Social Practices of Rule-Making for International Law in the Cyber Domain

Raymond, Mark

doi:10.1093/jogss/ogz065

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The oewg on ict in International Security was established in 2018 and extended the discussions around state responsibility in cyberspace that were taking place up to then within the UN gge to the whole UN membership. There were multiple reasons for its establishment (see Raymond 2021), but soon after it started its work in 2019 it became clear that cyber-diplomacy had become a prerogative of a much broader number of states, and that the discussions around ict s in international security had become more global. The oewg (initially proposed to work for one year, later extended to two due to Covid-19-related travel restrictions) has subsequently approved a set of conclusions that reinforced the acquis of the previous gge s, including its non-binding norms on responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.…”

Section: 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyber-diplomacy: The Emergence of a Transient Field

Barrinha

2024

Hague J. Dipl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary It is only in the last two decades that states have started to focus on the need to use traditional diplomatic means in discussions surrounding cyber-policy. This article explores how these discussions have been progressively ‘diplomatised’. Diplomatisation is proposed in this article as a process which involves external and internal dynamics of institutionalisation and positioning, both of which are essential for the successful creation of a new diplomatic field. Understanding the emergence of cyber-diplomacy is crucial to recognise the successes, frustrations and opportunities associated with the (lack of) regulation when it comes responsible state behaviour in this domain. This article does so based on 40 interviews conducted with diplomats and experts involved in the emergence of cyber-diplomacy. It looks at the idiosyncratic evolution of this field within specific nation states as well as overall developments at the international level, particularly within the context of the United Nations.

show abstract

Section: 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyber-diplomacy: The Emergence of a Transient Field

Barrinha

2024

Hague J. Dipl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Chinese scholars have grasped the ambiguity of the concept to (re)interpret the public core, ‘moving the norm beyond its infrastructure security to a state security goal’ that is firmly embedded in the Chinese thinking on cyber sovereignty (Fung, 2022). Being able to agree on shared language when divisions between the main state powers are as deep as they currently are, is testimony to the strength of the UN process, as norms scholars such as Maurer (2020), Levinson (2021) and Raymond (2021) have underscored. However, even the shared language leaves ample room for contestation and interpretation of that language which many norms scholars increasingly see as the new normal of international diplomatic cyber negotiations (Kurowska, 2019; Wiener, 2014).…”

Section: Growing Recognition Of the Need To Protect Global Internet I...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Core concerns: The need for a governance framework to protect global Internet infrastructure

Broeders,

Sukumar

2024

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The war in Ukraine has underscored the risks and threats to global Internet infrastructure from geopolitically motivated cyber operations. The Domain Name System and core protocols responsible for the routing, forwarding, and security of Internet traffic have been exploited by actors in Russia and Ukraine for denial‐of‐service attacks, surveillance, and censorship. Additionally, states have tried to compel organisations that maintain and govern such infrastructure to cut Russia off from the Internet. These cyber operations and sanctions targeting the ‘public core of the internet’ have serious transboundary effects, and threaten the stability and functionality of the Internet. Most such attacks appear, at the time of writing, to have been buffeted by the internet's resilience, but there is equally the risk that the Ukraine war becomes a permissive, norm‐constitutive moment for similar operations in the future targeting its core physical, institutional and logical infrastructure. The technical community, a growing number of states and other stakeholders have been arguing for the protection of the ‘public core’ of the internet for nearly a decade, anchoring the concept in policy, multistakeholder and diplomatic fora and documents. This paper, while noting that states increasingly acknowledge the need to protect the public core of the internet, argues that norms and international law are still ill‐equipped to regulate damaging cyber operations, given unsettled questions regarding the sovereignty of states over global Internet infrastructure, and the precise scope of their existing international obligations towards its protection.

show abstract

“…157.In 2017 the GGE failed to yield a consensus report. See Henriksen 2019; Maurer 2020; Raymond 2020; Tikk and Kerttunen 2018.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What's in a Name? Metaphors and Cybersecurity

Branch¹

2020

Int Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than a decade, the United States military has conceptualized and discussed the Internet and related systems as “cyberspace,” understood as a “domain” of conflict like land, sea, air, and outer space. How and why did this concept become entrenched in US doctrine? What are its effects? Focusing on the emergence and consolidation of this terminology, I make three arguments about the role of language in cybersecurity policy. First, I propose a new, politically consequential category of metaphor: foundational metaphors, implied by using particular labels rather than stated outright. These metaphors support specific ways to understand complex issues, provide discursive resources to some arguments over others, and shape policy contestation and outcomes. Second, I present a detailed empirical study of US military strategy and doctrine that traces the emergence and consolidation of terminology built on the “cyberspace domain.” This concept supported implicit metaphorical correspondences between the Internet and physical space, yielding specific analogies and arguments for understanding the Internet and its effects. Third, I focus on the rhetorical effects of this terminology to reveal two important institutional consequences: this language has been essential to expanding the military's role in cybersecurity, and specific interests within the Department of Defense have used this framework to support the creation of US Cyber Command. These linguistic effects in the United States also have implications for how other states approach cybersecurity, for how international law is applied to cyber operations, and for how International Relations understands language and technological change.

show abstract

Social Practices of Rule-Making for International Law in the Cyber Domain

Cited by 10 publications

References 42 publications

Cyber-diplomacy: The Emergence of a Transient Field

Cyber-diplomacy: The Emergence of a Transient Field

Core concerns: The need for a governance framework to protect global Internet infrastructure

What's in a Name? Metaphors and Cybersecurity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About