Skip to main content

The Security Culture of a Global and Multileveled Cybersecurity

Abstract

This paper seeks to argue for the development of a global and multileveled management of cybersecurity. To do so we first define cybersecurity by situating it within the broader framework of the changing concept of security. To this end we look at the evolution of the security concept, mainly since the end of the Cold War, and its relationship to cybersecurity in today’s global affairs. Then we identify the referent object of security, the importance of cyberthreats, and the need for a multileveled management of cybersecurity and cyberthreats. For such a management to be possible and effective, this paper argues that the development of a security culture of multileveled cybersecurity is necessary. To demonstrate how that could happen policy-wise, we briefly look at the current state of international cooperation on cybersecurity and put forward the idea of a framework of multileveled and global cooperation based on a strategy aiming at developing a global security culture of cybersecurity. Moreover, it is suggested that the development of this security culture should be gradual, based on horizontal and vertical multileveled cooperation, by starting with “low-politics” or non-politically sensitive cybersecurity matters. Such a multileveled framework of cybersecurity, with successful communication lines on and between all levels, may even provide a good platform for cooperation in other domains as well.

Keywords

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cyberspace
  • Cyber-Defense
  • Security culture
  • Strategy

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_13
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4939-1028-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 13.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990). 64.

  2. 2.

    Stephen M. Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” International Studies Quarterly 35, no. 2 (1991): 213–14.

  3. 3.

    Paul D. Williams, “Security Studies: An Introduction,” in Security Studies: an Introduction ed. Paul D. Williams (New York: Routledge, 2010), 3.

  4. 4.

    Terry Terriff et al., Security Studies Today (Cambridge: Polity, 2006). 12.

  5. 5.

    Iztok Prezelj, “Challenges in Conceptualizing and Providing Human Security,” HUMSEC Journal no. 2 (2008): 2.

  6. 6.

    Williams, “Security Studies: An Introduction,“ 5. Williams’ definitions draws upon similar previous definitions such as Wolfers’; see, Arnold Wolfers, “National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol,” Political Science Quarterly 67, no. 4 (1952): 485.

  7. 7.

    Wolfers, “‘National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol.”; David A. Baldwin, “The Concept of Security,” Review of International Studies 23(1997): 13–17; Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 10–13; Williams, “Security Studies: An Introduction,” 5–10.

  8. 8.

    Richard H. Ullman, “Redefining Security,” International Security 8, no. 1 (1983): 130–31.

  9. 9.

    Williams, “Security Studies: An Introduction,” 7. Williams cites, Ken Booth, “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991); and, Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 45–68.

  10. 10.

    Baldwin, “The Concept of Security,” 13.

  11. 11.

    Joseph S. Nye, The Future of Power (New York: Public Affairs, 2011). 143.

  12. 12.

    Robert C. North, War, Peace, Survival: Global Politics and Conceptual Synthesis (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990).

  13. 13.

    Nazli Choucri, Cyberpolitics in International Relations (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2012). 46, 44–48.

  14. 14.

    Baldwin, “The Concept of Security,” 13–14.

  15. 15.

    Williams, “Security Studies: An Introduction,” 8.

  16. 16.

    Prezelj, “Challenges in Conceptualizing and Providing Human Security,” 9.

  17. 17.

    Williams, “Security Studies: An Introduction,” 8.

  18. 18.

    Panyarachun A et al., “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility,” (High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change: United Nations, 2004), 21–59. The ten main security threats identified were: poverty, infectious disease, environmental degradation, interstate war, civil war, genocide, other—war related—atrocities, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and transnational organized crime.

  19. 19.

    Choucri, Cyberpolitics in International Relations: 126, 25–53.

  20. 20.

    Nye, The Future of Power: 144.

  21. 21.

    Daniel K. Rosenfield, “Rethinking Cyber War,” Critical Review 21, no. 1 (2009): 77–78.

  22. 22.

    EC, “Green Paper: On a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection,” Commission of the European Communities COM(2005) 576(2005): 20.

  23. 23.

    Prezelj, “Challenges in Conceptualizing and Providing Human Security,” 8, 17.

  24. 24.

    Barry Davies, Terrorism: Inside a World Phenomenon (London: Virgin Books, 2003). 253.

  25. 25.

