Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cyberspace: A New Frontier

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Frontiers – Law, Theory and Cases

  • 140 Accesses

Abstract

It is important to show that frontiers are not just borders or watercourses; there are also other kinds of frontiers with equal importance in this century. One of those frontiers is cyberspace. This kind of frontier has distinctive characteristics and a particular relevance because of the extensive interaction of people and his difficult demarcation. The ideas presented so far will be developed around two major themes in this chapter. The first will gather the discussions on the mutation of sovereignty by -states in a scenario of constant transformation, cyberspace. The second will develop two fundamental elements through which states exercise their sovereignty, cybersecurity, and cyber defense. These two elements will be addressed from the Colombian case.

This chapter is the result of the research projects entitled State, Law and Society and Law and Big Data developed with the group Public Law and ICT, linked to the Socio-Legal Research Center (CISJUC) at the Faculty of Law of Universidad Católica de Colombia, in Bogotá and result of research activities of Migrations Research Hotbed, International Political Studies Research Group at Universidad del Rosario, in Bogotá. This work is the second, expanded, and updated version of the document in Spanish: “Estado y soberanía en el Ciberespacio” (State and sovereignty in Cyberspace). The first version, only available in spanish, can be consulted in: https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/viei/article/view/6480.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Valderrama (2018).

  2. 2.

    Castro (2016).

  3. 3.

    Raboy and Mansell (2011).

  4. 4.

    Soengas-Pérez (2013), pp. 147–155.

  5. 5.

    Spanish Institute of Strategic Studies, Ministry of Defense (2012).

  6. 6.

    Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales (2013).

  7. 7.

    Kosutic (2012).

  8. 8.

    Áudea (2016).

  9. 9.

    Maquiavelo (2010).

  10. 10.

    Hobbes (2009).

  11. 11.

    Weber (1964).

  12. 12.

    Kelsen (1949).

  13. 13.

    Aznar (2015).

  14. 14.

    Oppenheimer (2014).

  15. 15.

    Wendt (2013).

  16. 16.

    Peralta (1999), p. 314.

  17. 17.

    Burdeau (1973), p. 248.

  18. 18.

    Laïdi (1998).

  19. 19.

    Bauman (2015), p. 40.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., 41.

  21. 21.

    Liquid modernity is conceived, within the postulates of Zygmunt Bauman, as a process of acceleration and ethereal transformation of the social relations and power existing between subjects, technology, and institutions, which takes place in a political and ideological context of postmodernity.

  22. 22.

    Darnaculleta (2015), p. 36.

  23. 23.

    Commission on Global Governance (1995).

  24. 24.

    Internet Society (2016)

  25. 25.

    Raboy and Mansell (2011).

  26. 26.

    Chenou (2014).

  27. 27.

    Callahan (2015), pp. 216–229.

  28. 28.

    Chenou (2014).

  29. 29.

    Kelsen (1949).

  30. 30.

    Valencia (2015), p. 146.

  31. 31.

    Krasner (1983), p. 2.

  32. 32.

    Valencia (2015), p. 146.

  33. 33.

    Foucault and Lynch (1980).

  34. 34.

    Shaw (2017), p. 157.

  35. 35.

    Crawford (2013), p. 118.

  36. 36.

    Shaw (2017), p. 361.

  37. 37.

    Pistor (2017), p. 492.

  38. 38.

    Crawford (2013), p. 121.

  39. 39.

    “The term ‘jurisdiction’ stems from the Latin ius dicere, which literally translates as ‘speaking the law’. In its widest sense, jurisdiction therefore means an entity’s entitlement to authoritatively say ‘what the law is’” Simma and Müller (2013), p. 131.

  40. 40.

    Simma and Müller (2013), p. 135.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., pp. 140–141.

  42. 42.

    Rosenbloom (1994), p. 267.

  43. 43.

    Harari (2014), p. 138.

  44. 44.

