International relations development in cyberspace

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEVELOPMENT IN CYBERSPACE

T.A. Poda,

National Aviation University

Abstract

The author defines the cyberspace as a new dimension of political space and as a field of political interaction and confrontation of various political actors. The differences between cyberspace and the Internet-space are analyzed. It is shown that modern society is becoming specifically networked and digital, the relations in machine-mediated social and media networks complement or replace communications based on the face to face interaction of political actors.

Keywords: network society; cyberspace; cyber security; cybercrime.

Аннотация

Пода Т.А.

РАЗВИТИЕ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙ В КИБЕРПРОСТРАНСТВЕ.

Автор рассматривает киберпространство как новое измерение политического пространства, как поле политического взаимодействия и противостояния различных политических акторов. Проанализированы различия между киберпространством и Интернетом. Показано, что современное общество становится специфически сетевым и цифровым, т.е. таким, где отношения в машинно-опосредованных социальных и медиасетях дополняют или заменяют коммуникации, основанные на взаимодействии политических акторов лицом к лицу.

Ключевые слова: сетевое общество; киберпространство; кибербезопасность; киберпреступность, правовое государство, международные отношения.

Анотація

Пода Т.А.

РОЗВИТОК МІЖНАРОДНИХ ВІДНОСИН У КІБЕРПРОСТОРІ.

Вступ. У сучасному світі інформація є одним із найважливіших ресурсів і, одночасно, однією з рушійних сил. Стрімкий розвиток та поширення нових інформаційних і комунікативних технологій призвели до глобальної інформаційної революції, яка здійснює значний вплив на всі сфери.

Мета і завдання. Метою статті є аналіз природи кіберпростору і його вплив на характер сучасних міжнародних відносин. Завдання полягає у виявленні особливостей і основних відмінностей кіберпростору.

Результати дослідження. Поняття «кіберпростору» пройшло довгий шлях концептуалізації з моменту своєї появи в науково-фантастичній літературі на початку 1980-х років. Розуміння кіберпростору як комунікативного простору не є новим, оскільки воно з'являється задовго до комп'ютерів та Інтернету. Завдяки спільному кіберпростору сучасне суспільство стає специфічно мережевим і цифровим, тобто таким, де відносини в машинно-опосередкованих соціальних і медіамережах доповнюють або замінюють комунікації, засновані на взаємодії політичних акторів. Кіберпростір порівняно з іншими просторами людської діяльності має такі риси: це є інформаційний простір; він є комунікативним середовищем; утворюється за допомогою технічних систем; кіберпростір може постійно копіюватися, множитися і відтворюватися, що є характерною ознакою соціуму; кіберпростір радикально збільшує швидкість, обсяг і дальність взаємозв'язку не тільки держав і корпорацій, а й окремих громадян, які можуть використовувати його для глобального, майже миттєвого спілкування, використовуючи різноманітні інформаційні засоби.

Обговорення. Незважаючи на те, що кіберпростір створює більш плоску, мережеву онтологію соціальних комунікацій, самі держави та їхній суверенітет не можуть бути просто ліквідованими навалою інших кіберакторов, бо саме держави є основою міжнародного права і міжнародних відносин. Сьогодні ми можемо спостерігати дві тенденції у сфері сучасних міжнародних відносин: зміщення суверенітету і влади держав у бік кіберпростору, а також зростання залежності їх від цифрових технологій. Відбувається дифузія кібервлади між державними та недержавними акторами, що разом веде до розмивання і послаблення національної безпеки як такої.

Висновки. Кіберпростір - це вже не тільки феномен міжнародної політики, а й рушійна сила трансформацій, що відбуваються на міжнародній арені. Саме у кіберпросторі у концентрованому вигляді відображаються сучасні тенденції: підйом нових центрів сили; формування багатополярної системи міжнародних відносин; зростання міжнародної конфліктності і напруги. Всі ці явища актуалізують необхідність посилення міжнародного співробітництва для вироблення міжнародно- правових норм і правил, що регламентують розвиток та використання кіберпростору.

