The Role of Brics in The International ICT Security Regime
https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2024-1-54-82
Abstract
The ubiquitous implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is giving rise to cross-border security threats that require joint international responses. Fragmentation and growing conflict in the global information space complicate international cooperation within the UN to form a comprehensive global information security regime. Western countries actively support the formation of a cyber security regime based on Western values and promoted as a general initiative of the international community, without taking the position of developing countries into account. An alternative approach focused on securing digital sovereignty is being promoted by many non-Western negotiating platforms, among which the BRICS occupies an important place. This article aims to assess the potential of the BRICS influence on the international ICT security regime and the main directions of the association’s activities in this area. In this paper, the BRICS ICT security agenda is studied on the basis of official documents of the association’s annual summits and the main commitments made by the member countries. The discourse analysis of the strategic planning documents of the BRICS countries allows to identify their priorities in this area, and to assess the potential for the implementation of these obligations at the BRICS level. All the BRICS countries focus on ensuring ICT sovereignty. However, Russia, India, and China consider digital development and ICT security as the most important area of state policy and international cooperation. They are also more advanced when it comes to digital technologies compared to the other BRICS countries, which means they are more vulnerable. In turn, Brazil and South Africa do not consider this area as a priority, placing greater emphasis on ICT development, access to technology, and bridging the digital divide. However, all five countries are interested in solving the problem of extremism and terrorism in the digital sphere, which is also a promising area for BRICS multilateral cooperation. A study of the voting of the BRICS countries in the UN and an analysis of their participation in alternative initiatives in the formation of a cyber security regime promoted by Western countries showed the high efficiency of BRICS as a negotiating platform. Its main contribution in this respect is the development of a common position on the norms and principles of the international information security regime and their support at the UN level. Thus, BRICS can make a constructive contribution to the formation of the norms and principles of the international ICT security regime based on the principles of respect for state sovereignty, the internationalization of internet governance, and combatting to the criminal use of ICTs. An important advantage of BRICS in this area is the possibility of aggregating the interests and positions of developing countries.
About the Authors
E. S. Zinovieva
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena S. Zinovieva – Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor
76, Prospect Vernadskogo Moscow, 119454
A. A. Ignatov
MGIMO University;
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander A. Ignatov – Postgraduate Student, Research Fellow, Center for Research of International Institutions
76, Prospect Vernadskogo Moscow, 119454
84, Prospect Vernadskogo Moscow, 103274
References
1. Abdenur A. 2017. Can BRICS Cooperate in International Security? Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij. No. 12(3). P. 73–95.
2. Alpeev A. S. 2014. Terminologiia bezopasnosti: kiberbezopasnost', informatsionnaia bezopasnost' [Terminology of Security: Cybersecurity, Information Security]. Voprosy kiberbezopasnosti. No.5(8). P. 39–42. (In Russian).
3. Belli L. (Ed.) 2021. CyberBRICS: Cybersecurity Regulations in the BRICS Countries. Cham: Springer Nature. 280 p.
4. Bezkorovajnyj M. M., Tatuzov A. L. 2014. Kiberbezopasnost' - podkhody k opredeleniiu poniatiia [Cybersecurity: Approaches to the Definition]. Voprosy kiberbezopasnosti. No. 1(2). P. 22–27. (In Russian).
5. Boiko S. M. 2019. Problematika mezhdunarodnoi informatsionnoi bezopasnosti na ploshchadkakh ShOS i BRIKS [Problems of International Information Security at the SCO and BRICS Plat forms]. Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'. No. 1. P. 1–22. (In Russian).
6. Bukht R., Hiks R. 2018. Opredelenie, konceptsiya i izmerenie tsifrovoi ekonomiki [Defining, Conceptualising and Measuring the Digital Economy]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacii. No. 13(2). P. 143–172. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2018-02-07
7. Chikhachev A. Y. 2022. Rossiisko-francuzskie otnosheniia pri prezidente Jemmaniuele Makrone: dostizhenia i protivorechia [Russia–France Relations During E. Macrons’s Term: Achievements and Challenges]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University. International Relations. 15. P. 86–104. (In Russian).
