Why Cyberspace Needs Geopolitics?
The designations and definitions of cyberspace are varied, reflecting a crisis of understanding and intelligibility around the concepts surrounding the space under study. It is perceived in turn as an environment[i], a scene of operations[ii] and a structuring challenge[iii]. It can be considered in some other cases, as an ecosystem of living together and prosperity of international coexistence and stability[iv], a means to certain specific goals and interests, a strategic context or simply a space of sharing the values of freedom and free movement and the abolition of borders.
Each of these designations gives it distinct and specific attributes of the other appointments, and therefore, varied qualifications and action plans and hangs it specific cyber strategies and cyber policies, etc. We will believe that this multitude of outcomes and appointments, including guidelines, denotes the material presence of multiple actors who see cyberspace as a space from which the Presence of prestige and superiority are primary in the cyberspace and should be expressed in the field.
The spread of these acts, which extend the peculiarity of actors in the cyberspace by defining cyberterritories, borders and sovereignty in the cyberspace, according to the specific specificities and peculiarities, interests and objectives of the actors, in turn influence the writings and research around cyberquestions at the global level[v]. This will divert research and negatively weigh on international stabilization efforts, but, at the same time, it gives the growing incentive to review previous work and to analyze the backbone and foundations behind these individual designations and appointments.
Within the field of cyberspace-related studies and these contradictions, geopolitics has proved to be a discipline that provides essential support to the achievement of the missions of study and understanding of the phenomenon, and to identify the backbone of the cyber orientations and policies essentially defending national interests rather than the goals of the international community.
We believe that the methods and geopolitical paradigms that have been dug into depth, have enabled, to answer the question of how the interpretations and qualifications adopted by the different actors in cyberspace, have transformed the situation into a race for the acquisition of resources and the potential of war and confrontation, rather than a race toward the stabilization and management of the digital space[vi].
They will help us by analyzing interference and interactions between actors in this environment, to clarify the foundations behind the essential designations of cyberspace and its conflicting considerations, and also help in the development of a specific methodology that will assist us in the future to prospect and anticipate the technological impacts on state security, and the stability of society in relation to the different behaviors of actors.
Geopolitics has also helped experts to understand the plurality of perspectives arising from the peculiarities of the interests and objectives of the actors involved in this cyber race. As well, the differences that defy the digital space, which are fed by the beliefs, cultural trends, ideologies, geographical, political and territorial requirements and even the methodologies of each expert and professional who contributes to the research work in this field.
We have covered up, thanks to geopolitics in and for cyberspace, that this situation of divergence of interests and objectives in the digital space, accentuates conflict and contributes to the degradation of traditional and state powers, thus pushing for the rise of more individualist approaches and provoking major changes in the power and governance.
Taking advantage of the lack of regulatory mechanisms and international accountability, and the failure of the law and jurisdictions to intervene and regulate the situation, developments in cyberspace, supported by the opportunities offered by globalization, have led to a multiplication of actors as well as a variety of action and planning strategies. This has given rise to powerful and influential new structures that have impacted conflict dynamics and international security governance, thus contributing to a profound transformation in areas that were once a state monopoly.
This observation of cyber-space unrest, combined with the presence of online criminal entities, and individuals, groups and associations, lobbies and pressure groups, collectively contribute to the distortion and deformation of this area of study. And these elements have a negative impact on management and conceptualization processes, and weaken governance and organizational mechanisms[vii].
Faced with the reality of strategic threats in cyberspace, States have responded by implementing various measures and strategies to rebalance the situation in their favour. This involves adopting cyberstrategies and strengthening traditional diplomatic efforts to manage and negotiate in cyberspace.
However, given that these actions are relatively moderate and are based on traditional methods, the question arises whether they are sufficient to stabilize the critical situation in cyberspace?
[i] DEFORGES (A.), “Les représentations du cyberespace : un outil géopolitique’’, Ed, Hérodote, La Découverte, 2014, n° 152/151, p. 67.
[ii] CAVELTY (M. D.), Cybersecurity and threat politics, US efforts to secure the information age, Ed, Routledge, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2008, p. 174.
[iii] Secrétariat Général de la Défense et de la Sécurité Nationale, “Renforcer la résilience des systèmes vitaux de la France’’, Revue stratégique de cyberdéfense, 2018, p. 167.
[iv] BARLLOW (J. P.), «A declaration of the independence of cyberspace», in: https://www.eff.org/fr/cyberspace independence
[v] HUYGHE (B. F.), «Le cyberespace, nouvel enjeu stratégique», Conférence de l’IRIS, 2012, in: https://www.cdse.fr/le cyberespace–nouvel–enjeu
[vi] DEFORGES (A.), op. cit., p. 67.
[vii] SIGOLM (J.), “Non state actors in cyberspace operation, Éd, Swedish National Defense”, Journal of military studies, n° 4, Swedish defense College, 2016, pp. 14-24.