Ключові слова: мережеве суспільство; кіберпростір; кібербезпека; кіберзлочинність, правова держава, міжнародні відносини.

Introduction

To achieve the aim of the study, a set of basic principles and methods of scientific knowledge systematic analysis, comparison, critical analysis was used.

Research results

The concept of «cyberspace» has come a long way of conceptualization since its appearance in science fiction literature in the early 1980s (Gibson, 1982). After the creation of the project «World Wide Web» by T. J. Bernes-Lee in the early 1990s, it has began to be actively used for the next three decades to designate the virtual space of the institutional structure of society. At the same time, cyberspace is not to be confused with the very internet, after the definition of M. Castells, «cyber - Ghetto» (Castells, 2002) or the World Wide Web (WWW). If the Internet is a hardware and software infrastructure, i.e. a global network of computers that use specific protocols for communication one with another. The WWW is a system of interlinked hypertext documents available through the Internet. The cyberspace is a metaphor of space «adjacent areas» (M. Castells), which, after John Urry, are becoming permanently «moving places» (Urry, 2008: 42).

In meaning of a communicative place, cyberspace is not so new, as it has appeared long before computers and the Internet. At the present day, it functions as an interface at the joint of information and communication technologies such as telephony, television, computer technology, data transmission of web 1.0, of web 2.0. Thanks to the common cyberspace, modern society becomes specifically network and digital, i.e. such, where relations in machine-mediated social and media networks complement or replace communications based on the interaction of political actors face to face.

In the current era, the network principle of organizing society is becoming key due to the development of digitalization of cyberspace. As H. Kreysler remarked on this occasion, network society «is not just a society based on social networks... is a society where the key social structures and activities of its members are organized around networks of electronic communication» (Kreisler, 2001).

Cyberspace, in comparison with other spaces of human activity, has the following features:

- it is the information space;

- it is the communicative environment;

- it is formed by means of technical systems;

- сyberspace can constantly be reproduced, multiplied and reproduced through cascades of bifurcations, which is typical for the non-linearly evolving society;

- сyberspace radically increases the speed, volume and range of communication not only for states and corporations, but also for individual citizens, who can use it for global, almost instantaneous communication, using a variety of media from text to video.

J. Dzialoshinsky's definition states: cyberspace is a set of certain structures (individuals, their groups and organizations) united by information relations, i.e. relations of collection, production, distribution and consumption of information (Dzyaloshinsky).

R. Vilkov notes that cyberspace is a new, rhizomatic topology, a kind of semiotic space in which operations with signs are carried out using modern computer technology, which facilitates and significantly accelerates the mental activity of people (Vilkov, 2009: 7). The Recommendation Concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace, adopted at the 32nd session of the UNESCO General Conference in 2003. Cyberspace is defined as following: it is a virtual world of digital and electronic communication related to global information infrastructure (Recommendation).

Due to the heterarchical nature of network organization, structurally cyberspace is a rhizome - a metaphorical designation proposed by J. Deleuze and F. Guattari, a non-structural and non-linear way of organizing integrity (Deleuze, Guattari; 1987). There is no single center in cyberspace, but there are many clusters of close («strong») connections of various actors and many remote («weak») ties with other clusters, all together forming a single global network.

It is necessary to emphasize the differentiation of cyberspace, based on the factor of its heterogeneity. The very differentiation of cyberspace contributes not only to the creation of fundamentally new power structures, but to the redistribution of the influence of states in international relations, which acquire the ability to dominate the world through the creation of digital clouds. Nowadays, in the international cyberspace, there are five of the most influential digital corporations in the world: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook. They are really only opposed by the Chinese Alibaba. All of them represent the interests of the national military - industrial complexes. World Digital giants undoubtedly affect on the character of international relations and on security.

V. Lukyanchikova notes that cyberthreats are serious, constantly growing in number and destabilizing the world order. Theories and strategies of deterrence that emerged during the Cold War are quite difficult to apply to modern cyber threats (Lukyanchikova; 2013: 796).