    Crawford, Op. Cit., p. 132.

  45. 45.

    Li (2004), p. 147.

  46. 46.

    Dagan (2017), p. 42.

  47. 47.

    Li (2004), p. 144.

  48. 48.

    Dagan (2017), p. 37.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Calderón-Gómez (2020), pp. 223–224.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    Philpott (2001). p 297.

  53. 53.

    Li, Op. Cit., p. 143.

  54. 54.

    Shaw (2017) p. 379.

  55. 55.

    Hertogen (2010), p. 246.

  56. 56.

    Meyer-Harport (2014), p. 673.

  57. 57.

    Zimmermann (2013), p. 803.

  58. 58.

    Hertogen (2010) p. 259.

  59. 59.

    Pettis (2011), pp. 281–296.

  60. 60.

    Kurzmann (1997), p. 149.

  61. 61.

    Zimmermann (2013), p. 803.

  62. 62.

    Gaviria (2009), pp. 4–14.

  63. 63.

    Zimmermann (2013), p. 804.

  64. 64.

    Pistor (2017), p. 514.

  65. 65.

    Abramowicz (2016), pp. 365–366.

  66. 66.

    Maese et al. (2016), p. 469.

  67. 67.

    Molloy (2019), pp. 623–624.

  68. 68.

    As it may be confirmed in the website of the Library of the Congress of the United States, there are 130 countries that have issued laws or policies regarding cryptocurrencies.

  69. 69.

    Molloy (2019), p. 627.

  70. 70.

    Maese et al. (2016), p. 470.

  71. 71.

    Molloy (2019), p. 625.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., 631–633.

  73. 73.

    Muralidhar (2010), p. 2.

  74. 74.

    Goldman (1964), pp. 177–192.

  75. 75.

    Cox (2002), p. 249.

  76. 76.

    Xinbao and Xu Ke (2016), pp. 41–42.

  77. 77.

    Treppoz (2016), pp. 273–274.

  78. 78.

    Perritt (1997), pp. 162.

  79. 79.

    Treppoz (2016), p. 274.

  80. 80.

    Xinbao and Xu Ke (2016), pp. 58–59.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., pp. 61–62.

  82. 82.

    Kanna (2018), p. 145.

  83. 83.

    Perritt (1997), p. 174.

  84. 84.

    Xinbao and Xu Ke (2016), p. 67.

  85. 85.

    Lewis (2016), p. 63.

  86. 86.

    Muralidhar (2010), p. 38.

  87. 87.

    Lewis (2016), p. 63.

  88. 88.

    Xinbao and Xu Ke (2016), p. 34.

  89. 89.

    Molloy (2019) p. 624.

  90. 90.

    Elliott (2017), p. 1.

  91. 91.

    Harari (2018), p. 21.

  92. 92.

    Lewis (2016), p. 63.

  93. 93.

    Harari (2018), p. 67.

  94. 94.

    Weimann (2016).

  95. 95.

    Burdeau (1973), p. 248.

  96. 96.

    Chenou (2014).

  97. 97.

    Vargas (2014).

  98. 98.

    Aucal Business School (2016).

  99. 99.

    Machín and Gazapo (2016).

  100. 100.

    Wegener (2014).

  101. 101.

    Organization of American States (n.d.).

  102. 102.

    Observatorio de la Ciberseguridad en América Latina y el Caribe (2016).

  103. 103.

    Aucal Business school (2016).

  104. 104.

    Machin et al. (n.d.).

  105. 105.

    Wegener (2014).

  106. 106.

    Organization of American States (n.d.).

  107. 107.

    Observatory of Cybersecurity in Latin America and the Caribbean (2016).

  108. 108.

    Colombia does not have a national coordination body for digital security that optimizes the management of resources allocated to this area. This absence does not allow the country to have a strategic vision that articulates the functions and activities of the existing institutional framework around national objectives in digital security. This situation leads to duplication of efforts and less efficiency. Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2016), p. 31.

