By way of introduction, we begin with some salient features of today’s realities that provide some background for our guide to MIT Global CyberPolitics. What follows are only very brief sketches.
High Politics—Low Politics
Given its ubiquity, scale, and scope, cyberspace—including the Internet, the billions of computers it connects, its management, and the experience it enables—has become a central feature of the world we live in, and has created a fundamentally new reality for almost everyone, everywhere. At the same time, information and communication systems—the foundations of all human societies and social interactions—are accorded rather limited attention in all major theories of international relations.
Until recently, cyberspace was considered largely a matter of low politics, a term used to denote background conditions and routine decisions and processes. By contrast, high politics concern national security, core institutions, and decision systems that are critical to the state, its interests, and underlying values.
If the cumulative effects of normal activity shift the established dynamics of interaction, then that which is seemingly routine becomes increasingly politicized. Cyberspace is now a matter of high politics. We see many incidents of power and politics, conflict and competition, violence and war—all central features of world politics—increasingly manifested on the cyber domain or via cyber venues.
New Realities
While the reality of cyberspace changes the character of the global system, so too the concerns of various states change the character of cyberspace. It is already apparent that political pressures impinge on Internet access in various parts of the world—all in order to render content “in-line” with power and politics. Recognizing this reality, initial explorations sought to sensitize computer scientists to the inherent but sometimes hidden influence of power and politics that bear on new architectures, new expansion of the Internet, and new frontiers of cyberspace.
Early in the twenty-first century, it was becoming evident that the cyber domain would shape new parameters of international relations and new dimensions on global politics. Among the most salient features is the creation of new actors—some with formal identities and others without—and their cyber empowerment – thus altering the traditional international decision landscape in potentially significant ways.
Concurrently, we see the growing use of cyber venues by nonstate groups whose objectives are to undermine the state or to alter its foundations. In addition, growth in the number of cyber-centered actors increases the density of decision entities—each with new interests and new capabilities—and thus increases the potential and possibilities for new and different types of contentions and conflicts.
As cyberspace shifts into the realm of “high politics,” it alters the international policy ecology, economy, and demography in profound ways. Interactions in cyberspace have shifted the balance of power among different sovereign states and enabled weaker states to influence or even threaten stronger ones. (Note, for example, press reports of anonymous penetration of U.S. government computer systems). This sort of shift has little precedence in world politics. We might view such situations—the players and their capabilities—as shaping new forms of international alignment and realignment.
Both the market and the polity are well understood with respect to properties and modes of behaviors. And both retain an exclusively social view of the individual. Embedded in the interactive social, natural, and cyber domains or “spaces”, homo individualis is at once an economic, a social, or a political man, even a homo cybericus—depending on role and context at any point in time.
Order & Authority
In social science parlance, what keeps a system together is a form of order supported by authority. Authority involves a claim of trust in social relationships designed to induce conformity and support for governing principles. So too, there is a special relationship between the source of authority and the subject, a relationship that is located in a particular, definable domain. This relationship is based on some form of consensus and is supported by prevailing norms, rules, and practices. This relationship—on matters of substance as well as context—forges a set of obligations. All of this is central to cohesion in the social order.
The international system is a system of states even as it hosts a wide range of non-state actors. The state expects the obedience of its citizens supported by legal codes and punishing those who transgress. This, in conjunction with the inability of individuals to protect themselves from each other, forges the special relationship between the state and individuals. Generally, public authority dominates, and social recognition of authority is expressed publicly.
The cyber domain—the entire built “space” enabled by the Internet—was constructed by the private sector actors (albeit with support and funding from the United States). So far, authority over the operation of the Internet is based on performance and capability. Today, private authority is strong and salient in many parts of the world, and dominates almost all issues of relevance related to cyberspace. Among the most daunting questions are: Do states seek to shape the cyber order and its various manifestations and uses? If so, how? If not, why not?
Conflict & Cooperation
Modes of conflict and of cooperation are well recognized in the “real” domain of international relations, as are matters of scale and scope. The “virtual” arena also harbors various forms of conflict and cooperation. It has led to a completely new vocabulary to represent various manifestations, such as “cyber threat,” “cybersecurity,” “cyber warfare,” or “cyber arms race”—to note the most obvious.
Given that the “new normal” in world politics today is one that transcends state actors and actions, the conduct of conflict, violence, and warfare in the cyber domain is significantly different from tradition in international relations. Then, too, wide range of nonstate entities—known and unknown—operate in a highly dynamic and volatile international context.
The conduct of war in the “real” domain is inevitably adapting to, or changed by, the features of the “virtual” arena. The challenge is to recognize various modalities and the ways in which different actors seek to exert influence and shape the environment to support their goals. Of the many reports and associated record of cyber conflicts, what can we infer to date about scale and scope, actors and targets?
Security & Sustainability
When we consider the intersection of cyberspace and the global system—for theory, reality, policy, or practice—we cannot avoid addressing implications for security, safety and sustainability of individuals, states, and civil society. All may be contributing to emergent initiative toward global accord.
While seemingly distinct, security and sustainability are two different features of the human condition, now connected also through the pervasiveness of cyberspace. At the most general level, the quest for security is driven by awareness of threats to system viability. Sustainability is about retaining system viability, performance, and survival.
Such introductory observations obscure the complexity of attendant scientific inquiry and empirical analysis. At the same time, they help frame the priorities of the MIT Global CyberPolitics in terms of Who, What, Why, When, and How of contemporary realities that shape modes of transformation and change and, most notably, dynamics of war and peace.
Design & Disclaimer
Global CyberPolitics is designed as a guide to a wide range of research initiatives associated with the seven critical imperatives.
In each case, we begin with the Imperative and highlights. It’s the basic focus and identify the specific research projects devoted to it. Then, we turn to each project therein and focus on problem and content, often methods, and always references with links.
This protocol is not intended to present all key aspects of individual project, nor is it designed as a substitute for research reports. It is framed as a guide – or detailed “census”.