J. Nye argues, for example, that the United States are still the leader in the use of the Internet for military and social purposes, but, on the other hand, their great dependence on widespread digitalization makes them much more vulnerable to cyber attacks than any other country (Nye; 2011: 20).

Susan W. Brenner, analyzing cybercrime, notes that the subject of cybercrime is not dependent to the limitations that exist in the real, physical world. Yes, cybercrimes can be committed instantly, and therefore require a rapid response. Cybercrime still remains a new phenomenon, and science is not yet able to establish patterns of distribution of different types of cybercrime geographically and demographically, as for crimes committed in the real, physical world (Brenner; 33).

In this way, a centric cyberspace is «governmental- ized» (M. Foucault) in the most bright and precise sense of the word, i.e., displaces the traditional sovereign and disciplinary powers to the periphery and produces power «everywhere, but not because that it subordinates itself all around, but because it comes from everywhere... not society» (Foucault, 1996:193).

The availability, limitlessness and a centricity of cyberspace make the problem of cybersecurity at the institutional and national levels are one of the central issues for states in XXI century. There is a consistent «cyberiza- tion» of international relations, which is defined as a deep penetration into all spheres of international relations of various cyber-mediums (events, processes occurring in cyberspace), on the one hand, and the growing dependence of actors in the field of international relations on infrastructure, tools and the means offered by cyberspace, on the other hand. The most uncontrolled, manmade risks with a variety of unintentional consequences, threatening the international order are emerging and manifesting in the very cyberspace. The «global risk society», in the terminology of W. Beck, is growing primarily in cyberspace (Beck; 2010).

Discussion

We agree that the very existence of the state power and sovereignty is under threat in cyberspace. At the same time, the danger is strengthened by the important circumstances of such cyber risks: anonymity, the impossibility of definitively identifying those who are responsible for the cyber attacks, and therefore the impossibility of a legally proven punishment. Quantity and quality of the cyber attacks due to the technological progress of the data protection are not decreasing, rather increasing. To do information harm the technologies initially intended for cyber protection are used. We can conclude that cyberspace today is to a great degree used to attack potential adversaries, not to support and develop the interests of users in the communication and receipt of information and knowledge (Kissinger).

In this sense, despite the fact that cyberspace creates a flat, network ontology of social communications, the state and its sovereignty can't be simply eliminated by the invasion of other cyber actors, because until now the state itself has been the basis for the international law and international relations. The process of establishment of the «digital Westphalia «is far from its completion, and can take, according to expert opinions, about 20 years. However, the diffuse period (in the political and legal sense) of the development of cyberspace will sooner or later be over. This will happen when the characteristics of national jurisdictions in cyberspace are defined in generally accepted regulatory terms. And in the end, as it has always happened before, the international system institutionalizes a code of rights and obligations for all cyber actors, making some winners and others losers in the battle for new resources. On top of the new cyber system of international relations there will be the cyber safe states; they will dominate in the coming era of socio-cyber-economic world.

D. Menthe, the author of the theory of international spaces offers to consider the cyberspace not from the stand point of well-known social and legal concepts, but as the space of international legal status. In the work «Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Theory of International Spaces» D. Menthe represents a concep-tual theory according to which «there are three such international spaces: Antarctica, outer space, and the high seas» (Menthe, 1998). D. Menthe states that cyberspace should be treated as a fourth international space. In cyberspace, jurisdiction is the overriding conceptual problem for domestic and foreign courts alike.

This idea is supported by Keserin P. Heaven, who notes that it is quite logical to regulate the Internet as other global space, used for the benefit of all countries without trying to militarize them. The researcher insists on introducingthe cyberspace responsibility under the national principle of criminal jurisdiction established in the rest of public areas, i.e. a person who has committed a crime in cyberspace will be punished by the country of his or her citizenship (Heaven; 2001: 398). At the same time, she points to the need to adopt a universal set of rules of the Internet use at the international level and to introduce the principle of obligatory cooperation of countries in the fielf of investigation of cybercrimes (Heaven; 2001: 399).

