Skip to main content

Abstract

The creation of Cyberspace made the presence of cybersecurity more clear and dominant in our information technology world. Cybersecurity became a part of the governance that led to competition for sovereignty in the online sphere, or cyberspace domain, which promoted the idea of a transition to coexistence in these sovereign governments as Cyberspace crossed borders, away from chaos, violence, and amnesty against each other. Recognition of this sovereignty diversity would lead to competing forces peacefully and homogeneously, acknowledging cybersecurity as a space for cooperation for the better good of humanity, which made its importance in the humanitarian laws. The international nature of digital conflicts is certainly a source of difficulty in defining applicable law and jurisdiction. Preventing cybersecurity technologies was important in societies and humanities in Internet communication technologies. Cybersecurity has made national boundaries transparent because inter-network overlaps have made the boundaries intangible but promoted security presence within Cyberspace and the domain of the Internet communication technologies. So, it is not surprising that the State loses its legitimacy regarding regulatory matters by supporting Internet applications that cross borders such as social media, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. The contradiction between the geographical and territorial boundaries of national laws and the universality of the Internet led to the loss of the State part of its sovereignty and created the presence of cybersecurity. Limits are not fixed and unchanging, but they evolve in place and time and are losing importance in many areas. Global understanding in information technologies made the illustration of the virtual world more imminent for the speed of information and the need for cybersecurity to become part of the humanitarian ethics and laws. Cybersecurity made the existence of a networked world have contributed to building areas where it is difficult to set boundaries accurately.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bacot, G. (1985), Carré De Malberg Et L’origine De La Distinction Entre Souveraineté Du Peuple Et Souveraineté Nationale, Paris, Éd. Du C.N.R.S, P. 9.

  2. 2.

    Cyberspace is the space which ICT has created, especially, the Internet. Cyberspace is closely related to physical world through the various infrastructure of communications and information systems and through many services that could not be obtained without it. Geo-cyberspace is also known as “the relationship between the internet and the geography, demography, economy, politics and foreign policy of a State.” “Geo-cyberspace stability” is defined as the ability of all countries to take advantage of the Internet to achieve economic, political and demographic benefits while refraining from activities that could cause unnecessary suffering and destruction: This definition was first presented at the Internal Security Institute conference of Analytical Services. Inc. (ANSER), with title: “homeland Security 2005: Charting the path Ahead” University of Maryland, a lecture by Judy Westley, “A Shift in Geo-Cyber Stability and Security”, 6–7 lhd, 2002. The Cyberspace means A human-made environment or space where the electronic communications occur through the interconnected networks of the information and communication infrastructure, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, and computer systems: Kittichaisaree, K., (2017) Public International Law of Cyberspace, Law, Governance and Technology, Series 32, P. 2.

  3. 3.

    Kilovaty, I. 2019. The Elephant in the Room: Coercion. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 113, 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2019.10.

  4. 4.

    Musa, Talib Hasan, Omar, Omar Mahmoud, (2016) “Internet Qanoonan” The Internet in Law, Journal of Sharia and Law, United Arab Emirates University, (27), 333–388, p. 339.

  5. 5.

    Jacques, L., (1996) Cyberspace Et Droit International: pour UN nouveau Jus Communications, Revue de la Recherche Juridique–droit prospectif, pp. 830–832.

  6. 6.

    Shen, Y. 2016. Cyber Sovereignty and The Governance of Global Cyberspace. Chinese Political Science Review, 1(1).

  7. 7.

    Al-Essa, Talal, (2010) Sovereignty between its traditional and contemporary concept, “A study of the internationalization of sovereignty in the contemporary era” Al Syada bayn Mafhomha Al Taqlidy Wal Mo’sir “Drasa fi Mada Tadweel Alsyada fi Al A’sr Alhader”, Damascus University Journal of Economic and Legal Sciences, 26 (1), p. 54.

  8. 8.

    Corn, G., & Taylor, R. 2017. Sovereignty in the Age of Cyber. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 111, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.57.

  9. 9.

    Schmitt, M., (2017), Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, (1st Edition) Cambridge University press, first publishes, p. 13.

  10. 10.