  109. 109.

    (In the country, the objective of economic and social prosperity is not currently distinguished from the objectives of defense and national security in the digital environment. This means that Colombia currently focuses its efforts on countering cyber threats that threaten national defense and security, and does not adopt a digital security risk management strategy that involves all stakeholders, through which the opportunities and economic benefits granted by the digital environment to society in general are maximized. Ibid., 34.

  110. 110.

    (In this same sense, it is identified that the agencies, instances and entities in charge of the analysis, identification, prevention, investigation and prosecution of cybercrime and cybercrime in the country, do not have sufficient human, technical and financial resources to face new types of crime and delinquency at national and transnational level. Nor are they based on digital security risk management, which causes greater opportunity for the materialization of cyber threats. Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2016), p. 39.

  111. 111.

    Ibid.

  112. 112.

    Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2020), p. 3.

  113. 113.

    Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2020).

  114. 114.

    Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2020), p. 3.

  115. 115.

    Ministry of Defense, Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies (2012), p. 42.

  116. 116.

    Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales (2013), p. 9.

  117. 117.

    Ejército Nacional de Colombia (2015).

  118. 118.

    Colombian Cyber Emergency Response Group (n.d.).

  119. 119.

    Ejército Nacional de Colombia (2015).

  120. 120.

    Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación – Gobierno de Colombia 2021), p. 4.

References

  • Abramowicz, M. 2016. Cryptocurrency-based law. Arizona Law Review 58 (359).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aucal Business School. 2016. “Ciberseguridad al día” (Cybersecurity Daily). March 23, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.ciberseguridadparaempresas.com/ciberseguridad-en-la-union-europea/

  • Áudea. (2016). Diferencias entre Ciberseguridad y Seguridad de la Información. Áudea. Retrieved from: http://www.audea.com/diferencias-ciberseguridad-seguridad-la-informacion/

  • Aznar, F. 2015. Las generaciones de guerras. Madrid: Insituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (2015). Modernidad líquida. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdeau, G. 1973. Traité de science politique. Tomo II: Librairie Generale de Droit et de Jurisprudence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, W. 2015. Identity and Security in China: The Negatives of Power of the China Dream, 216–229. Political Studies Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderón-Gómez, L. 2020. Transcending “Tax” Sovereignty and Tax Standardization: Three Questions. Yale Journal of International Law 45 (191).

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro, Á. 2016. Derecho a la intimidad en las redes sociales de internet en Colombia. Novum Jus 10 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenou, Jean Marie. 2014. Global Internet Policy: A Fifteen-Year Long Debate. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales – Cari. 2013. Ciberdefensa-Ciberseguridad Riesgos y Amenazas. Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales - Cari. Retrieved from: http://www.cari.org.ar/pdf/ciberdefensa_riesgos_amenazas.pdf

  • Cox, N. 2002. The Regulation of Cyberspace and the Loss of National Sovereignty. Information & Communications Technology Law 11 (3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. 2013. Sovereignty as a legal value. The Cambridge Companion to International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnaculleta, I., M. Gardella, J. Esteve, and I. Speicher. 2015. Estrategias del derecho ante la incertidumbre y la globalización. Madrid: Marcial Pons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagan, T. 2017. Tax Sovereignty in the Era of Tax Multilateralism. EU Law and the Building of Global Supranational Tax Law: EU BEPS and State Aid. Amsterdam: IBFD Print Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burley, D.L., M. Bishop, S. Buck, J.J. Ekstrom, L. Futcher, D. Gibson, E. Hawthorne, S. Kaza, Y. Levy, H. Mattord, and A. Parrish. 2017. Cybersecurity Curricula 2017, Version 0. 0.75 Report, 12 June 2017. https://www.csec2017.org/org/. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.