Thus, today we can observe two modern trends in the field of international relations: the shift of the state sovereignty and power to the field of cyberspace and their growing dependence on digital technologies, as well as the diffusion of cyber power between state and non-state actors, which together leads to the erosion and weakening of national security.

Since cyberspace has no physical boundaries, gaps arise in the understanding of what a state's territory is and how it should be defended. Available representation that the national cyberspace is formed of computer networks and their software maintenance cannot be defined as the adequate one. It requires new ways of determining the power in cyberspace for the effective protection of national interests, including the influence on the behavior of other cyber actors.

We agree with a Ukrainian researcher K. Yurtaeva, who notes that today a significant number of «ordinary» crimes have passed into the category of cybercrime. It means that the use of computer technologies the commission of these crimes, and their socially dangerous consequences can spread to a larger area» (Yurataeva; 2009: 435).

Cyberspace and authority over it nowadays are the foundation of scientific, technological and socio-economic development of all the nations, which shows the new horizons of modernization of all sides of the social life. Cybernetic power or simply cyber power is becoming superior for the traditional political, economic and military forms of dominating. By its very nature, political power in cyberspace differs from «classical» power, which has had a vivid socio-economic conditionality. It is no accident, Internet giants according to the market capitalization Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Tencent, Alibaba Group are included in the top ten largest companies of the world. The work in the Internet companies mentioned above is considered to be very prestigious, and their technical capacities attracted the most careful attention of politicians, security and military services.

A vivid embodiment of the growing hegemonic role of cyber power is the empowering Fourth Industrial Revolution. Its essence is the material world connected with the virtual one, as a result the new cyber-physical complexes united into a single digitalized ecosystem are born. Industry4.0. characterized as a «deep change» of society based on technologies of widespread digitalization, leading eventually to sapientization (from Latin sapiens - reasonable) reality.

As we can see, the development of cyber power in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is changing, as K. Schwab states: 'It is not only changing the «what» and the «how» of doing things but also «who» we are» (Schwab, 2016: 8). In this regard, it can be assumed that the rivalry in the field of cyberspace between various actors and, above all, nations will inevitably grow, since not only prosperity is at stake, but also the well-being of the people, which is the subject of any nation's national security strategy. This requires considering cyberpower in a strategic sense as an activity aimed at achieving political goals. Talking about the strategic value of cyberspace one should recognize the fact that it is becoming the fifth area of deployment of power confrontation of states on a par with traditional arenas of military action (land, sea, air and space). You need to remember that cyber space as well as the rest, have a political meaning and strategic actions aimed at strengthen in its own positions and weakening the positions of the enemy, are inevitable.

Conclusions

The cyberspace is both a phenomenon of international politics, and the driving force behind a number of transformations taking place in the international arena. The modern trends, including the rise of new centers of power and the formation of a multipolar system of international relations, the growth of international conflict and tension in a concentrated form are reflected here. All of the above actualizes the need for international cooperation to develop international legal norms and rules governing the development and use of cyberspace. According to expert opinion, cyberspace is a part of the information space and an electronic environment, via which information is produced, received, stored, processed and destroyed. An important feature of cyberspace is its globality, which provides an opportunity for information interaction between people and objects located on the territory of various states. The globality of cyberspace is achieved by connecting national electronic media into a single electronic environment of collecting, transferring, storing and processing of information based on a single digital addressing system. Therefore, in order to form the international relations in the global cyberspace on the basis of the equality of sovereignty principle, as one of the most important principles of international law, one should codify the norms governing international relations in global cyberspace.

Literature

1. Beck, U. (2010) Mir riska [World at Risk]. Cambridge: Polity Press. [in English].

2. Brenner S.W., Koops B.-J. (2004) Pidkhody do yurysdyktsiyi z pytan' kiberzlochynnosti [Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction. 4 J. High Tech. L. 1]. [in English].

3. Castells M. (20 02) Internet-halaktyka: rozdumy pro Internet, biznes ta suspil'stvo [The Internet Galaxy: Reflexions on the Internet, Business, and Society]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [in English].

