SAM: A Framework to Understand Emerging Challenges to States in an Interconnected World

Neorealist Analysis of Security Dilemma in Cyberspace; A Quantitative Study

“…I would therefore prefer to put his work on liberal line. On the other hand, it is a commonly accepted idea both in the camp of deniers and the camp of endorsers that one of the most, or maybe the most, conspicious feature(s) of cyber venues is its facilitatory role in the acts of espionage, DoS (denial of service), propoganda, identity theft, sabotage, and so forth (Choucri, 2012b;Denning, 2001;Greathouse, 2014;Inkster, 2010;Kassab, 2014;Kremer & Müller, 2014;Luiijf, 2012;Steed, 2011). I therefore point out that main inference that should be taken from such works is that there is no debate over whether cyber world facilitates such malignant actions; the main point of controversy is to what extend states bear to go for extraordinary offensive measures against one another as a consequence of these actions.…”

“…Therefore, I concluded from their work that a liberal perspective may be proposed to explain the very peculiar characteristics of cyber domains by drawing attention particularly on the power of non-state actors, which hold, in some cases, more power even than states. What counts as "power" in the cyber realm is a blurry issue, though; if it is counted as capacity to influence, Kremer & Müller (2014) define it as "the direction of (public) opinion by either providing, shaping or withholding information". They continue and underline the empowering impacts of ICT (Information Communication Technologies) in terms of non-state actors by quoting the words of Dartnell (2003): "(ICT provides) enormous opportunities for non-state actors and enhances the global profile of previously marginalised issues and movements".…”

Neorealist Analysis of Security Dilemma in Cyberspace; A Quantitative Study

“…I would therefore prefer to locate his work within the liberal theoretical tradition. On the other hand, it is a commonly accepted idea both in the camp of deniers and the camp of endorsers that one of the most, or maybe the most, conspicuous feature(s) of cyber venues is its facilitatory role in the acts of espionage, DoS (denial of service), propaganda, identity theft, sabotage, and so forth (Choucri, 2012b;Denning, 2001;Greathouse, 2014;Inkster, 2010;Kassab, 2014;Kremer and Müller, 2014;Luiijf, 2012;Steed, 2011). I therefore point out that the primary takeaway from such works is that there is little to no debate about whether cyber world enables such malicious actions; the main point of controversy is to what extent states bear to go for extraordinary offensive measures against one another as a consequence of these actions.…”

“…Therefore, I argue that a liberal perspective may be proposed to explain the very peculiar characteristics of cyber domains by drawing attention particularly on the power of non-state actors. What counts as "power" in the cyber realm is a blurry issue, though; if it is counted as capacity to influence, Kremer and Müller 2014 define it as "the direction of (public) opinion by either providing, shaping or withholding information". They continue and underline the empowering impacts of ICT (Information Communication Technologies) in terms of non-state actors by quoting the words of Dartnell (2003): "(ICT provides) enormous opportunities for non-state actors and enhances the global profile of previously marginalised issues and movements".…”

Perspectives on Cybersecurity: A Collaborative Study

“…Firstly, threats and conflicts in a cyber context often involve a mixture of stakeholders. 35 It is difficult, for instance, to properly place attacks initiated by state actors against non-state actors (and vice versa) on a continuum, let alone those initiated by a combination of actors or involving ambiguous, mysterious cyber militias. The proliferation of political actors in cyberspace and the problem of attribution have, to some extent, blurred the division of cyber crime, terror, and war.…”