  • Departamento Nacional de Planeación. 2016. Documento CONPES 3854 - Política Nacional de Seguridad Digital. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Retrieved from: https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Econ%C3%B3micos/3854.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2020. Documento CONPES 3995 - Política Nacional de Confianza y Seguridad Digital. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Retrieved from: https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Econ%C3%B3micos/3995.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, A. 2017. Collection of Cryptocurrency Customer-Information: Tax Enforcement Mechanism or Invasion of Privacy? Duke Law & Technology Review 16 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ejército Nacional de Colombia. 2015. Procedimiento comunicaciones operacionales y Ciberdefensa. Ejército Nacional de Colombia. Retrieved from: https://www.ejercito.mil.co/?idcategoria=357574&download=Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M., and E. Lynch. 1980. La verdad y las formas jurídicas. Barcelona: Gedisa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaviria, E. 2005. Derecho Internacional Público. (Sexta Edición). Bogotá D.C.: Editorial Temis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaviria, G. 2009. Monetary Sovereignty and the Dollarization of Latin-American Economies. Currents: International Trade Law Journal 18 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, B. 1964. Frontières du droit et lex mercatoria. Archives de Philosophie du Droit 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harari, Y. 2014. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. London: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. 21 Lessons for the XXI Century. London: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertogen, A. 2010. An Unusual Suspect – Monetary Sovereignty and Financial Instability. Goettingen Journal of International Law 2 (243).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. 2009. Leviatán. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Internet Society. 2016. Informe de políticas: Gobernanza de Internet. Internet Society. Retrieved from: http://www.internetsociety.org/es/policybriefs/internetgovernance

  • Kanna, P. 2018. State Sovereignty and Self-Defence in Cyberspace. BRICS Law Journal 5 (4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. 1949. Teoría general del derecho y del Estado. Imprenta Universitaria, Ciudad de México

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzmann, B. 1997. Challenges to Monetary Unification in the European Union: Sovereignty Reigning Supreme. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 23 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosutic, D. 2012. Ciberseguridad en 9 pasos. Manual sobre seguridad de la información para el gerente. Advisera. Retrieved from: https://advisera.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/09/Ciberseguridad_en_9_pasos_ES.pdf.

  • Krasner, S. 1983. International Regimes. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laïdi, Z. 1998. A World Without Meaning: The Crisis of Meaning in International Politics. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. 2004. Tax sovereignty and international tax reform: The author's response. Canadian Tax Journal 52 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. 2016. Sovereignty and the Role of Government in Cyberspace. Brown Journal of World Affairs 16 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Machín, N., and M. Gazapo. 2016. La Ciberseguridad como factor crítico en la seguridad de la Unión Europea. Revista UNISCI 42. Retrieved from: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RUNI/article/viewFile/53786/49258.

  • Maese, V., et. al. 2016. Cryptocurrency: A primer. Banking Law Journal 133 (486).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Harport, D. 2014. Legal options for a withdrawal from the Euro and the reassignment of monetary sovereignty. European Business Law Review 25 (5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maquiavelo, N. 2010. El príncipe. Ediciones AKAL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación – Gobierno de Colombia. 2021. Resolución número 00500 de marzo 10 de 2021 “Por la cual se establecen los lineamientos y estándares para la estrategia de seguridad digital y se adopta el modelo de seguridad y privacidad como habilitador de la política de Gobierno Digital”. Retrieved from: https://gobiernodigital.mintic.gov.co/692/articles-162625_recurso_2.pdf.

  • Ministry of Defense, Spanish Institute of Strategic Studies. 2012. “Ciberespacio: nuevo escenario de confrontación” (Cyberspace: New Confrontation Scenario). Monografías del CESEDEN 126. Retrieved from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=547632.

  • Molloy, B. 2019. Taxing the Blockchain: How Cryptocurrencies Thwart International Tax Policy. Oregon Review of International Law 20 (623).