4. Deleuze G., Guattari F. (1987) Tysyacha plato. [A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis]. University of Minnesota Press. [in English].

5. Gibson W. (1982) Palayuchyy Chrome [Burning Chrome]. Omni, No. 46. P. 72-107. [in English].

6. Heaven, C. P. (2001) Predlozheniye po ustraneniyu pregrad s informatsionnoy supermagistrali s ispol'zovaniyem integrirovannogo mezhdunarodnogo podkhoda k yurisdiktsii v Internete. [A Proposal for Removing Road Blocks from the Information Superhighway By Using an Integrated International Approach to Internet Jurisdiction]. 10 Minn. J. Global Trade 373. [in English].

7. Kreisler H. Identychnist' i zminy v merezhevomu suspil'stvi. Rozmova z Manuelem Kastelsom [Identity and Change in the Network Society. Conversation with Manuel Castells]. Conversations with History, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, 08.05.2001. [in English]. [online]. Retrieved from: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Castells/castells-con4.html

8. Menthe, Darrel C. (1998) Yurysdyktsiya v kiberprostori: Teoriya mizhnarodnykh prostoriv [Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Theory of International Spaces], 4. Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 69 Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/ mttlr /vol4/iss1/3

9. Nye, J. S. (2011). Yaderni uroky kiberbezpeky? [Nuclear Lessons for Cyber Security?] Strategic Studies Quarterly, Vol. 5(4). P. 20. [in English].

10. Rekomendatsiya shchodo rozvytku ta vykorystannya bahatomovnosti ta zahal'noho dostupu do kiberprostoru [The Recommendation Concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace]. [Electronic resource].- Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.ru/docs/multilingv- ciberspace-recom-rus.pdf. [in English].

11. Schwab, K. (2016) The Forth Industrial Revolution. ISBN-13: 978-1-944835-01-9 [Electronic resource].- Retrieved from:https://law.unimelb.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3385454/Schwab-The_Fourth_Industrial_Revolution_Klaus_S.pdf. [in English].

12. Urry J. (2008) Mobilnist [Mobilities]. Cambridge: Polity Press, Р. 42. [in English].

13. Вилков, Р. И. (2009) Киберпространство как социокультурный феномен, продукт технологического творчества и проективная идея [Текст]: автореферат дис. Екатеринбург, 2009. - 24 с., C. 7.

14. Дзялошинский, И. Права человека в киберпространстве [Електронний ресурс] / И. Дзялошинский. - Режим доступу: http:// dzyalosh.ru/02- dostup/pravo/ 2003_83_84%2811 _12%29/dz_11_12.html.

15. Дротянко. Л. Високі технології як засіб трансформації медіа-дискурсу // Вісник Національного авіаційного університету. Серія: Філософія. Культурологія: Зб. наук. пр. - Вип. 1 (25). - К.: НАУ, 2017. - С. 14.

16. Киссинджер Г. (2018) Мировой порядок. М.: АСТ, 2018. -- ISBN 978-5-17-111098-7.

17. Лук'янчикова В. (2013) Кіберпростір: загрози для міжнародних відносин та глобальної безпеки Гілея: науковий вісник. № 72: 793-796. - Режим доступу: http://nbuv.gov.ua/ UJRN/gileya_2013_72_153

18. Фуко М. (1 996) Воля к истине: по ту сторону власти, знания и сексуальности. / Пер. с фр. М.: Касталь^. 193.