    Williams, “Security Studies: An Introduction,” 9–10.

  26. 26.

    Baldwin, “The Concept of Security,” 16.

  27. 27.

    Francisco R. Aravena, “Human Security: Emerging Concept of Security in the Twenty-First Century,” Human Security in Latin America 2, no. 1 (2002): 7.

  28. 28.

    Choucri, Cyberpolitics in International Relations: 39.

  29. 29.

    See, for example, Rex Hughes’s call for a treaty on cyberspace, Rex Hughes, “A Treaty for Cyberspace,” international Affairs 86, no. 2 (2010).

  30. 30.

    Choucri, Cyberpolitics in International Relations: 168.

  31. 31.

    ITU, Final Acts: World Conference on International Communication (Dubai: International Telecommunications Union, 2012).

  32. 32.

    Cyrus Farivar, “The UN’s telecom conference is finally over. Who Won? Nobody Knows.,” ars technica, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/the-uns-telecom-conference-is-finally-over-who-won-nobody-knows/.

  33. 33.

    See a list of major entities at all these levels in, Choucri, Cyberpolitics in International Relations: 161–66.

  34. 34.

    NATO, Active Engagement, Modern Defence. Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of th North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Lisbon: NATO, 2010). 16–17; Marios P. Efthymiopoulos, “NATO’s Security Operations in Electronic Warfare: the Policy of Cyber-Defence and the Alliance’s new Strategic Concept,” Journal of Information Warfare 8, no. 3 (2009): 64–66.

  35. 35.

    Victoria Ekstedt, Tom Parkhouse, and Dave Clemente, “Commitments, Mechanisms & Governance,” in National Cyber Security: Framework Manual, ed. Alexander Klimburg (Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publication, 2012), 185; Jason Healey and Leendert van Bochoven, “NATO’s Cyber Capabilities: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” Atlantic Council IssueBrief(2011): 4.

  36. 36.

    EU, “Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace,” JOIN(2013) 1 final(07/02/2013): 4–5.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., 3–4.

  38. 38.

    Ekstedt, Parkhouse, and Clemente, “Commitments, Mechanisms & Governance,” 186–87.

  39. 39.

    Ronald J. Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, “Risking Security: Policies and Paradoxes of Cyberspace Security,” International Political Sociology 4(2010): 17.

  40. 40.

    Nigel Inkster, “China in Cyberspace,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 52, no. 4 (2010): 55–56.

  41. 41.

    Alexander W. Vacca, “Military Culture and Cyber Security,” Survival 56, no. 6 (2012): 160.

  42. 42.

    Jack L. Snyder, The Strategic Culture: Implications for Nuclear Options (Santa Monica: RAND, 1977). 9.

  43. 43.

    Charles A. Kupchan, The Vulnerability Of Empire (New York: Cornell University Press, 1994). 21–22.

  44. 44.

    Alastair I. Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995). 50–51, viiii-x.

  45. 45.

    Ken Booth, “The Concept of Strategic Culture Affirmed,” in Strategic Power: USA/USSR, ed. Carl G. Jacobsen (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 121.

  46. 46.

    Colin S. Gray, “Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation of Theory Strikes Back,” Review of International Studies 25(1999): 58.

  47. 47.

    Christopher Paul and Isaac R. Porche III, “Toward a U.S. Army Cyber Security Culture,” International Journal of Cyber Warfare & Terrorism 1, no. 3 (2012): 71.

  48. 48.

    Perm M. Norheim-Martinsen, “EU Strategic Culture: When the Means Becomes the End,” Contemporary Security Policy 32, no. 3 (2011): 535.

  49. 49.

    Jeremy Ferwerda, Nazli Choucri, and Stuart Madnick, “Institutional Foundations for Cyber Security: Current Responses and New Challenges (revised),” Composite Information Systems Laboratory, MIT Working Paper CISL# 2011-05(2011): 4.

  50. 50.

    Shaun Waterman, “U.S.-Israeli Cyberattack on Iran was ‘Act of Force,’ NATO Study Found,” The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/24/us-israeli-cyberattack-on-iran-was-act-of-force-na/?page=all.