    Melzer, N., (2011) Cyberware fare and international law, UNIDIR, Ressources, p. 4.

  11. 11.

    Bouchera, L. (1996) “La souveraineté informationnelle: entre utopie et projet” Le Monde 1er février 1996.

  12. 12.

    Jean- Jacques Lavenue, Op. Cite, 830–832.

  13. 13.

    Musa, Talib Hassan, Omar, Omar Mahmoud, ibid., p. 339.

  14. 14.

    Khanna P. (2018) State Sovereignty and Self-Defence in Cyberspace. Brics Law Journal, 5(4): pp. 139–154. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2018-5-4-139-154.

  15. 15.

    Benyekhlef, K. & Guy Lefebvre, G., (1993) L’internationalisation Du Droit Et L’affirmation De La Souveraineté: Réflexions Théoriques Et Pratiques, Dans Souveraineté Et Intégration, Montréal, Éd. Thémis, PP. 443–446.

  16. 16.

    Gotlieb, A., Dalfen, C., & Katz K., (1974) «The Transborder Transfer of Information by Communications and Computer Systems: Issues and Approaches to Guiding Principles», American Journal of International Law, 68, P. 227.

  17. 17.

    Post, D., (1995) Anarchy, State, and the Internet: An Essay on Law-Making in Cyberspace, J. Online L. art.3, disponible également à: http://www.law.cornell.edu/jol/post.html. L’auteur y développe la théorie de l’exit: (paragr. 39 et 40). The nature of the web is to depart from the control because of its decentralization which lead to difficulty in controlling and detecting irregular behaviors. So that the irregular behaviors are out of the domain of any authority of physical sovereignty or jurisdiction. In case of a contradiction between a particular rule of the web and the law of sovereignty in a State, This web rule can be easily referred to another another jurisdiction.

  18. 18.

    Étienne, J., «Google Health, un carnet de santé personnel en ligne», futura-sciences.com, 22 mai 2008 (www.futura-sciences.com/sante/CVactualites/medecine-google-health-carnet-sante-personnelligne-15600/).

  19. 19.

    Gueham F., Vers La Souverinete Numerique: Pour Une Nouvelle Gouvernance De L’Internet, 2017, p. 10. www.fondapol.org.

  20. 20.

    See the draft of the Arab Convention for the Protection of Cyberspace between Reality and Ambition “Mashroo’a Al Itifaqiya Al Arabiya lihimayt Al Fadaa Al sybrani bayn Al waq’a wal tomoh”, Arab Center for Legal and Judicial Research, Council of Arab Ministers of Justice, League of Arab States, Beirut, 23–25 July 2018.

  21. 21.

    «Les nouvelles règles de l’UE sur la protection des données placent les citoyens aux commandes», Actualité du Parlement européen, europarl.europa.eu, 1er juin 2016: (www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/newsroom/20160413BKG22980/nouvelle-législation-européenne-sur-la-protection-des-données).

  22. 22.

    «Les contours de la neutralité du Net en Europe se précisent», lemonde.fr, 31 août 2016 (www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/08/31/les-contours-de-la-neutralite-du-net-en-europe-se-precisent_4990450_4408996.html).

  23. 23.

    It is noted that the Content-control software of the mentioned States does not give 100% conclusive results, as it may lead to some unwanted results. In 1995 “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” used a system that prevented sexual messages from being sent, but this program led to blocking messages that include the word breast “sein” (Because it starts with “se”), thus prevents the messages contain information about treating breast diseases, therefore, many women complained about that. Jean-Jacques, Cyberespace et Droit International: pour un nouveau Jus Communicationis Lavenue, op, cité, P. # 23.

  24. 24.

    A new European regulation draft, which was formulated more than twenty years ago and became enforceable as of 2018 year, replaced the existing Directive 95/46/EC 26 in regard to the personal data protection.

  25. 25.

    Voir Politique de sécurité des systèmes d’information de l’État-ANSSI du 17 juillet 2014.

  26. 26.

    Tsagourias, N., (2018) Law, Borders and the Territorialisation of Cyberspace. Forthcoming, Indonesian Journal of International Law, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3213511.

  27. 27.

    Corn, G. P., & Taylor, R. 2017. Concluding Observations on Sovereignty in Cyberspace. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 111, 282–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.77.

