Conflicts, Crimes and Regulations in Cyberspace. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Introduction

      Studying Cyberspace Internationally

Why is it necessary to perceive cyberspace from a reflexive point of view? Since it is not a natural or social reality, but a shared system built over time by a multitude of actors, its hybrid nature – it possesses both a technological and a social aspect – does not enable us to use the usual benchmarks that social sciences use to study the social world. Moreover, cyberspace actors are talkative and doctrinaire and produce a host of fairly new strategic concepts (often of little value) that obscure the understanding of the situation¹. The effort to be reflexive seems all the more necessary. Understanding cyber therefore presumes an approach that takes into account its social and technological dimensions, as well as an ability to distance oneself from the various discourses of the actors, both indispensable conditions in order to make it an authentic object of study. The challenge of this book is specifically to try to contribute to this essential reflection, which is still in its infancy², and so we must therefore state for the reader the choices and perspectives that guide it.

The nine chapters of this volume provide a global and, therefore, original dimension of cyberspace. Indeed, it seemed to us to be beneficial to not limit its content, as is sometimes the case, to an irenic vision that only values the collaborative dimension or, conversely, to a cynical vision that reduces cyberspace to a conflictual space. In the spirit of our global perspective, we chose the title Conflicts, Crimes and Regulations in Cyberspace. This book is not directly part of the endless debate between the advocates of cyberwar (Calvo 2014) and those who reject this posture (Gartzke 2013). We note that there are confrontations in cyberspace, involving civilian and military actors, toward various ends that are not always short term. Today, the state of our knowledge strongly exceeds the apocalyptic prognoses of the 1990s and 2000s and this allows us to relativize the quantity and scope of confrontations between state actors, most of which are related to data theft activities, that is espionage (Valeriano and Maness 2018). Thus, we have chosen to describe them as “crimes” or “conflicts” in order to deliberately avoid the term “war”³, which seems excessive to us and immediately produces a securitization effect.

The 10 authors, whom we thank warmly⁴ for their contributions, were each asked to provide a clear definition of what they meant by cyberspace in their text. This is, of course, important since, in this field, diversity prevails; thus, in 2018, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCD COE) in Tallinn identified 29 definitions of cyberspace (Bigelow 2018). We have chosen to adopt the 2006 US definition from the National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations since it seems neutral: “[...] an operational domain characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to create, store, modify and exchange information via networked information systems and associated physical infrastructures”⁵. The authors gathered here, whether jurists or political scientists, also adhere to the perspective of studying the cyberspace object as a sociotechnical system, that is to say, as a set of social units in dynamic interactions, organized around information and communication technologies, which orientates toward science and technology studies (STS)⁶.

Finally, this book is clearly part of an internationalist perspective⁷, since its authors believe that the study of cyberspace cannot be confined to the limits of a single country, due to the distributed nature of the system structuring cyberspace and the constant mobility of data. This observation does not, however, invalidate the possibility of studying public cyber policies (see Chapter 2). Adopting this international approach, we make it clear that we will not revisit the theoretical debate on whether cyberspace is a component of the international system or whether it constitutes its own autonomous system⁸. In the research paradigm that we have described, we here highlight international cyberspace issues (see Chapters 1 and 8) as well as two countries, the United States (see Chapters 1, 2, 6 and 9) and France (see Chapters 3, 5 and 8). СКАЧАТЬ