Contested Cyberspace and Rising Powers

Ebert, Hannes; Maurer, Tim

doi:10.1080/01436597.2013.802502

Cited by 47 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the sovereigntist sphere was still in flux. The efforts of the democratic BRICS, in particular Brazil and South Africa, might have contributed to enhanced governmental responsibility in internet governance if the European states had backed their efforts towards increased transparency and public regulation (Ebert and Maurer 2013). However, their insistence on the inclusion of private actors and concerns about the empowerment of authoritarian states made the Europeans join the US and push for multistakeholderism as an institutional compromise.…”

Section: Emerging Conflicts During the Wsis Process And The Tunimentioning

confidence: 99%

Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyse conflicts over norms and institutions in internet governance. In this emerging field, dispute settlement is less institutionalised and conflicts take place at a foundational level. Internet governance features two competing spheres of authority characterised by fundamentally diverging social purposes: A more consolidated liberal sphere emphasises a limited role of the state, private and multistakeholder governance and freedom of speech. A sovereigntist challenger sphere emphasises state control, intergovernmentalism and push against the preponderance of Western institutions and private actors. We trace the activation and evolution of conflict between these spheres with regard to norms and institutions in four instances: the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), the fifth session of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) and the Budapest Convention of the Council of Europe. We observe intense norm collisions, and strategic attempts at competitive regime creation and regime shifting towards intergovernmental structures by the sovereigntist sphere. Despite these aggressive attempts at creating new institutions and norms, the existing internet governance order is still in place. Hence, authority conflicts in global internet governance do not necessarily lead to fragmentation.

show abstract

Section: Emerging Conflicts During the Wsis Process And The Tunimentioning

confidence: 99%

Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Lu (), this group includes Russia and China, but the identities of other members of this grouping are unclear. For example, do Brazil and India belong to this group, not least as both have been vocal in criticizing U.S. actions in cyberspace (Ebert and Maurer )?…”

Section: Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

China's Solution to Global Cyber Governance: Unpacking the Domestic Discourse of “Internet Sovereignty”

Zeng

Stevens

Chen³

2017

Politics & Policy

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under Xi Jinping's leadership, China has actively promoted “Internet sovereignty” as a means to reshape the discourse and practices of global cyber governance. By analyzing Chinese‐language literature, this article unpacks the Chinese discourse of Internet sovereignty. Despite significant interest in promoting it as China's normative position on cyberspace, we find that Chinese formulations of Internet sovereignty are fragmented, diverse, and underdeveloped. There are substantial disagreements and uncertainty over what Internet sovereignty is and how it can be put into practice. This is principally due to the evolving pattern of Chinese policy formation, whereby political ideas are often not clearly defined when first proposed by Chinese leaders. This article argues that an underdeveloped domestic discourse of Internet sovereignty has significantly restricted China's capacity to provide alternative norms in global cyberspace. Appreciating this ambiguity, diversity, and, sometimes, inconsistency is vital to accurate understanding of transformations in global cyber governance occasioned by China's rise. Related Articles

show abstract

“…Some BRICS members have contended that the US wields great influence on internet infrastructure, thus undermining the security and sovereignty of other nations (Ebert and Maurer, 2013). Given that the internet was developed in the US -within its military-industrial-complex, evolving from a network infrastructure created by the Department of Defense -it has a strong American stamp on it.…”

Section: Surveillance and Security: A Cyber Cold War?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the internet age of global and globalized communication the governance of the internet becomes a crucial element and the BRICS nations, given the scale and scope of their digital growth, are key players in this global tussle (Ebert and Maurer, 2013). Of the five BRICS nations, there are strikingly different approaches with regard to the governance of the internet, while the members of IBSA -India, Brazil been argued applies 'neo-liberal logics as a part of its efforts to recreate the transnational hegemonic communication system' (Bhuiyan, 2014: 38).…”

Section: Safeguarding Cyber Sovereigntymentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital BRICS: building a NWICO 2.0?

Thussu¹

2015

Mapping BRICS Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contested Cyberspace and Rising Powers

Cited by 47 publications

References 0 publications

Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?

Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?

China's Solution to Global Cyber Governance: Unpacking the Domestic Discourse of “Internet Sovereignty”

Digital BRICS: building a NWICO 2.0?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About