  28. 28.

    Benyekhlef, K., (2002) L’Internet: un reflet de la concurence des souverainetés Lex Electronica, vol. 8, n°1, automne 2002, p. 6. http://www.lex-electronica.org/articles/v8-1/benyekhlef.htm.

  29. 29.

    John Gerard Ruggie, «Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations», (1993) 47 International Organization 139, 164–165., note 19, 141.

  30. 30.

    Affaire Ministère Public de Munich Allemagne contre CompuServe, jugement du 28 mai 1998–8340, Ds 465.

  31. 31.

    Affaire Ministère Public de Munich Allemagne contre CompuServe, jugement du 28 mai 1998–8340, Ds 465.

  32. 32.

    TGI Paris, ordonnance du référé du 20 novembre 2000: http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tgiparis20001120.htm.

  33. 33.

    Me Cécile Doutriaux, 2015, Frontières légales et souveraineté dans le cyberespace? Chaire Cyber-Défense et Cyber-sécurité, p. 5.

  34. 34.

    Articles 31 et 32 de la convention de Budapest du 23 November 2001.

  35. 35.

    Affaire du Lotus (France c/Turquie ° CPIJ série A, n°10, p. 18 (1927).

  36. 36.

    http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/Source/Cybercrime/TCY/TCY2012/TCY(2012)3F_transborder_repV31public_7Dec12.pdfV31public_7Dec12.pdf.

  37. 37.

    ICC Policy Statement: Cross-border law enforcement access to company data—current issues under data protection and privacy law» (février 2012).

  38. 38.

    Fang, B. (2018) Objective Existence of Cyberspace Sovereignty in Countries’ Affairs. In: Cyberspace Sovereignty. Springer, Singapore, p. 199.

  39. 39.

    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

  40. 40.

    In this subject see: Mustafa Naous, State Sovereignty over Cyberspace “Siadet Al Dawla fi Al fadaa Al electrony”, Journal of Sharia and Law, College of Law, United Arab Emirates University, Issue 51, 2012.

  41. 41.

    Affaire du Détroit de Corfou (Royaume-Uni c Albanie), CIJ Recueil 1949, 4, 35.

  42. 42.

    The idea of “digital sovereignty” emerged at the beginning of the 2000s, and in 2011, Pierre Bellanger made a first attempt to define its concept as controlling our present and destiny while guiding itself through the use of technologies and Computer networks. Pierre Bellanger, «De la souveraineté en général et de la souveraineté numérique en particulier», Les Échos, 30 août 2011 (archives.lesechos.fr/archives/cercle/2011/08/30/cercle_37239.htm).

  43. 43.

    Doutriaux, Frontières légales et souveraineté dans le cyberespace? OP. Cite, p. 2.

  44. 44.

    Tribunal de grande instance de Paris Ordonnance de référé 10 février 2012. http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=3337.

  45. 45.

    Tribunal de grande instance de Paris Ordonnance de référé 28 November 2013.

  46. 46.

    Doutriaux, Frontières légales et souveraineté dans le cyberespace? OP. Cite, p. 3.

  47. 47.

    Karim Benyekhlef, L’Internet: un reflet de la concurence des souverainetés Lex Electronica, vol. 8, n°1, automne 2002. http://www.lex-electronica.org/articles/v8-1/benyekhlef.htm.

  48. 48.

    Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, Eric Germain, Claude Kirchner, La souveraineté à l’ère du numérique. Rester maîtres de nos choix et de nos valeurs. CERNA. 2018.

  49. 49.

    Nicolas Colin et Henri Verdier, «ouveraineté numérique: la piste industrielle», paristechreview.com, 30 juin 2014 (www.paristechreview.com/2014/06/30/souverainete-numerique).

  50. 50.

    Sandrine Cassini, «Cloud souverain, un gâchis à la française», lesechos.fr, 24 février 2015 (www.lesechos.fr/24/02/2015/LesEchos/21884-030-ECH_cloud-souverain--un-gachis-a-la-francaise.htm).

  51. 51.