19. Ченбай Н. Медіатехнології в культурі інформаційної епохи (соціально-філософський аспект) // Вісник Національного авіаційного університету. Серія: Філософія. Культурологія: Зб. наук. пр. - Вип. 1 (29). - К.: НАУ, 2019. - С. 158-163. стр. 161 DOI: 10.18372/2412-2157.29.14081

20. Юртаєва К. .Визначення місця вчинення злочинів з використанням комп'ютерних технологій / К. В. Юртаєва // Форум права. - 2009. - № 2. - С. 434-441. - Режим доступу: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/FP_index.htm_2009_2_69

References

1. Beck, U. (2010) World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.

2. Brenner, S. W., Koops B.-J. (2004). Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction. 4 J. High Tech. L. 1.

3. Castells, M. (2002). The Internet Galaxy: Reflexions on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4. Chenbai, N. (2019). Mediatekhnolohii v kulturi informatsiinoi epokhy (sotsialno-filosofskyi aspekt) [Media technologies in the culture of information era (social and philosophical aspect]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho aviatsiinoho universytetu, Seriya: Filosofiya. Kulturologiya, Proceedings of the National Aviation University, 1 (29), 158-163 [in Ukrainian].

5. Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

6. Drotianko, L. (2017). Vysoki tekhnolohiyi yak zasib transformatsiyi media-dyskursu [High technologies as a means of transforming media discourse]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho aviatsiinoho universytetu, Seriya: Filosofiya. Kulturologiya, Proceedings of the National Aviation University, 1 (25), 10-14 [in Ukrainian].

7. Dzyaloshinsky, I. Human rights in cyberspace. Retrieved from: http://dzyalosh.ru/02- dostup/pravo/2003_83_84%2811_ 12%29/ dz_11_12.html.

8. Foucault, M. (1996). Volya k istine: po tu storonu vlasti, znaniya i seksual'nosti [The Will to Truth: Beyond Power, Knowledge and Sexuality]. Moscow: Kastal [in Russian].

9. Gibson, W. (1982). Burning Chrome. Omni, 46, 72-107.

10. Heaven, C. P. (2001). A Proposal for Removing Road Blocks from the Information Superhighway By Using an Integrated International Approach to Internet Jurisdiction. 10 Minn. J. Global Trade 373.

11. Kissinger, H. (2018). Mirovoy poryadok [World Order]. Мoscow: AST [in Russian].

12. Kreisler, H. Identity and Change in the Network Society. Conversation with Manuel Castells. Conversations with History, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Castells/castells-con4.html

13. Lukyanchikova, V. Yu. (2013). Kiberprostir: zahrozy dlya mizhnarodnykh vidnosyn ta hlobal'noyi bezpeky [Cyberspace: threats to international relations and global security]. Hileia: naukovyi visnyk, Giley: scientific bulletin, 72, 793-796. Retrieved from: http://nbuv .gov.ua/UJRN/gileya_2013_72_153 [in Ukrainian].

14. Menthe, D. C. (1998). Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Theory of International Spaces, 4. Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 69. Retrieved from: http://repository.law.umich.edu /mttlr/vol4/iss1/3.

15. Nye, J. S. (2011). Nuclear Lessons for Cyber Security? Strategic Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 20. https://dash.harvard.edu /bitstream/handle/1/8052146/Nye-NuclearLessons.pdf?sequence =1&isAllowed=y

16. Schwab, K. (2016). Chetvertaya promyshlennaya revolyutsiya [The Forth Industrial Revolution]. ISBN-13: 978-1944835-01-9. Retrieved from: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0005/3385454/Schwab-The_Fourth_Industrial_ Revolution_Klaus_S.pdf.

17. The Recommendation Concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace. Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/eng_- _recommendation_concerning_the_promotion_and_use_of_multil ingualism_and_universal_access_to_cyberspace.pdf.

18. Urry, J. (2008). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.

19. Vilkov, R. I. (2009). Kiberprostranstvo kak sotsiokul'turnyy fenomen, produkt tekhnologicheskogo tvorchestva i proyektivnaya ideya [Cyberspace as a sociocultural phenomenon, a product of technological creativity and a projective idea]. Candidate's thesis. Ekaterinburg [in Russian].

20. Yurtayeva, K. V. (2009). Vyznachennia mistsia vchynen-nia zlochyniv z vykorystanniam kompiuternykh tekhnolohii [Determining the place of crime with the use of computer technology]. Forum prava, Law Forum, 2, 434-441. Retrieved from: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/FP_index.htm_2009_ 2_69 [in Ukrainian].

Размещено на Allbest.ru