Bibliography

  • Aravena FR (2002) Human Security: Emerging concept of security in the twenty-first century. Human Security in Latin America 2(1):5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin DA (1997) The concept of security. Rev Int Studies 23:5–26

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Booth K (1990) The concept of strategic culture affirmed. In: Jacobsen CG (ed) Strategic power: USA/Ussr. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY, pp 121–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth K (1991) Security and emancipation. Rev Int Studies 17(4):313–326

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan B, Hansen L (2010) The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Choucri N (2012) Cyberpolitics in international relations. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies B (2003) Terrorism: Inside a world phenomenon. Virgin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Deibert RJ, Rohozinski R (2010) Risking security: Policies and paradoxes of cyberspace security. Int Polit Sociol 4:15–32

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2005) Green Paper: On a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection. Commission of the European Communities COM(2005) 576

    Google Scholar 

  • Efthymiopoulos MP (2009) Nato's security operations in electronic warfare: The policy of cyber-defence and the alliance's new strategic concept. J Inform Warfare 8(3):61–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstedt V, Parkhouse T, Clemente D (2012) Commitments, mechanisms & governance. In: Klimburg A (ed) National cyber security: Framework manual. NATO CCD COE Publication, Tallinn, pp 146–191

    Google Scholar 

  • EU (2013) Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace. JOIN(2013) 1 final (07/02/2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Farivar C (2012) The Un's Telecom Conference Is Finally Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows.ars technica, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/the-uns-telecom-conference-is-finally-over-who-won-nobody-knows/

  • Ferwerda J, Nazli C, Stuart M (2011) "Institutional Foundations for Cyber Security: Current Responses and New Challenges (Revised)." Composite Information Systems Laboratory, MIT Working Paper CISL# 2011–05, http://web.mit.edu/smadnick/www/wp/2011-05.pdf.30/04/2013

  • Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray CS (1999) Strategic culture as context: The first generation of theory strikes back. Rev Int Studies 25:49–69

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Healey J, van Bochoven, L (2011) Nato's Cyber Capabilities: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Atlantic Council IssueBrief

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes R (2010) A treaty for cyberspace. Int Affairs 86(2):523–541

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Inkster N (2010) China in cyberspace. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 52(4):55–66

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ITU (2012) Final Acts: World Conference on International Communication. International Telecommunications Union, Dubai

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston AI (1995) Cultural realism: Strategic culture and grand strategy in Chinese history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan CA (1994) The vulnerability of empire. Cornell University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney B (1999) Security, identity and interests: A sociology of international relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • NATO (2010) Active engagement, modern defence. Strategic concept for the defence and security of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Norheim-Martinsen PM (2011) Eu strategic culture: When the means becomes the end. Contemporary Security Policy 32(3):524–541

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • North RC (1990) War, peace, survival: Global politics and conceptual synthesis. Westview Press, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye JS (2011) The future of power. Public Affairs, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Panyarachun A et al (2004) A More secure world: Our shared responsibility. High-level panel on threats, challenges and change: United Nations, Manhattan

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul C, Porche IR III (2012) Toward a U.S. Army cyber security culture. Int J Cyber Warfare Terrorism 1(3):70–80

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Prezelj I (2008) Challenges in conceptualizing and providing human security. HUMSEC J 2:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfield DK (2009) Rethinking cyber war. Crit Rev 21(1):77–90

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder JL (1977) The strategic culture: Implications for nuclear options. RAND, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Terriff T et al (2006) Security studies today. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman RH (1983) Redefining security. Int Security 8(1):129–153

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vacca AW (2012) Military culture and cyber security. Survival 56(6):159–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt SM (1991) The renaissance of security studies. Int Studies Quarterly 35(2):211–239

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Waterman S. U.S.-Israeli Cyberattack on Iran Was ‘Act of Force,’ Nato Study Found. The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/24/us-israeli-cyberattack-on-iran-was-act-of-force-na/?page=all

  • Williams PD, Studies S (2010) An Introduction. In: Williams PD (ed) Security studies: An introduction. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfers A (1952) 'National security' as an ambiguous symbol. Polit Sci Quarterly 67(4):481–502

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zenonas Tziarras .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tziarras, Z. (2014). The Security Culture of a Global and Multileveled Cybersecurity. In: Carayannis, E., Campbell, D., Efthymiopoulos, M. (eds) Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_13

Download citation