It should be noted that the Geneva Conventions were signed immediately after a war, the signatories were all nation-states (no independent non-state groups), th

It should be noted that the Geneva Conventions were signed immediately after a war, the signatories were all nation-states (no independent non-state groups), they were an ongoing process, and not every nation-state signed them. They have also been violated quite frequently. In fact, if it weren't for the constant peacetime indoctrination of military officers in signatory nations, they would be violated a lot more in time of war. It also should be noted that for a long time there has been a solution for non-state actors inciting violence upon another state: military trial. Pirates, no matter what Disney may have you believe, were not the most friendly folks. The Royal Navy and others hung quite a few in an effort to establish open seas. We already are at war, it's just nobody wants to come out and say it. So now is a terrible time to bring this up. Belligerents are going to stall and hem and haw while they seek tactical advantage. That's not conducive to a frank discussion. I can't see any of the major nations or third parties participating in any kind of honest way, sadly. If we want to start hanging hackers (the bad kind), and I'm not so sure we aren't just a few decades away from doing that, we need to start having an honest discussion about just what constitutes an "open internet". And I imagine there are several nations right now, including the U.S., that do not have one. That's a great discussion to get started, but this idea is way, way premature and is based on a ton of assumptions which are not true. Loosely the analogy might work, but I doubt the authors have thought through exactly what they're leading us into.