Reliance on Judgement

What constitutes an authoritative judgment for attribution? Is that the same thing as a sound and universally true judgment? Furthermore, what are the political implications of acknowledging that attribution relies on judgment? Taking account of political judgment brings an important contribution to the debate on attribution by displacing the usual focus on technical constraints to a focus on political ones. It transpires that political judgment for attribution is neither good nor bad; it is fallible but inescapable. Attribution is a process that constantly evolves and is never perfect, due to its inherent reliance on judgment. This reliance on judgment in order to attribute cases threatening national security explains a useful trend: attribution is always possible, but with differing degrees depending on the authority and trust conferred on the entity expressing the judgment. In fact, though, the veracity of the judgment expressed is only secondary to its authoritative value: the role of attribution is primarily to convince an audience that its consequences were called for. Technical forensic evidence for attribution is therefore important; but so is the extent to which the public will be convinced of the guilt of the alleged instigator.