    Karim Benyekhlef, L’Internet: un reflet de la concurence des souverainetés Lex Electronica, vol. 8, n°1, automne 2002. http://www.lex-electronica.org/articles/v8-52.

  52. 52.

    Voir «Les géants du Web menacent-ils la souveraineté des États?», vidéo du forum «Qui gouverne Internet?», organisé par Libération le 21 mai 216 (www.liberation.fr/evenements-libe/2016/05/21/les-geants-du-web-menacent-t-ils-la-souverainete-des-etats_1454219).

  53. 53.

    Institut de la souveraineté numérique, «Les nouveaux enjeux européens de la souveraineté numérique», Cahiers de la souveraineté numérique, n° 1, 2015 (www.souverainetenumerique.fr/sites/default/files/Cahiers-de-la-SouveraineteNumeriqueN1.pdf).

  54. 54.

    Ronnie D. Lipschutz, “Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society”, (1992) 21 Millenium. Journal of International Studies, note 31, 391.

  55. 55.

    Arlene H. Rinaldi, “The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette”, (1995) disponible à l’adresse suivante: Tim North, “The Internet and Usenet Global Computer Networks: An Investigation of their Culture and its Effects on New Users”, disponible à http://foo.curtin.edu.au/thesis/defautt.html.

  56. 56.

    Roderick A. Macdonald, Pour la reconnaissance d’une normativité juridique implicite et «inférentielle», (1986) 28(1) Sociologie et sociétés, 47.

  57. 57.

    Débat entourant l’adoption par le législateur américain du Communications Decency Act of 1996, codified at 47 U.S.C., Section 223(a) to (h).

  58. 58.

    Vanderlinden, J. «Vers une nouvelle conception du pluralisme juridique», (1993) 2 Revue de la recherche juridique- Droit prospectif, 573; Guy ROCHER, «Pour une sociologie des ordres juridiques», (1988) 29 C. de D. 91; J. GLISSEN (dir.)., Le pluralisme juridique, Bruxelles, Institut de sociologie, Éd. de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1972.

  59. 59.

    Benyekhlef, K., (2002) L’Internet: un reflet de la concurence des souverainetés Lex Electronica, vol. 8, n°1, automne 2002, p. 11. http://www.lex-electronica.org/articles/v8-1/benyekhlef.htm.

  60. 60.

    Gotlieb, Dalfen et Katz, Op. Cite. 227.

  61. 61.

    Affaire Fonderie de Trail (United States v Canada) Recueil des sentences arbitrales internationales, vol III, pp. 1905–1982, 1965 (1941).

  62. 62.

    Détroit de Corfou, fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1949, p. # 21.

  63. 63.

    Schmitt, Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, op. Cite, p. 11.

References

Arabic References

  • Al-Essa T (2010) Sovereignty between its traditional and contemporary concept, “A study of the internationalization of sovereignty in the contemporary era” Al Syada bayn Mafhomha Al Taqlidy Wal Mo’sir “Drasa fi Mada Tadweel Alsyada fi Al A’sr Alhader”. Damascus Univ J Econ Legal Sci 26(1):54

    Google Scholar 

  • Draft Arab Convention for the Protection of Cyber Space between Reality and Ambition “Mashroo’a Al Itifaqiya Al Arabiya lihimayt Al Fadaa Al sybrani bayn Al waq’a wal tomoh”, The Arab Center for Legal and Judicial Research, Council of Arab Justice Ministers, League of Arab States, Beirut, 23–25 July

    Google Scholar 

  • Musa TH, Omar OM (2016) The internet in law “internet Qanoonan”. J Sharia Law, United Arab Emirates Univ 27, 333–388, 339

    Google Scholar 

  • Naous M (2012) State sovereignty in cyberspace “Siadet Al Dawla fi Al fadaa Al electrony”. J Sharia Law, College of Law, United Arab Emirates Univ 51

    Google Scholar 

Foreign References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iyad Muhsen AlDajani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Omar, O.M., AlDajani, I.M., Juwaihan, M., Leiner, M. (2022). Cybersecurity in Sovereignty Reform. In: AlDajani, I.M., Leiner, M. (eds) Reconciliation, Heritage and Social Inclusion in the Middle East and North Africa. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08713-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08713-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-08712-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08713-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics