CYBER SOVEREIGNTY – ANARCHICAL DREAM MEETS WESTPHALIAN NECESSITIES text: JUHA KUKKOLA Doctor of Military Sciences National Defence University
B
y 2020 the libertarian or even anarchical dreams for cyberspace have been replaced with fear, honour, and interest – what Thucydides called the prime motives of state behaviour. Cyberspace has become a national security interest for all states. Consequently, issues around state sovereignty will have significant influence on how global cyberspace will develop. National borders, laws, and the state’s monopoly on violence will shape future legitimate use of cyberspace – even though private actors will largely own it. The idea of cyber sovereignty has Russian and Chinese roots. It is based on a fear that the United States controls the Internet and can use this control to its advantage in the eternal competition among great powers. In context of this competition, sovereignty is a recipe for resistance and can possibly be used as an advantage. This novel type of sovereignty includes control of national information space and technological self-sufficiency. From Russian and Chinese perspectives, it makes sense to divide cyberspace into state-controlled segments. These segments help in controlling populations and protect ruling regimes from external and internal threats. Technological independence
40
|
CYBERWATCH
FINLAND
provides power through innovativeness and competitiveness of the national ICT-sector. Cyber sovereignty is more complex for less powerful states. For starters, they have limited resources to develop technological independence. Moreover, the idea of cyber sovereignty creates challenges for states who consider their core values to be democracy, market economy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. These challenges are not unsurmountable but must be thought through and openly discussed. Implementing haphazard national policies in a semi-transparent way can undermine the legitimacy of these chosen policies. Definitions are important. It is vital to separate information environment from cyberspace. The latter is part of the former. Cyber sovereignty is about technology whereas information sovereignty would include the information content and even the minds and thoughts of people. Cyberspace can be further divided into physical, logical, and cyber-persona layers. If the third layer is included into sovereignty, our Internet accounts etc. should be connected to physical individuals or legal entities. Internet anonymity would become a myth. Conversely, if cyber sovereignty contains everything on the logical layer, then data moving
