Skip to main content

The International Cybersecurity Cooperation Dilemma and Implications for EU-South Korea Relations

  • 228 Accesses

Part of the New Security Challenges book series (NSECH)


This chapter focuses on the international cybersecurity cooperation dilemma. Cybersecurity is a common concern within the international community. With the breakneck development of the Internet, countries have gradually formed cooperation mainly involving models of international conferences, international organizations, and international treaties. Despite this, international cybersecurity cooperation is still insufficient, mainly due to fragmented mechanisms, poor effectiveness, and camp-based confrontations. From a realist point of view, these problems arise from objective factors such as differences in willingness, interests, and demands, amplified by gaps in strength, cost sharing, benefit distribution, and technical uncertainties. From the perspective of constructivism, there are also contributing factors such as misperceptions caused by stereotypes and misperceptions inherent to the characteristics of cyberspace. EU-South Korea cybersecurity cooperation should be open and inclusive to eliminate misperceptions, develop a tailor-made framework for cybersecurity cooperation, establish a dedicated cybersecurity cooperation mechanism, and pursue greater autonomy in the cyberspace of confrontation between camps. In their cooperation there is room for the EU and South Korea to play a greater role in cybersecurity.


  • Cybersecurity
  • International cooperation
  • EU-South Korea relations
  • Northeast Asian cybersecurity

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

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions


  1. 1.

    Among these, WSIS, IGF, UNGGE, GCCS, London Process, ISOC, WIC and CIGA are comprehensive meetings to discuss international Internet governance, cybersecurity, and international law in cyberspace; IEG, GCA, ICSPA, SCO, and AALCO merely focus on cybercrime; CIGA, GCTF, and IMPACT focus on cyberterrorism.

  2. 2.

    The ITU is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for all matters related to information and communication technologies; CSTD, a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), examines specific issues on science and technology for development; ICPO is an international organization that facilitates worldwide police cooperation and crime control.

  3. 3.

    OECD, OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks: Towards a Culture of Security,, accessed June 25, 2021,

  4. 4.

    Abraham D. Sofaer, Seymour E. Goodman, Proposal for an International Convention on Cyber Crime and Terrorism, CISAC, accessed June 25, 2021,

  5. 5.

    Eileen Donahoe, “Governance Challenges in the Global Digital Ecosystem,” In Innovations in Global Governance: Peace-Building, Human Rights, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity, and Climate Change, Council on Foreign Relations, accessed April 5, 2021, 24–28,

  6. 6.

    Thierry Tardy, “Revisiting the EU’s Security Partnerships,” European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), accessed April 5, 2021,

  7. 7.

    He Ye, “Effectiveness Analysis of Global Cybersecurity Governance Mechanism,” (Master’s thesis, China Foreign Affairs University, 2015), 22–24.

  8. 8.

    Lu Chuanying, “Security Dilemmas Faced by Major Power in Cyberspace: A Case Study of China-Europe Cyber Cooperation,” Chinese Journal of European Studies, no.2 (2019): 114.

  9. 9.

    Thomas Renard, “EU cyber partnerships: Assessing the EU strategic partnerships with third countries in the cyber domain,” European Politics and Society 19, no.3 (2018): 321–337.

  10. 10.

    UNGGE refers to the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security.

  11. 11.

    Agreement was reached in 2021. For a discussion on the failure of UNGGE earlier, see also the chapter of Yoo Joonkoo in this volume.

  12. 12.

    Jacqueline Eggenschwiler, “A Typology of Cybersecurity Governance Models,” St Antony’s International Review 13, no. 2 (2018): 64–78.

  13. 13.

    Cai Cuihong, “Cybersecurity in the Chinese Context: Changing Concepts, Vital Interests, and Prospects for Cooperation”,China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies1, no.3 (2015). For a discussion on China’s cyber strategy, see also the chapter of Mason Richey in this volume.

  14. 14.

    Lin Jing, “The Obstacles of International Cooperation Regarding Safeguarding Cybersecurity and China’s Strategies,” Journal of Xi’an Jiaotong University (Social Sciences) 37, no. 2 (March 2017): 80–81.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., 80–81.

  16. 16.

    Lu Chuanying, “Cyberspace Security Dilemma and the Construction of Governance Institution,” 52–53.

  17. 17.

    Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, UK: Princeton University Press, 2017), 143–144.

  18. 18.

    Wang Congyue, “Inheritance, Changes and Reflections on US-EU Cyber Security Cooperation in the Trump Era,” Foreign Theoretical Trends, no.7 (2019): 106–116.

  19. 19.

    George Christou, “Transatlantic Cooperation in Cybersecurity: Converging on Security as Resilience?” in Cybersecurity in the European Union (London: Palgrave Macmillan Press, 2016).

  20. 20.

    “ENISA Threat Landscape Report 2018,” ENISA, accessed April 5, 2021, s

  21. 21.

    Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development, February 4, 2022,

  22. 22.

    “Creative destruction” is a concept in economics raised by Joseph A. Schumpeter. It describes the “process of industrial mutation that continuously revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.”

  23. 23.

    Lu Chuanying, “Security Dilemmas Faced by Major Power in Cyberspace: A Case Study of China-Europe Cyber Cooperation,” 122.

  24. 24.

    Thomas Rid and Ben Buchanan, “Attributing Cyber Attacks,” The Journal of Strategic Studies 38, no. 1–2 (2015): 4–37.

  25. 25.

    John H. Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and Security Dilemma,” World Politics, no. 2 (1950), 157–158.

  26. 26.

    For a discussion on this, see also the chapter of Michael Reiterer in this volume.

  27. 27.

    U.S. Department of Defense, “Joint Communique of the 52nd U.S.-Republic of Korea Security Consultative Meeting”, accessed July 5, 2021,


Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cuihong Cai .

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

Cai, C. (2022). The International Cybersecurity Cooperation Dilemma and Implications for EU-South Korea Relations. In: Boulet, G., Reiterer, M., Pardo, R.P. (eds) Cybersecurity Policy in the EU and South Korea from Consultation to Action. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Download citation