Advertisement

The Security Culture of a Global and Multileveled Cybersecurity

Chapter
First Online:

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, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Aravena FR (2002) Human Security: Emerging concept of security in the twenty-first century. Human Security in Latin America 2(1):5–15Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin DA (1997) The concept of security. Rev Int Studies 23:5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 121–128Google Scholar
  4. Booth K (1991) Security and emancipation. Rev Int Studies 17(4):313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buzan B, Hansen L (2010) The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Choucri N (2012) Cyberpolitics in international relations. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies B (2003) Terrorism: Inside a world phenomenon. Virgin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Deibert RJ, Rohozinski R (2010) Risking security: Policies and paradoxes of cyberspace security. Int Polit Sociol 4:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EC (2005) Green Paper: On a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection. Commission of the European Communities COM(2005) 576Google Scholar
  10. 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):61–70Google Scholar
  11. 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 146–191Google Scholar
  12. EU (2013) Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace. JOIN(2013) 1 final (07/02/2013)Google Scholar
  13. 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/
  14. 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
  15. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray CS (1999) Strategic culture as context: The first generation of theory strikes back. Rev Int Studies 25:49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Healey J, van Bochoven, L (2011) Nato's Cyber Capabilities: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Atlantic Council IssueBriefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes R (2010) A treaty for cyberspace. Int Affairs 86(2):523–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inkster N (2010) China in cyberspace. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 52(4):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ITU (2012) Final Acts: World Conference on International Communication. International Telecommunications Union, DubaiGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnston AI (1995) Cultural realism: Strategic culture and grand strategy in Chinese history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  22. Kupchan CA (1994) The vulnerability of empire. Cornell University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. McSweeney B (1999) Security, identity and interests: A sociology of international relations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. NATO (2010) Active engagement, modern defence. Strategic concept for the defence and security of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  25. Norheim-Martinsen PM (2011) Eu strategic culture: When the means becomes the end. Contemporary Security Policy 32(3):524–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. North RC (1990) War, peace, survival: Global politics and conceptual synthesis. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  27. Nye JS (2011) The future of power. Public Affairs, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. Panyarachun A et al (2004) A More secure world: Our shared responsibility. High-level panel on threats, challenges and change: United Nations, ManhattanGoogle Scholar
  29. Paul C, Porche IR III (2012) Toward a U.S. Army cyber security culture. Int J Cyber Warfare Terrorism 1(3):70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prezelj I (2008) Challenges in conceptualizing and providing human security. HUMSEC J 2:1–22Google Scholar
  31. Rosenfield DK (2009) Rethinking cyber war. Crit Rev 21(1):77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snyder JL (1977) The strategic culture: Implications for nuclear options. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  33. Terriff T et al (2006) Security studies today. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Ullman RH (1983) Redefining security. Int Security 8(1):129–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vacca AW (2012) Military culture and cyber security. Survival 56(6):159–176Google Scholar
  36. Walt SM (1991) The renaissance of security studies. Int Studies Quarterly 35(2):211–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Williams PD, Studies S (2010) An Introduction. In: Williams PD (ed) Security studies: An introduction. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  39. Wolfers A (1952) 'National security' as an ambiguous symbol. Polit Sci Quarterly 67(4):481–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options