8. Hurel L. M., Lobato L. C. 2020. Cyber security in Brazil: keeping silos or building bridges? In: S. N. Romaniuk, M. Manjikian (Eds.) Routledge Companion to Global Cyber-security Strategy. London: Routledge. 656 p.
9. Ignatov A. A. 2020. Tsifrovaya ekonomika v BRIKS: Perspektivy mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva [The Digital Economy of BRICS: Prospects for Multilateral Cooperation]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizatsii. No. 15(1). P. 31–62. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2020-01-02
10. Ignatov A. A. 2022. Upravlenie Internetom v povestke BRIKS [The BRICS Agenda on the Internet Governance]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizatsii. No. 17(2). P. 86–109. (In Russian). DOI:10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04
11. Kadulin V. E., Klochkova E. N. 2017. Sootnoshenie ponyatii “informacionnaya bezopasnost'” i “kiberbezopasnost'” v sovremennom pravovom pole [Correlation of the Terms “Information Security” and “Cybersecurity” in Modern International Law]. Voprosy kiberbezopasnosti. No. 2(20). P. 7–10. (In Russian).
12. Karchija A. A. 2014. Kiberbezopasnost' i intellektual'naia sobstvennost'. Chast' 1 [Cybersecurity and Intellectual Property. Part 1]. Voprosy kiberbezopasnosti. 1(2). P. 61–66. (In Russian).
13. Karpova D. N. 2014. Kiberprestupnost': global'naia problema i ee reshenie [Cybersecurity: Global Problem and Solution]. Vlast'. No. 8. P. 46–50. (In Russian).
14. Khabrieva T. Y., Rujpin, D. (Eds.) 2017. Kiberprostranstvo BRIKS: pravovoe izmerenie [BRICS Cyberdomain: Legislative Framework]. Moscow: Institut zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniia pri Pravitel'stve Rossiiskoi Federacii. 336 p. (In Russian).
15. Kirton J., Wang A. X. 2022. China’s Complex Leadership in G20 and Global Governance: From Hangzhou 2016 to Kunming 2021. Chinese Political Science Review. No. 8. P. 331–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00213-9
16. Krasner S. 1982. Regimes and the limits of realism: Regimes as autonomous variables. International Organization. No. 36(2). P. 497–510.
17. Krutskikh A. V. 2007. K politiko-pravovym osnovaniiam global'noi informacionnoi bezopasnosti [On the Political and Normative Foundations of Global Information Security]. Mezhdunarodnye process. No. 5(1;13). P. 28–37. (In Russian).
18. Krutskikh A. V. 2022. Mezhdunarodnaia informacionnaia bezopasnost': v poiskah konsolidirovannyh podhodov [International Information Security: In Search for Consolidated Approaches]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. No. 22(2). P. 342–351. (In Russian).
19. Krutskikh A. V., Streltsov A. A. 2014. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i problema obespecheniya mezhdunarodnoi informacionnoi bezopasnosti [International Law and the Issue of International Information Security Provision]. The International Affairs. No. 11. P. 20–34. (In Russian).
20. Kuznetsov D. A. 2020. Setevaya tekstura mirovoi politiki: transregionalizm BRIKS [Network Texture of World Politics: Transregionalism of BRICS]. World Economy and International Relations. No. 64(11). P. 124–131. (In Russian).
21. Larionova M. V., Ignatov A. A., Popova I. M., Saharov A. G., Shelepov A. V. 2020. Desiat' let BRIKS: chto dal'she? [BRICS at Ten: The Way Forward]. Moscow: Delo. 73 p. (In Russian).
22. Lebedeva M. M., Kuznetsov D. A. 2019. Transregionalizm – novyi fenomen mirovoi politiki. [Transregional Integration as a New Phenomenon of World Politics: Nature and Prospects]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 5. P. 71–84. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.05.06
23. Lesazh D. 2014. Tekushhaya programma deistvii «Gruppy dvadcati» v sfere nalogooblozheniya: ispolnenie objazatel'stv, otchetnost' i legitimnost' [The Current G20 Taxation Agenda: Compliance, Accountability and Legitimacy]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizatsii. No. 9(4). P. 40–54. (In Russian).
24. Malyuk A. A., Polyanskaya O. Y. 2016. Zarubezhnyi opyt formirovaniya v obshhestve kul'tury informacionnoi bezopasnosti [Fostering Information Security Culture: International Experience]. Bezopasnost' informacionnyh tehnologij. No. 23(4). P. 25–37. (In Russian).
25. Massel' L. V., Voropaj N. I., Senderov S. M., Massel' A. G. 2016. Kiberopasnost' kak odna iz strategicheskih ugroz jenergeticheskoi bezopasnosti Rossii [Cybersecurity as One of Strategic Threats to Russia’s Energy Security]. Voprosy kiberbezopasnosti. No. 4(17). P. 1–10. (In Russian).
26. Mikhalevich E. A. 2017. Rossiysko-kitajskoe vzaimodeistvie po obespecheniu bezopasnosti v kiberprostranstve v ramkah BRIKS [Russia–China Cooperation in Cybersecurity Provision within BRICS]. Svobodnaja mysl'. No. 6(1684). P. 155–160. (In Russian).
27. Orji U. J. 2018. The African Union Convention on Cybersecurity: A Regional Response Towards Cyber Stability? Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. No. 12(2). P. 91–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2018-2-1
28. Panova V. V. 2015. Problemy bezopasnosti i perspektivy sammita BRIKS v Ufe [The BRICS Security Agenda and Prospects for the BRICS Ufa Summit]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacii. No. 10(2). P. 119–139. (In Russian).
29. Perminov V. A. 2019. Sektor informacionno-kommunikacionnyh tehnologii Brazilii: istoriya, sovremennoe polozhenie i tendencii razvitiua [Information and Communication Technologies Sector in Brazil: History, Current State of Affairs, and Development Prospects]. Ekonomicheskie otnosheniya. No. 9(3). P. 1519–1532. (In Russian).
30. Romashkina N. P. 2020. Problema mezhdunarodnoi informacionnoi bezopasnosti v OON [International Information Security Issue at the UN]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 64(12). P. 25–32. (In Russian).
31. Romashkina N. P., Zadremajlova V. G. 2020. Evoljutsiya politiki KNR v oblasti informacionnoi bezopasnosti [China’s Information Security Policy Evolution]. Put' k miru i bezopasnosti. No. 1(58). P. 122–138. (In Russian). DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2020-1-122-138
32. Stadnik I. T., Tsvetkova N. A. 2021. Mesto i rol' stran Latinskoi Ameriki v sisteme mezhdunarodnoi i regional'noi kiberbezopasnosti [Latin American Countries Position Within Regional and Global Cybersecurity Systems]. Latinskaya Amerika. No. 4. P. 69–84. (In Russian).
33. Wang A. S. 2022. Model' liderstva Kitaya v BRIKS [China’s Leadership in BRICS Governance]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii. No. 17(2). (In Russian). P. 50–85. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-03
34. Zgoba A. I., Markelov D. V., Smirnov P. I. 2014. Kiberbezopasnost’: ugrozy, vyzovy, resheniya [Cybersecurity: Threats, Challenges, Solutions]. Voprosy kiberbezopasnosti. No. 5(8). P. 30–38. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Zinovieva E.S., Ignatov A.A. The Role of Brics in The International ICT Security Regime. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2024;3(1):54-82. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2024-1-54-82
Views:
13
Email this article 