Revisiting the Estonian Cyber Attacks: Digital Threats and Multinational Responses

Herzog, Stephen

doi:10.5038/1944-0472.4.2.3

Cited by 108 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wielkie przemiany polityczne -rewolucje społeczne potrzebują konceptualnych przeobrażeń i politycznych fikcji. Potrzebują zmiany rozumienia pojęć, z których zostały stworzone, bo to ewolucja znaczeń doniosłych słów, takich jak "wolność", "pań-stwo" i inne, ich adaptacja do aktualnych uwarunkowań jest istotnym motorem historii politycznej 82 . Jedną z takich przeobrażonych pojęciowo fikcji była właśnie doktryna Dwóch Ciał Króla…”

Section: Ciało Polityczne Jako Puste Miejsceunclassified

“Good Law” Versus “Bad Law”: Civil Disobedience During the Desegregation Process in the United States of America

Laidler

2021

Politeja

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1954, after almost sixty years of tolerating the separate-but-equal doctrine shaped in Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to reject the unequal policy of the government in educational system, and thus to initiate changes in the status of racial segregation. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision ignited both positive and negative feelings and emotions of Americans, who began to show two types of civil disobedience. The first type of disobedience was addressed against the Court and its controversial precedent, and could be visible mainly in Southern states among white citizens and some state authorities. Despite the fact that the Court’s decision was binding, Southern judges, politicians as well as ordinary people showed their disobedience towards the highest judicial institution in the country and its notion of desegregation. The second type of civil disobedience was addressed towards these institutions which neglected the necessity of social change and promotion of equality, and could be observed in actions undertaken by various individuals and organizations aiming at broadening the constitutional protection of black Americans. The purpose of the article is to analyze both types of civil disobedience which were initiated by the same source – a judicial precedent, and had an enormous impact on American society of the late 1950s and early 1960s, leading to final change in the perception of the equality principle as well as the status of civil rights. The article proposes a thesis that the scope and character of civil disobedience may depend on the ideology of certain social groups and therefore influence their attitude to the direction of changes in law.

show abstract

Section: Ciało Polityczne Jako Puste Miejsceunclassified

“Good Law” Versus “Bad Law”: Civil Disobedience During the Desegregation Process in the United States of America

Laidler

2021

Politeja

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main challenge to abiding sovereignty in the broad issues of governance including cyber security is that rising of non-state actors produced tough conflict with the deploying of traditional international law based on rule of sovereignty in these new areas (Krasner 2001). But it is quite clear that the sovereignty must have a proper position in handling with cyber security issues when more and more multi-source attacks have appeared in cyberspace (Herzog 2011). In short, though at the very beginning the term governance referred to governing without the government, the government, or the sovereignty state must be brought back in (Drezner 2004).…”

Section: Sovereignty and Governance Of Cyberspacementioning

confidence: 99%

Cyber Sovereignty and the Governance of Global Cyberspace

Shen

2016

Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to review the competing guiding principle that govern the global cyberspace. This was achieved through the introduction and comparativeness of the different understanding between China and US of how to ensure the sovereignty in the global cyberspace. This paper also addresses China's understanding of cyber sovereignty and its possible effect on the evolution of the governance of global cyberspace since 2013. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses historical and policy documents to compare and analyze the difference of sovereignty principle applied by US and China to govern the global cyberspace. Policy terms and their significance are addressed in a manner that will be comprehensible to a non-policy trained readership. Findings The paper finds that though China and US may have different narrative of how to apply cyber sovereignty principle to guide the governance of global cyberspace, both two countries pay special attention on how to ensure the cyber sovereignty in different ways. US prefer to expand its cyber sovereignty, while China prefer to launch the cyber sovereignty defensively. Research limitations/implications The paper got the conclusion based on a relative limited access to the latest policy files, especially those reflects the positon of Beijing. The vivid development of practice of the governance of global cyberspace also raise the requirement of refresh the research in further. Originality/value The research of the paper is instructive. The research provides the valuable pointers for policy makers and researchers to understand China's cyber sovereignty properly.

show abstract

“…Hundreds of targeted websites crashed from an inability to handle the volume of packets directed to them. 9 Neither the European Union nor NATO could find evidence of direct collusion between the Russian government and the hackers who fomented the DDOS against Estonian governance and commerce, 10 but lost revenue and information technology expenses to…”

Section: Nato's Options For Defensive Cyber Against Non-state Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

NATO's Options for Defensive Cyber Against Non-State Actors

Carey¹,

Casimir²

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTDistribution A: Approved for Public Release. Distribution is Unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESWord Count: 5,965 ABSTRACTOvert state-to-state cyber conflicts are unlikely for the foreseeable future; states prefer to retain plausible deniability through surreptitious sponsorship of non-state cyber militias. International legal norms, NATO's Article 5 requirements, and UN Security Council procedural issues seem to limit NATO's options in responding to cyber events by non-state actors. However, there are three circumstances under which NATO may legally take cyber countermeasures against non-state actors: (1) when a nation-state fails to enforce the law against non-state actors within its borders; (2) when a cyber-disruption is tantamount to an economic blockade; and (3) if there is intelligence that indicates a pending cyber-attack by force, thereby necessitating anticipatory self-defense. The decision by NATO after 9/11 to pursue a non-state terrorist organization was a normative shift internationally; prior to this event, counterterrorism was widely viewed as a law enforcement issue. With China and Russia as permanent members of the UN Security Council, resolutions against countries for harboring cyber militias are unlikely. Both nations routinely tolerate-if not sponsor-cyber militias. NATO is the one enforcement arm with the resources to thwart the illicit militias. SUBJECT TERMS

show abstract

Revisiting the Estonian Cyber Attacks: Digital Threats and Multinational Responses

Cited by 108 publications

References 1 publication

“Good Law” Versus “Bad Law”: Civil Disobedience During the Desegregation Process in the United States of America

“Good Law” Versus “Bad Law”: Civil Disobedience During the Desegregation Process in the United States of America

Cyber Sovereignty and the Governance of Global Cyberspace

NATO's Options for Defensive Cyber Against Non-State Actors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About