Advertisement

The Fragmented Securitization of Cyber Threats

  • Agnes Kasper
Chapter

Abstract

Cybersecurity is one of the most pressing national security issues nowadays. Cyber threats reached truly global scales, cyber attacks that potentially or actually cause physical damage are on the rise, and securing critical infrastructures against cyber incidents is seen as a priority by many. Virtually every national cybersecurity strategy points out the importance of the international cooperation in this field, and there have been initiatives for a global cybersecurity treaty as well. Although a number of national and regional policy and legal instruments exist in this field, the conclusion of a truly international treaty remains a highly controversial topic. The aim of this chapter is to identify the factors that make such a global cybersecurity treaty (un)viable. It will begin with an overview of the history of cybersecurity and its early securitization process by the USA and Russia, and then, the focus will shift to the present strategic approaches and responses.

Keywords

Information Security Critical Infrastructure Domain Name System Shanghai Cooperation Organization Information Warfare 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Buzan, B. (1991) New patterns of global security in the twenty-first century. International Affairs 67(3).Google Scholar
  2. Buzan, B., Weaver, O., & de Wilde, Jaap. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Publisher.Google Scholar
  3. Bigo, D., Boulet, G., Bowden, C., Carrera, S., Jeandesboz, J., & Scherrer, A. (2012). Fighting cybercrime and protecting privacy in the cloud, directorate general for internal policies, policy department c: Citizens’ rights and constitutional affairs. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  4. Bronc, C., & Tikk-Ringas, E. (2013) The cyber attack on Saudi Aramco. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 55(2).Google Scholar
  5. Cridland, C. (2008) The history of the internet: The interwoven domain of enabling technologies and cultural interaction. In Responses to cyber terrorism. Ankara: Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism.Google Scholar
  6. Elazari, K. (2013) Proactive security: Integrating active defense in cybersecurity. Gigaom Research. www.gigaom.com. Accessed January 5, 2014.
  7. ENISA (2012) National cyber security strategies, Setting the course for national efforts to strengthen cyber security. Report.Google Scholar
  8. Gady, F. S., & Austin, G. (2010) Russia, the United States, and cyber diplomacy: Opening the doors. New York: EastWest Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Giles, K. (2012). Russia’s public stance on cyberspace issues. In C. Czosseck, R. Ottis, & K. Ziolkowski (Eds.), 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Proceedings. Tallinn: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence.Google Scholar
  10. Greenstein, S. (2001) Commercialization of the internet: The interaction of public policy and private choices or why introducing the market worked so well. In Jaffle, A. B., et. al. (eds.) Innovation policy and the economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hare, F. (2010) The cyber threat to national security: Why can’t we agree? In C. Czosseck & K. Podins (Eds.) Conference on Cyber Conflict Proceedings 2010. Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence, Tallinn, Estonia.Google Scholar
  12. Kilroy, R. J. (2009) The U.S. military response to cyber warfare. In L. J. Janczewski, & A. M. Colarik (Eds.) Cyber warfare and cyber terrorism (Information Science Reference).Google Scholar
  13. Kramer, F. D. (2009). Cyberpower and national security: Policy recommendations for a strategic framework. In F. D. Kramer, S. H. Starr, & L. K. Wentz (Eds.), Cyberpower and national security. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press.Google Scholar
  14. OECD (2012) Cybersecurity policy making at a turning point—analyzing a new generation of cybersecurity strategies for the internet economy. OECD Report.Google Scholar
  15. Orji, U. J. (2012). Russia and the council of Europe convention on cybercrime. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 18(1), 16–17.Google Scholar
  16. Stone, M. (2009) Security according to Buzan: A comprehensive security analysis. Security Discussion Papers Serie 1. Groupe d’Etudes et d’Expertise, Sécurité et Technologies (GEEST).Google Scholar
  17. Tikk, E. (2011) A comprehensive legal approach to cyber security. PhD Thesis, Tartu University.Google Scholar
  18. Tikk-Ringas, E., Kaska, K., & Vihul, L. (2010). International cyber incident: Legal considerations. Tallinn: Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.Google Scholar
  19. Tikk-Ringas, E. (2012) Developments in the field of information and telecommunication in the context of international security: Work of the UN First Committee 1998–2012. Geneva: ICT4Peace Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Thomas, L. T. (2009). Nation–state cyber strategies: Examples from China and Russia. In F. D. Kramer, S. H. Starr, & L. K. Wentz (Eds.), Cyberpower and national security. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Tänavsuu, T. (2014) Pealegi oleme kogu täiega pilves. Eesti Ekspress 9 (1264), 12–13.Google Scholar
  22. Tzu, S. (2013) The art of war. Colorado: Orange Publishing. Google Scholar
  23. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Comprehensive study on cybercrime, Report. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, C. (2009) Cyber crime. In F. D. Kramer, et. al Cyberpower and national security. Dulles: Potomac Books.Google Scholar
  25. Ziolkowski, K. (2011). Stuxnet—legal considerations. Tallinn: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence.Google Scholar
  26. Ziolkowsky, K. (Ed.). (2013). Peacetime regime for state activities in cyberspace—international law, international relations and diplomacy. Tallinn: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn Law SchoolTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations