Considerations for Global Information Strategy appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.