Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 536–543 | Cite as

Trends in cyberspace: can governments keep up?

  • Patryk Pawlak
  • Cécile Wendling


Whether carried out by individuals or states, cyberattacks are both growing in number and becoming more sophisticated. Since the attack on Estonian cyber infrastructure in 2007, many other examples of massive attacks have been reported. The use of spyware and malware—such as with Stuxnet, DuQu or Flames—to disrupt critical infrastructure has made headlines, questioning the ability of governments and private actors to respond to cyber threats. A broad array of potential threats poses a substantial challenge to existing governance structures, which are often behind the curve in comparison with the dynamically evolving cyberspace. Using existing literature and recent foresight studies, the article analyses the trends in the governance of cyberspace and their implications for governments and global regulatory regimes.


Cybersecurity Cybercrime International cooperation Government response Policy making 


  1. Bendiek A (2012) European cybersecurity policy. SWP website Accessed 15 June 2013
  2. Borg S (2005) Economically complex cyberattacks. Secur Priv 3(6):64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenner SW, Clarke LL (2010) Civilians in cyberwarfare: casualties. SMU science & technology law review 13.3. Accessed 15 June 2013
  4. Clarke RS, Knake RK (2010) Cyber war. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Congressional Research Service (2012) Cybersecurity, selected legal issues. April 2012. Accessed 15 June 2013
  6. Cornish P, Hughes R, Livingstone D (2009) Cyberspace and the national security of the united kingdom, threats and responses. Chatham house report, March 2009Google Scholar
  7. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp (2013) Beyond the horizon. A white paper to the industry on systemic risk. August 2013. Accessed 10 Aug 2013
  8. Dupont B (2012) L’environnement de la cybersécurité à l’horizon tendances, moteurs et implications.Note de recherche 14 Centre International de Criminology Compare. Université de Montréal, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  9. FEMA (2011) Critical infrastructure. Strategic foresight initiative. June 2011. Accessed 15 June 2013
  10. Georgia Institute of Technology (2013) Emergening cyberthreat report 2013. Accessed 15 June 2013
  11. Gorman S, Bernes JE (2011) Cyber combat: act of war. Wall Str J. 31 May 2011Google Scholar
  12. Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection (2003) Cybersecurity, research and development agenda. Accessed 15 June 2013
  13. Kay DJ, Pudas TJ, Young B (2012) Preparing the pipeline: the US cyber workforce for the future. Defense horizons. National Defense University, August 2012Google Scholar
  14. Lewis AJ, Neuneck G (2013) The Cyber Index. International security trends and realities. New York and Geneva, United Nations Institute for Disarmament ResearchGoogle Scholar
  15. Liberthal K, Singer PW (2012) Cybersecurity and US-China relations. Brookings Institution. February 2012Google Scholar
  16. Lord KM, Sharp T (2011) America’s cyber future. Security and prosperity in the information age. Center for a New American Security. June 2011Google Scholar
  17. McAfee (2013) 2013 Threat predictions. Accessed 10 Aug 2013
  18. National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (2012) Attack surface: healthcare and public health Sector. Accessed 15 June 2013
  19. OECD (2011) Future global shocks, improving risk governance. OECD Review of Risk Management Policy. Accessed 15 June 2013
  20. OECD (2012) Cybersecurity policy making at a turning point: analysing new generation of national cybersecurity strategies for the internet economy. OECD digital economy papers 21. OECD Publishing. Accessed 15 June 2013
  21. Ponemon Institute (2012) 2012 Cost of Cyber Crime Study: United States. Accessed 15 June 2013
  22. RAHS (2012) Future stake. RAHS, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  23. Schneider B (2013) Cyberconflicts and national security. UN Chronicle. 18 July 2013Google Scholar
  24. Shore M, Du Y, Zeadally S (2011) A public-private partnership model for national cybersecurity. Policy Internet 3:1–23Google Scholar
  25. Symantec (2013) 2013 Internet Security Threat Report, Volume 18. Accessed 10 Aug 2013
  26. Tessier Stall S (2011) The future of cybersecurity. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies and TNO. Paper No 2001–04. Accessed 15 June 2013
  27. UK Cabinet Office (2008) Data handling procedures in government: final report. June 2008. Accessed 15 June 2013
  28. Valeriano B, Maness R (2011) Cyberwar and rivalry: the dynamics of cyber conflict between antagonists. University of Illinois, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. World Economic Forum (2012) Risk and responsibility in a hyperconnected world. Pathways to global cyber resilience. June 2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre de sociologies des organizationsCNRS-Sciences POParisFrance
  3. 3.ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations