Picture Source: AUN News
Bhattacharya, A. (2022). Cyber-diplomacy in International Negotiations: Rules, Risks, and Rewards. Advocacy Unified Network. https://doi.org/10.57939/CB5E-R326
How does Cyber-diplomacy impact international negotiations? What are the challenges associated with it? What is the future of Cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations? Are there any rules governing it? These are just some of the questions that are answered in this comprehensive guide to Cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations. We also examine whether or not the exact needs to be regulated and why it will likely remain a fixture of international affairs long into the future.
The worlds of diplomacy and technology have collided with the rise of cyber-diplomacy—the use of technology in international negotiations to achieve diplomatic goals, as well as to provide data and insight into foreign governments, organizations, and individuals involved in global conflicts. Cyber-diplomacy was popularized during the Arab Spring of 2011 when protesters used social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to organize demonstrations and share information about political issues in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Today, cyber-diplomacy continues to play an essential role in international affairs; however, it faces several challenges that threaten its continued effectiveness in the future.
A Brief History of Cyber-diplomacy and International Negotiations
In the first international treaty drafted to curb violence on a global scale, the United Nations was created as a platform for cooperation between member states. The advent of the UN coincided with a newly born interest in Cybersecurity and Cyber-diplomacy. Cyber-diplomacy has been around since at least as early as 1985 when the then US Secretary of State George Shultz met with China’s Communist leader Hu Yaobang to open diplomatic ties between Washington and Beijing that were severed after the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Now it’s taking an important role in international negotiations, but not without risks or rewards.
Alongside internet governance, other topics could potentially be addressed by discussions focused on Cyber-diplomacy. One is a liability, and another is security: who’s responsible if there’s hacking? Should we continue trusting the private industry to safeguard data? How can we guarantee privacy when so much of our personal information is transferred through the web? In case of a problem, who is responsible?
Finally, what other challenges are associated with it (e.g., is there a lack of transparency)? What might happen if this subject becomes more widespread, and how will this affect how countries approach negotiating agreements? For instance, two years ago, Russia threatened to cut off access to Google products in protest against Ukraine’s pro-European Union regime. If other countries use similar tactics, the world economy could be chaotic. Cyber-diplomacy will also provide new opportunities for exploitation – identity theft, corporate espionage, manipulating elections – that must be considered during future negotiations. As talks surrounding sovereignty and data privacy evolve internationally, new rules and regulations may need to be developed sooner rather than later.
Current Status – A Preface
Although it’s unclear if the term Cyber-diplomacy exists, digital diplomacy is all too familiar and happening worldwide. Countries such as Russia, France, China, and the United States are leading their efforts to engage diplomatically with other countries through channels that don’t have many regulations. When it comes to international relations in this era of increased use of technology by all nations around the world — which often utilize cyber tools for everything from data theft to dissemination of propaganda — negotiations will always be an area where many challenges arise.
What are your thoughts on what’s happening right now? Are there any specific examples where the lack of regulation has impacted international negotiations? What impact does Cyber-diplomacy have on international agreements and diplomacy? Does this issue require new legislation/regulation to address its concerns? Should we expect more agreements on Cybersecurity and Cyber-diplomacy?
Below we will outline some challenges for Cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations and its risks. We will also explore what the future holds for cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations and whether or not there is a need for regulation regarding Cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations. The impact of Cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations can vary depending on how it is used. China utilized cyber weapons during a dispute over islands between Japan and Taiwan back in 2010, which caused significant damage to computers belonging to both nations’ governments, military organizations, businesses, and citizens. Even today’s most innocuous exchange of information can put sensitive data at risk for those who don’t understand the risk involved when sending e-mails, text messages, or talking about important information over Skype or social media sites like Facebook.
Role of Cyber-diplomacy in Today’s International Negotiations
Diplomacy is an integral part of international negotiations. Cyber-diplomacy has changed the nature of traditional diplomacy to new heights. Cyber-diplomacy can enable negotiators to understand better the other party’s demands and expectations before formal negotiations. It also allows deeper dialogue between parties in ways that would be difficult or impossible with conventional means of diplomacy. Parties using cyber-diplomacy strategies must be mindful of the challenges they may face while utilizing these methods, such as espionage, lack of verification, and non-scalable limitations on communication networks. Despite these drawbacks, cyber-mediaries are gaining more traction due to growing comfort among political leaders using this method for communication with one another on social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook or chatrooms like Skype.
Cyber-diplomacy does not have any formal rules or regulations governing it at this time. As a result, there is a risk of interference from third parties, which could hinder progress made by governments during negotiations. The future of cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations will depend primarily on whether these risks outweigh its rewards. At this point, it is unclear what direction cyber-diplomacy will take in international negotiations. Regardless, we can say that it has impacted how states interact with each other to establish diplomatic relations.
Examples of how cyber-diplomacy impacts international negotiations include when Iran released US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl without any pre-conditions. President Obama had a personal connection with him via Twitter; Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted about nuclear negotiations after meeting with President Obama in 2013. These examples illustrate how cyber-diplomacy can positively and negatively impact international negotiations.
Benefits from Today’s Global Adoption of Digital Diplomacy
Since the founding of the United Nations back in 1945, it has grown from 51 members to 193 member states. As the UN continues to grow and new nations are welcomed into its fold each year, this creates an opportunity for digital diplomacy. In fact, three significant benefits can be attained through today’s global adoption of digital diplomacy.
- The first benefit is a more extraordinary voice on international issues. Because diplomatic exchanges take place over a computer screen as opposed to by letter or by a phone call. This creates more of an open dialogue where nations with differing opinions can have conversations openly instead of retreating behind a wall where they once were when using old methods of communication like letters or telephone calls.
- Second, digital diplomacy lets governments track other cultures’ nuances and understand their values better.
- Third, this form of diplomacy eliminates physical barriers, so international negotiations between two countries will no longer be hindered by physical distance (and time). Many people might not realize how valuable the third point is but think about how difficult it would be if you had to fly overseas to speak with someone face-to-face. With cyber-diplomacy, all you need is an internet connection.
So what are some challenges associated with cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations? How do we regulate it? Do we need regulations regarding cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations? Nothing currently regulates cyber-diplomacy use, but many government officials are pushing for newer laws. And even though diplomats use cyberspace, those who participate still run risks such as hacking attacks and data loss which can result in theft of sensitive information and may pose some long-term economic risks.
Negative Impact on Today’s Global Politics
Most cyberspace experts agree that cyber-diplomacy will grow to impact more and more international negotiations. Some experts worry that the practice of cyber diplomacy may lead to war or unrest where it is practiced. One challenge associated with cyberspace diplomacy is hackers looking for loopholes or vulnerabilities in our systems so they can steal confidential information. Cyber weapons are also a cause for concern, as any country may use them against other countries during diplomatic negotiations. However, many countries still don’t feel they have control over what goes on in cyberspace. Therefore, they want new regulations regarding cyber diplomacy to include them, so they know what their governments are doing. And even if there were rules governing cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations, such laws would need to cover both traditional and digital warfare, meaning that states would need to change how they conduct diplomatic talks.
As technology continues to advance, leaders and diplomats will have to adjust accordingly, using cyber-diplomacy as an effective tool to protect national interests in the future. To do this, nations must work together internationally to develop a global agreement to regulate this type of diplomacy. However, at this point, no such agreement exists; thus, cyber-diplomacy could potentially negatively impact today’s international politics. There are indeed risks and rewards related to cyber-diplomacy. For example, while some might argue that it takes away from the personal touch of face-to-face conversations between diplomats, others believe that most of these conversations only happen after more private interactions like e-mail exchanges have established trust.
It’s unclear what precisely the role of cyber diplomacy will be in global politics today. Still, one thing remains certain – technological advances such as increased internet access in rural areas and mobile devices – will continue to make their mark on how we communicate globally. The importance of emerging technologies cannot be denied when considering all possible impacts of cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations.
Need For Regulations To Govern Cyber diplomacy In International Negotiations
The United States is taking new steps to protect critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. President Obama issued an executive order on the subject Thursday. He called for the government to do more to improve the resilience of its systems but also authorized a broad expansion of research into offensive cyberweapons. That could prove problematic not only because it might spur other countries to do the same but also because it could open up new opportunities for international interference. The problem is broader than just America’s infrastructure; as Americans’ reliance on smart devices increases, they are likely to become more vulnerable to hacking and surveillance by foreign actors—many of whom may have fewer qualms about using that power than the US does. One answer to this challenge is establishing rules governing cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations.
Russia and China already restrict internet access at home, while Iran has been accused of launching malicious software attacks against banks outside its borders. These practices could soon be emulated elsewhere, making the internet a less free and open space for all users. Cyberspace presents two particular challenges for cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations. First, cyberspace is not limited by physical geography. Cyber activities can take place across any number of jurisdictions with minimal consequences or accountability. Second, cyberspace lacks many traditional safeguards that exist in the world offline, such as universal language and cultural norms or diplomatic immunity privileges enjoyed by representatives abroad.
No single global law governs what nations should and should not do in cyberspace. In theory, everything is permitted–except that most states comply with specific common standards when engaging in cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations. For example, diplomats use encrypted communication channels to ensure privacy. Such communications would still be protected if intercepted because their contents would remain unreadable without the proper encryption key–a device available only to those who have the legal authority to use it. And yet these so-called cyber waves of peace cannot help if a state wishes to conduct espionage online: spying on another country’s secrets requires breaking into their network or computer system–something far too easy for anyone with rudimentary skills.
Challenges Faced by Countries Due to Lack Of Regulation In The Same
Currently, there are no regulations governing Cyber-diplomacy regarding international negotiations. For example, China may be targeting the US Department of Defense with hacking attacks because there are no rules to prevent this. Similarly, the US may not be able to hit back because there are no rules in place. If regulations had been put into place ahead of time (such as not using hacking methods), the lack of them could have minimized the vulnerability at hand from being exploited. In addition, if rules were implemented that outlined consequences for various actions taken during a cyber attack or offense in cyberspace, things would have been better regulated.
The stakes of cyber-diplomacy can’t just remain unregulated without any risk. The future of cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations will depend on whether there is a regulation or not. There is the potential for abuse due to these risks without some form of regulation, but without them, the potential dangers will remain unresolved. What’s The Future Of Cyber-diplomacy In International Negotiations? As Cyber-diplomacy continues to evolve, there is a need for clear rules and guidelines to avoid security issues that arise from a lack of governance. Without them, countries will continue facing challenges due to the lack of regulation in this field.
To explore further what impact cyber-diplomacy has on international negotiations, let’s take a look at the following three examples where the impact was felt:
1) Ukraine has faced Russian hackers who targeted their power grid, gas system, finance system, airport, and other critical infrastructure;
2) Estonia faced systematic denial of service attacks by Russia;
3) Iraq could not defend itself against an Islamic State incursion until it bought Russian anti-aircraft weapons. These scenarios show how important cyber warfare is in world politics today.
Do you feel this issue requires new legislation/regulation to address its concerns? Should we expect more agreements pertaining to Cybersecurity and Cyber-diplomacy? Yes, we should expect to see more agreements made concerning the cybersecurity and cyber-diplomacy fields. Countries should begin drafting laws for these fields so that risks don’t go unanswered. There is currently very little regulation regarding hacking, which leads many countries to face challenges and a lack of regulation in this area. Additionally, one way people can attempt to avoid conflict is through diplomatic negotiation – however, without sufficient laws and regulations surrounding cyberwarfare, negotiation will always be risky. Without explicit limits set up beforehand, such as not using specific tactics such as hacks and denial of service attacks, these methods may become rampant and cause problems among other nations worldwide.
There are many challenges that countries face when it comes to cyber-diplomacy, ranging from security risks to privacy concerns. But as mentioned before, cyber-diplomacy has given way to new opportunities for state and non-state actors. The risk is minimal when compared to the potential rewards of this emerging form of diplomacy. And while there may be more hurdles to overcome, the future of cyber-diplomacy looks promising.
Future Ahead For Cyber-diplomacy In International negotiations
Many experts are starting to believe that cyber-diplomacy is the future of international negotiations. Every day, a new hacking scandal seems to make headlines and pose security risks for our institutions. Cyber attacks threaten government systems more than ever, but it’s more than just about ‘hacking.’
Cyber security has become so advanced that negotiations are sometimes done through e-mail or Skype. With all the technological advances over the years cyber diplomacy may not be far off. It will take some time before we have concrete rules governing cyber-diplomacy. Still, its undeniable impact is already showing as we’re simultaneously experiencing new risks and gaining more unique benefits. There are still many challenges associated with cyber-diplomacy, such as: How do you ensure trustworthiness? How do you avoid dead ends? What’s the right way to conduct dialogue without being hacked? The world will continue to change as quickly as technologies themselves, but while this paper might only scratch the surface of what’s possible, the possibilities seem endless!
With cyber-attacks becoming more prominent, robust, and innovative with each passing day–it’s no wonder they are disrupting everything from how people communicate to how elections are held. An example from history would be if President Trump’s Twitter account were hacked after he tweeted an insult directed towards Kim Jong Un — who would tell him that his account had been compromised?
All things considered, we must begin acknowledging digital platforms for what they truly represent: A form of communication between state actors moving forward. The idea of cyber-diplomacy started with the United States Department of State using e-mail back in 1991 to coordinate the global response to Hurricane Andrew. Some countries, including Russia and China, ban social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube because they use these sites as a tool for democracy promotion (which undermines their authoritarian regimes). Other countries have yet to develop significant policies concerning online communications and thus rely on international law principles when dealing with cyberspace issues (Krekel 1). Still, others have enacted legislation regulating or restricting online free speech (Krekel 2). As Krekel noted in her report: In order to promote democratic values worldwide and advance human rights enshrined in national constitutions, the US.
There are many new and exciting ways for diplomats to engage with one another that could significantly improve international negotiations. For example, suppose a trade negotiation or an issue with another country’s representatives was stalled. In that case, the diplomats could take their conversation to the next level by using digital diplomacy on social media sites. However, as enticing as these advancements are, they come with risks, such as cyberterrorism or tampering with the diplomatic process. But so long as those risks can be mitigated and proper regulations are set up for how cyber-diplomacy is used in international negotiations—and rules about who has access to which social media channels are followed—digital diplomacy will help push governments around the world into a future where all nations work together peacefully.
As stated before, digital diplomacy isn’t meant to replace physical meetings but should supplement them. Digital diplomacy would allow leaders across the globe to continue talking and finding common ground even when not physically present at conferences together. This means they would have more time to discuss issues personally and more time to consider ideas being presented from both sides—because sometimes all you need is a little downtime between meetings. It also means that leaders wouldn’t have as much pressure on themselves during sessions because they don’t feel like any one meeting is a make or break for an entire nation or set of people. With less pressure on them, they might be able to find compromises more easily.
We must explore every option regarding international negotiations because lives are at stake. We can’t afford to give up on ourselves or others just because something may seem difficult or too far out of reach. That makes us human; we’re problem solvers, builders, thinkers, and innovators – giving up never crossed our minds!
I like to think that, without a doubt, if a way is created for digital diplomacy or cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations, it will help minimize conflicts and further relationships between governments. How great would it be if leaders could tweet each other and then grab coffee together rather than start their relationship by sitting across from one another with tension? Those meetings could start more quickly than some people think—they wouldn’t even need a policy set in place about whether digital diplomacy would be allowed for diplomatic meetings. Instead, diplomats would turn off their digital devices before entering face-to-face meetings to avoid accidentally making digital noise.
Cyber-diplomacy in International Negotiations Rules, Risks, and Rewards
Konstantin Badygin. The Challenges of Cyber-Diplomacy (October 5, 2016). The Diplomat. What’s the Future of Cyber-Diplomacy in International Negotiations? November 11, 2017. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law. The Right to Privacy in Cyberspace: Moving Beyond a Status Quo for Developing Countries What are the challenges associated with cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations? There is no concrete set of rules that govern this form of diplomacy. Carnegie Mellon University’s Principles outline some guidelines on Conduct in Cyberspace, but nations or governing bodies have not fully adopted these.
Dina Esfandiary. The Future of Cyber Diplomacy is Not Set In Stone. May 1, 2017. Columbia University Center for Science & Global Security. Are there any rules governing cyber-diplomacy in international negotiations?
Chinn K. The Four Types of Cyber Attacks Under International Law and Their Applicability. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law. 2012. Vol 39, Issue 2
Rafael Cárdenas. Cyber-Terrorism and International Law. Legal Issues Surrounding IT Security in Telecommunications Systems
Author: Arindam Bhattacharya
Chairman, Advocacy Unified Network