Cybersecurity Policies of East European Countries

Living reference work entry

Abstract

In modern times, ensuring security in cyberspace is the main task of national security for most states. States have different approaches to cybersecurity from the aspect of national security policies. They can be divided into two categories: those that regard cybersecurity as a civilian task and those that involve their militaries in creating or implementing cybersecurity policies. Those states that have incorporated cyber warfare into their military planning and organization perceive cyberattacks as a threat to their national security, while states that charge their civilian agencies with domestic cybersecurity missions classify cyber intrusions as security risks for only particular sectors. Adopting the framework of securitization theory, this chapter theorizes both civil and military approaches to cybersecurity and threat perceptions and their sources. The theoretical framework is then applied to a study of the cybersecurity policies of Eastern European countries and the Baltic states.

Keywords

Cybersecurity Cyber space National security 

References

  1. Anderson, R. H., & Anthony, H. (1996). An exploration of cyberspace security R&D investment strategies for DARPA: “The day after… in cyberspace II”.Google Scholar
  2. Butrimas, V. (2015). National security and international policy challenges in a post Stuxnet world. Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review. Lithuania: Ministry of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
  3. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  4. Deibert, R. J. (2002). Dark guests and great firewalls: The Internet and Chinese security policy. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deibert, R., & Crete-Nishihata, M. (2011). Blurred boundaries: Probing the ethics of cyberspace research. Review of Policy Research, 28, 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00521.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunn Cavelty, M. (2013). From cyber-bombs to political fallout: Threat representations with an impact in the cyber-security discourse. International Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12023.
  7. European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA). (2012). Cyber Europe 2012, key findings report, European Union Agency for Network and Information Security.Google Scholar
  8. Hansen, L., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Digital disaster, cyber security and the Copenhagen School (2009). International Studies Quarterly, 53, 1155–1175. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2567410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harknett, R., & Stever, J. A. (2009). The cybersecurity triad: Government, private sector partners, and the engaged cybersecurity citizen. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Lobato, C. L., & Kenkel K. M. (2015). Discourses of cyberspace securitization in Brazil and in the United States. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 58(2), 23–43. Available at http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbpi/v58n2/0034-7329-rbpi-58-02-00023.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moore, T. (2010). Introducing the economics of cybersecurity: Principles and policy options. National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine (NAP).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Newmeyer, K. P. (2015). Elements of national cybersecurity strategy for developing nations. National Cybersecurity Institute Journal, 1(3), 9–19. Excelsior College, Albany.Google Scholar
  13. Saco, D. (1999). Colonizing cyberspace: “National security” and the Internet. In J. Weldes, M. Laffey, H. Gusterson, & R. Duvall (Eds.), Cultures of insecurity: States, communities, and the production of danger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Šaljić, E., & Đorđević, Z. (2011). Modern forms of terroism [!] environmental terrorism. Retrieved from https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?lang=eng&id=30223.Google Scholar
  15. Świątkowska, J., et al. (2012). V4 cooperation in ensuring cyber security – Analysis and recommendations. Krákow: Koscluszko Institute.Google Scholar
  16. UNIDIR. (2013). The cyber index. International security trends and realities. Geneva: UNIDIR, United Nations Institute for DIsarmament Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American University in the EmiratesDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Ministry of Internal AffairsPodgoricaMontenegro

Section editors and affiliations

  • Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.American University in the EmiratesDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations