The Securitization of Cyberspace: From Rulemaking to Establishing Legal Regimes
- 作者: Ramich M.S.1, Piskunov D.A.1
-
隶属关系:
- Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
- 期: 卷 22, 编号 2 (2022): Non-Western World in Cyberspace
- 页面: 238-255
- 栏目: THEMATIC DOSSIER
- URL: https://journals.rudn.ru/international-relations/article/view/31405
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2022-22-2-238-255
如何引用文章
详细
With the development of information and communication technologies (ICTs), the Internet has become increasingly important in terms of national security, economic development, and global leadership. Apparently, conflicts and contentious issues in cyberspace requires creating rules and development of regulation. The authors examine the process of making up rules in cyberspace from the perspective of M. Castells’ network society theory and B. Buzan’ securitization theory. According to M. Castells, key challenges have gradually altered in the network society and power relations and social management are based on the control of communication and information which embraces a network society. Furthermore, the authors investigate the development of the Internet in the context of securitization theory. It is stressed that cyberspace has become a full-fledged political space with the central position of digital sovereignty and information security. The article for the first time proposes a comprehensive periodization of international relations’ transformation in cyberspace. Afterwards, the authors consider the appearance of tensions between actors in cyber space, which include political and economic threats. It encourages state actors to establish a preliminary regulation and to agree on norms regulating state behavior in cyberspace. These mechanisms have become a venue for promoting different concepts of cyber law and establishing legal regimes. In conclusion the authors analyze the hierarchy of actors in global Internet governance to assess the actors’ influence on the establishment of legal regimes in cyberspace. The main assessment criteria are as follows: ability to influence global production chains of high-tech goods, ability to conduct offensive and defensive cyber operations, and influence on the formation of international legal regimes. The authors divide actors into two major groups - rule-markers capable of influencing the global information space and constructing legal regimes, and rule-takers that are an object of great powers competition in cyberspace.
关键词
作者简介
Mirzet Ramich
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
Email: ramich-ms@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1479-2785
Assistant, the Department of Theory and History of International Relations
Moscow, Russian FederationDanil Piskunov
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: piskunov_da@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4321-3191
Student, the Department of Theory and History of International Relations
Moscow, Russian Federation参考
- Buchanan, B. (2017). The cybersecurity dilemma: Hacking, Trust And Fear Between Nations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Buzan, B. (1983). People, states, and fear: The national security problem in international relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.
- Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491252
- Castells, M. (2011). Network theory. A network theory of power. International journal of communication, 5(15), 773-787.
- Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Danilin, I. V. (2020a). The U.S. - China technology war: Risks and opportunities for P.R.C. and global tech sector. Comparative Politics Russia, 11(4), 160-176. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10056
- Danilin, I. V. (2020b). Conceptualizing American strategy in the technology war against China: Economy, geopolitics, techno-nationalism. Journal of International Analytics, 11(4), 21-38. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-4-21-38
- Davis, J. A., & Lewis, C. (2019). Beyond the United Nations group of governmental experts: Norms of responsible nation-state behavior in cyberspace. The Cyber Defense Review, 161-168.
- Degterev, D. A. (2020). Assessment of the current international arrangement of forces and the formation of a multipolar world. Moscow: Ru-Science publ. (In Russian).
- Degterev, D. A., Nikulin, M. A., & Ramich, M. S. (Eds.). (2021). Balance of powers in key regions: Conceptualization and applied analysis. Moscow: RUDN publ. (In Russian).
- Degterev, D. A., Ramich, M. S., & Piskunov, D. A. (2021). U.S. - China approaches to global Internet governance: “New bipolarity” in terms of “the network society”. International Organisations Research Journal, 16(3), 7-33. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-01
- Degterev, D. A., Ramich, M. S., & Tsvyk, A. V. (2021). U.S. - China: “Power transition” and the outlines of “conflict bipolarity”. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 21(2), 210-231. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-2-210-231
- Deibert, R. J., & Rohozinski, R. (2010). Risking security: Policies and paradoxes of cyberspace security. International Political Sociology, 4(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2009.00088.x
- Hansen, L., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Digital disaster, cyber security, and the Copenhagen school. International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 1155-1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00572.x
- Hjalmarsson, O. (2013). The securitization of cyberspace. How the Web was won. Lund University Libraries, 1-28. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3357990
- Krutskikh, A. V. (Ed.). (2019). International information security: Theory and Practice (Volume 1). Moscow: Aspekt Press publ. (In Russian).
- Levinson, N. S. (2021). Idea entrepreneurs: The United Nations open-ended working group & cybersecurity. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102142
- Manoylo, A. V. (2014). Information factor color revolutions and modern technology of dismantling of political regimes. MGIMO Review of International Relations, (6), 61-67. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2014-6-39-61-67
- Maurer, T. (2018). Cyber mercenaries: The state, hackers, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316422724
- Mueller, M. L. (2020). Against sovereignty in cyberspace. International Studies Review, 22(4), 779-801. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz044
- Nye, J. S. (2016). Deterrence and dissuasion in cyberspace. International Security, 41(3), 44-71. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00266
- Nye, J. S. (2011). Nuclear lessons for cyber security? Strategic Studies Quarterly. 5(4), 18-38.
- Ponka, T. I., Ramich, M. S., & Wu, Y. (2020). Information policy and information security of PRC: Development, approaches and implementation. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 20(2), 382-394. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2020-20-2-382-394
- Rattray, G. J. (2009). An environmental approach to understanding cyberpower. In F. D. Kramer, S. H. Starr & L. K. Wentz (Eds.), Cyberpower and national security (pp. 253-274). Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, Potomac Books.
- Stevens, T. (2012). A cyberwar of ideas? Deterrence and norms in cyberspace. Contemporary Security Policy, 33(1), 148-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2012.659597
- Williams, R. D. (2020). Beyond Huawei and TikTok: Untangling US concerns over Chinese tech companies and digital security. Working Paper for the Penn Project on the Future of U.S. - China Relations, 1-44. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FP_20201030_huawei_tiktok_williams.pdf
- Xingdong, F., & Du, L. (2019). Zhongmei keji jingzhengde weilai qushiyanjiu - quanqiu keji chuangxin qudongxiade chanye youshi zhuanyi、chongtu yuzai pingheng. Renminluntan xueshuqianyan [Study on the future trends of Sino-U.S. technological competition - industrial advantage transfer, conflict and rebalancing driven by global technological innovation. People's Forum Academic Frontiers], 4(24), 46-59. (In Chinese). https://doi.org/10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy.2019.24.004
- Zhao, S. (2021). The US - China rivalry in the emerging bipolar world: Hostility, alignment, and power balance. Journal of Contemporary China, 31(134), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2021.1945733
- Zinovieva, E. S. (2019a). Concepts of cyberdeterrence and digital security dilemma in the US academic literature. International Trends, 17(3), 51-65. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2019.17.3.58.4
- Zinovieva, E. S. (2019b). International cooperation to ensure information security: subjects and trends of evolution [thesis]. Moscow: MGIMO publ. (In Russian).
- Zinovieva, E. S., & Alborova, M. B. (Eds.). (2021). International information security: A new geopolitical reality. Moscow: Aspekt Press publ. (In Russian).
补充文件
没有额外的文件显示