    Google Scholar 

  • Muralidhar, S. 2010. Jurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace. Indian Journal of Law and Technology 6 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Observatorio de la Ciberseguridad en América Latina y el Caribe. 2016. Ciberseguridad - Estamos preparados en América Latina y el Caribe. Organización de los Estados Americanos – OEA. Retrieved from: https://www.sites.oas.org/cyber/ES/Paginas/Documents.aspx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, F. 2014. El Estado: su historia y evolución desde un punto de vista sociológico. Madrid: Unión Editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organización de los Estados Americanos. “Iniciativa de seguridad cibernética de la OEA. Foro global sobre experticia cibernética (GFCE).” (OAS Cybersecurity Initiative. Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE)), Recuperado de: https://www.sites.oas.org/cyber/ES/Paginas/Documents.aspx

  • Peralta, R. 1999. Soberanía nacional y Estado constitucional. Revista de estudios políticos 105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perritt, H. 1997. Cyberspace and state sovereignty. Journal of International Legal Studies 3 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettis, E. 2011. Is China’s manipulation of its currency an actionable violation of the IMF and/or the WTO agreements? Journal of International Business and Law 10 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Philpott, D. 2001. Usurping the sovereignty of sovereignty. World Politics 53 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistor, K. 2017. From Territorial to Monetary Sovereignty. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 18 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Raboy, M., and R. Mansell. 2011. The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, D. 1994. Sovereignty and the Regulation of International Business in the Tax Area. Canada-United States Law Journal 20 (267).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma, B., and A.T. Müller. 2013. Exercise and Limits of Jurisdiction. In The Cambridge Companion to International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. 2017. International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Soengas-Pérez, X. 2013. El papel de Internet y de las redes sociales en las revueltas árabes: una alternativa a la censura de la prensa oficial. Revista Comunicar: 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treppoz, E. 2016. Jurisdiction in the Cyberspace. Swiss review of international and European Law 26 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Valderrama, D. 2018. El acceso a internet como derecho fundamental: Caso costarricense y su viabilidad en Colombia. Novum Jus 12 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Valencia, D. 2015. El Estado en la era de la Globalización y las nuevas tecnologías. Bogotá: Editorial Ibáñez.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargas, M. 2014. Ciberseguridad y Ciberdefensa: ¿Qué implicaciones tienen para seguridad nacional? Bogotá D.C: Universidad Militar Nueva Granada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1964. Economía y sociedad. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, H. 2014. Ciberseguridad en la Unión Europea. Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, Documento Opinión.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimann, G. 2016. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. 2013. Social Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xinbao, Z., and X. Ke. 2016. A Study on Cyberspace Sovereignty. China Legal Science 4 (5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, C. 2013. The Concept of Monetary Sovereignty Revisited. The European Journal of International Law 24 (3).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

    Eduardo Andrés Perafán Del Campo & Marco Emilio Sánchez Acevedo

  2. Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia

    Sebastián Polo Alvis & Alejandro León Quiroga

Authors
  1. Eduardo Andrés Perafán Del Campo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastián Polo Alvis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Emilio Sánchez Acevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alejandro León Quiroga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Andrés Perafán Del Campo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

    Dimitri Endrizzi

  2. Faculty of Law, Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

    Jairo Becerra

  3. Faculty of Law, Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

    Eduardo Andrés Perafán Del Campo

  4. Faculty of Law, Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

    Jaime Cubides Cárdenas

  5. Faculty of Law, Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

    Laura Cecilia Gamarra-Amaya

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 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

Del Campo, E.A.P., Polo Alvis, S., Sánchez Acevedo, M.E., León Quiroga, A. (2023). Cyberspace: A New Frontier. In: Endrizzi, D., Becerra, J., Del Campo, E.A.P., Cubides Cárdenas, J., Gamarra-Amaya, L.C. (eds) Frontiers – Law, Theory and Cases. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13607-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13607-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13606-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13607-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation