Cyberspace: An Anarchic System in an Anarchic World Order

 According to Kenneth Waltz, states are invariably stuck in the vicious circle of fear about the intentions of other states. Fear is a tool which makes Realists deliberate on the conditions of violence and war. Anarchy is a whereabout of fear and state behavior is majorly driven by the race for competition. With the technological inventions, the world order has changed considerably. With new inventions, both the desire for cooperation and fear have constantly been increasing. The cyber-world has been progressing at a fast pace, finding new methods to withstand the changing world. Cyber threats and espionage are not only giving challenges to the world but scholars and researchers also are finding it hard to understand the emergence of fears and their association with anarchy. In the previous two blogs, I dealt with the referent object, securitizing actor, threat objects, means, audience and various other things of Cyberspace. Secondly, I dealt with the emerging threats, entrants and also changing patterns of referent object, threat object and securitizing actor. This particular blog would be covering the aspects of cyberspace security, cyber terrorism and invisible anarchy and understanding of International Relations theories such as Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism in the changing order of threats emerging from cyberspace. 

The internet of things is deeply rooted in our system, civil society, governance and decision making, critical infrastructure (deeply dealt with in the previous blog), trade and commerce, intelligence assimilation, judiciary and various other spheres creating diverse opinions, expectations, interests and threats. Moreover, it has allowed us to communicate with other actors, express their concerns, exchange ideas, cooperation and manipulative movements, etc. The internet, however, provides the same information to everyone without discriminating people, it has also allowed actors and non-state actors to share ideas and spread their concerns. The invisible boundaries of cyberspace are a major cause of concern for actors, eroding their sovereignty, leakages of government’s critical decisions and declassifying sensitive information undertaken by enemy governments, state-sponsored hacking groups, multinational companies, a person sitting in his room, or by a teenager. Having so many uncertainties and fears offered by the cyberspace domain we must look at the views of various international theories assuming anarchy as the prevailing order in the existing world. 

For Realists, the state acts as the main actor in the international arena. This assumption ignores the existence of non-state actors. However, in cyberspace, the non-state actors also play an equally significant role. The hacktivists (a more benign form of the term 'hacker') are the people who perform hacktivism by misusing computers and networks. Their main notion is to draw people’s attention to something which they perceive important in society. Usually, they target the tyrannical elements, expose them and reveal to people all their wrongdoings. Anonymous, WikiLeaks, Lulz Security, Syrian Electronic troops, etc, are a few names of hacktivist groups. Recently, the prominent ‘anonymous’ group supported the Ukrainian government against the ongoing war with Russia. This reflects the importance of non-state actors in the emerging cyber domain. Regarding the National security policy, the realist thinks of maximizing power, increasing arms and weapons, building alliances and preparing for war. In the cyber domain, all this is possible. Being the nature of cyberspace itself anarchical, it offers a state with strong potential to gather power without even involving in physical warfare. The realist concept of self-help (the only way of state's survival) in an anarchic world order can be fully satisfied in an anarchical domain of cyberspace where every state would have the power to counter enemy states from exploiting it. This would perhaps then further the level of fear and ambivalence about the intentions of other states. Regarding the balance of power, there are chances that in the age of complete cyberspace, there would be no hegemony and existence of a hegemon since technology is not an immovable domain nor it can be trapped at a geographical location. This would give rise to a multipolar world with non-state actors playing a relatively significant role in deciding the world order and related decisions. Moreover, to challenge a hegemon in a cyber world, the aggressive states would spend more on cyber technology to gain asymmetrical power. For instance, in the case of the US, the rival countries to challenge the US dominance and hegemony would better work upon their cyber capabilities except military capabilities to pose a significant challenge without ever going into physical warfare. 

James Adams in an article called “virtual defense” called cyberspace an emerging battlefield. The Rand Corporation also warned about the cyberwar and mentioned that “cyberwar is coming”. Among various other predictions, one recently is of British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, calling to enhance its cyber power. He compared the development of airpower relatively a hundred years back to cyber power at present. The revolutionary cyber power is changing the way we live, behave and fight. The offensive Russian invasion of Ukraine initially involved cyberwar glimpses; however, it has been largely a conventional war to date. This conventionality has also been majorly reflective in Ukraine’s response to Russia. But the response of patriotic hackers and hacktivists paved the way for non-state actors in a realist assumed anarchical world order with the assistance of anarchical domain cyberspace. The use of the first cyber worm or virus called “Stuxnet '' against Iran’s nuclear plants (previously mentioned in the first blog) showed the government-sponsored cyber-attack on the critical infrastructures of other governments. State-sponsored cyberattacks in this sense would palpably give rise (in the realist terms) to increasing fear, mistrust, misunderstanding and harmful intentions between and among states.

As initially mentioned in this piece, the emergence of non-state actors such as Anonymous, WikiLeaks, Lulz Security, etc, in the domain of cyberspace, would fall in a parallel assumption revolving around the liberal understanding of International Relations and the existence of anarchy. The Liberal side’s probable focus would be around the multiplexity of actors and their involvement in bringing peace and cooperation in cyber conflicts. For unrecognized non-state actors in the realists' understanding, it would be comparatively hard to build their states by conventional means, for instance by maintaining armies, collecting weapons and other material means. However, in the cyber domain, for them to achieve cyber superiority over powerful states would cost relatively less. Therefore, the low cost of entry in the cyber world compared to gaining conventional war tactics and power would maximize the entry of new non-state entrants. In the cyber battlefield, even a weaker state can pose enough challenges to a strong state and probably become a threatening agent. The fact that states own most of the resources, influence and technology can be counterargued as non-state actors can easily exploit such resources of governments given that little expertise in the cyber domain. 

As the Liberalism theory argues, cooperation can never be prevented by anarchy and notions of the security dilemma, however, both of them can inhibit it. The first strike capability to end the security dilemma (which seeks to ensure no retaliation from the other side once an oppressive full-fledged military strike is made against that state), finds no place in the cyber domain. Given that, the states and nonstate actors are unaware of the cyber-attacks of other states or non-state actors. Thus, making it hard for the ‘first striker’ to completely obliterate and disconnect the other from the world and leaving it in no condition to retaliate. Anticipating the cyber-attack and cyber-attack aided other physical attacks such as the launch of missiles becomes comprehensively hard. Cyber security’s security dilemma, under the liberal understanding, can be tackled with the creation of international institutions.

The constructivists' understanding of anarchy and constructivists' observations about the internet might offer us a few unique perspectives on the coming cyber conflicts. As the constructivists see the relations between two states based on identities and interests; based on these assumptions they can probably argue about the internet having its own identity and self-evolved. About the emerging cyber conflicts, their understanding would largely deal with the reasons for the emergence of such conflicts. Moreover, to find out why and how materials such as software, hardware and viruses are used against each other and by people? Since the effects of anarchy are dependent on the intersubjective meanings we associate with it, the same can be said about cyberspace anarchy. 

The constructivist assumption is that there exist certain norms and values and, in their absence, fear emerges within an anarchical system. If there is continuous interaction (in the cyber world interactions can be provided by cyber technology) between the states it is possible to uproot the fear. In this context, the anonymous hacking group could be seen as fighting for the rights of safeguarding internet rights, freedom of speech (both online and offline), and censorship of information in any part of the world. 

The growing cyber technology is playing a greater role in wars against enemies, in offices to education; public, private to individual life etc. The role played by hacktivists, cyber militia and professional hackers including patriot hackers is dominant and growing. With this, the role of non-state actors is influenceable growing. Their dominant position in the world today is recognizable given the domain of cyberspace and its anarchical condition. The domain’s anarchical situation seeks collective efforts and cooperation from all the states, international institutions and non-state actors. Furthermore, it requires sharing of all types of information on how to tackle coming cyber conflicts, without showing any unwillingness or hesitation. States need to share all the cybersecurity-related information without prioritizing their self-interests and cyber technology. In such a cooperative situation, the cyber attackers, traitors and infringers of cyber security laws can easily be identified and punished.  

 

References: -

The Economic Times. n.d. “Britain Must Boost Cyber-Attack Capacity, PM Boris Johnson Says.” Accessed May 5, 2022. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/britain-must-boost-cyber-attack-capacity-pm-boris-johnson-says/articleshow/81491005.cms?from=mdr.

‌Rand Corporation. 2019. “Cyber Warfare.” Rand.org. 2019. https://www.rand.org/topics/cyber-warfare.html.

‌Adams, James. 2001. “Virtual Defense.” Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs Magazine. May 2001. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2001-05-01/virtual-defense.

‌“What Is Hacktivism?” n.d. SearchSecurity. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/hacktivism#:~:text=During%20this%20initiative%2C%20a%20member.

‌“Realism in the Age of Cyber Warfare.” 2021. Ethics & International Affairs. April 26, 2021. https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2021/realism-in-the-age-of-cyber-warfare/.