intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2019.17.3.58.4intertrends-556Research ArticleАНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРИЗМЫANALYTICAL PRISMSКиберсдерживание и цифровая дилемма безопасности в американском экспертном дискурсеConcepts of Cyberdeterrence and Digital Security Dilemma in the US Academic LiteratureЗиновьеваЕленаZinovievaElena

Зиновьева Елена Сергеевна - доктор политических наук, доцент Кафедры мировых политических процессов, заместитель директора Центра международной информационной безопасности и научно-технологической политики МГИМО МИД России

Москва

Dr Elena Zinovieva - Associate Professor, Department of World Politics, Deputy Director, Center of International Information Security and Science and Technology Policy, MGIMO University

Moscow, 119454

zinovjeva@mail.ruМГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation2019120520251735165Copyright © Зиновьева Е., 20252025Зиновьева Е.Zinovieva E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/556

В условиях нарастания конфликтности в цифровой среде в современной научной литературе проявляется склонность анализировать данную сферу международных отношений с позиций политического реализма и с опорой на представления и концепции, сложившиеся в данной школе ещё в эпоху биполярного ядерного противостояния. Одним из наиболее проработанных и популярных теоретических направлений реализма является теория сдерживания. Авторитетные американские исследователи, такие как Дж. Най и М. Либики, а также ряд других авторов утверждают, что стратегия сдерживания по аналогии с ядерным сдерживанием, но с некоторыми модификациями, может быть использована и в отношении кибервооружений. В этой связи академическим сообществом был предложен и активно используется новый термин «киберсдерживание» (cyber-deterrence). Эти концептуальные построения находят своё отражение на уровне практической политики. В частности, согласно Стратегии национальной безопасности от 2017 года, США стремятся к сдерживанию конкурентов и противников в киберпространстве. Цель статьи заключается в научной критике американской концепции «киберсдерживания» путём рассмотрения её в контексте особенностей цифровой «дилеммы безопасности». Доказывается, что эти особенности настолько фундаментальны, что сдерживание в киберпространстве принципиально отличается от сдерживания в любой другой сфере международных отношений. При этом ни авторы концепции «киберсдерживания», ни политики, реализующие её на практике, этих особенностей не учитывают. Современные информационно-коммуникационные технологии принципиально отличаются от всех предыдущих технологий, что необходимо учитывать при их военном использовании. Аналитические категории, разработанные в период ядерного сдерживания, не могут применяться к цифровой среде без существенной модификации. В этой связи особенно востребованными становятся нормы ответственного поведения государств в глобальном информационном пространстве. Их выработка рассматривается в качестве одного из инструментов снижения конфликтности в данной области.

The global information space is conceptualized as a new battlefield, both in the research literature and in the strategic planning documents of states. In such analytical environment, there is a growing tendency to analyze international processes in the global information space from the standpoint of the theory of political realism, based on the ideas emerged in the “nuclear era”. One of the most developed theoretical concepts of realism is deterrence theory, which is aimed to overcome the limitations of the security dilemma. American political scientist R. Jervis was one of the founders of the both theoretical concepts, which were later revised by contemporary authors in relation to cyberspace. Contemporary researchers, including D. Nye and M. Libicki, as well as a number of other authors, argue that the deterrence strategy, by analogy with nuclear deterrence, is applicable to cyber weapons. In particular, they propose new term “cyber deterrence” (cyber-deterrence). Such conceptual constructions influence practical politics. According to the National Security Strategy of 2017, the United States is seeking implement a deterrence in cyberspace. The purpose of the article is to analyze the applicability of the cyber-deterrence concept to cyberspace in the US academic discourse based on the characteristics of the digital “security dilemma”. The article shows that cyber deterrence, by analogy with the nuclear one, can only exacerbate the security dilemma in digital space. Digital security dilemma is different from the security dilemma that exists in relation to other types of weapons, due to the specifics of information technologies whose offensive use is more effective rather than defensive, as well as the significant role of non-state actors, especially business. Thus, methodologically, this article proceeds from the fact that modern information and communication technologies are not inherently neutral, but have a certain set of characteristics that determine their military use and, as a result, affect modern international security. Under these conditions, the development of norms of responsible behavior of states in the global information space is considered as one of the tools to deter conflict in cyber space.

информационно-коммуникационные технологиимеждународная информационная безопасностьцифровая дилемма безопасностикиберсдерживаниеСШАinformation and communication technologiescyber securitydigital security dilemmacyber-deterrenceИсследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ и АНО ЭИСИ в рамках научного проекта No 19-011-31053 «Мегатренды мировой политики в ХХI веке: сферы проявления и развития».The research was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization EISI within the framework of the scientific project No. 19-011-31053 "Megatrends of World Politics in the 21st Century: Spheres of Manifestation and Development"ReferencesБолгов Р.В. Информационные технологии в современных вооруженных конфликтах и военных стратегиях (политические аспекты): Автореф. дис... канд. полит. наук. СПб.: СПбГУ, 2010. 38 c.Bolgov R.V. (2010). Informatsionnye tehnologii v sovremennyh vooruzhennyh konfliktah i voennyh strat e gijah (politicheskie aspekty). [Information Technologies in the Contemporary International Armed Conf licts (Political Aspects)]. PhD Dissertation. Saint-Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg State University. 38 p.Демидов О., Симоненко М. Пожар в киберпространстве // Индекс безопасности. 2013. № 1. С. 229–232.Borghard E.D., Lonergan S.W. (2016). Can States Calculate the Risks of Using Cyber Proxies? Orbis. No. 3. P. 395–416.Истомин И.А. Научное обеспечение внешней политики США: Автореф. дис. … канд. полит. наук. М.: МГИМО, 2012. 27 с.Brantly A. (2018). Conceptualizing Cyber Deterrence by Entanglement. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2624926Коротков А.В., Зиновьева Е.С. Безопасность критических информационных инфраструктур в международном гуманитарном праве // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2011. № 4. С. 154–162.Brantly A. F. (2018). The Cyber Deterrence Problem. 10th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon). IEEE. P. 31–54.Панарин И.Н. Информационная война и геополитика. М.: Поколение, 2006. 560 с.Brenner J. (2014). America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime, and Warfare. NY: Penguin Press. 320 p.Роговский Е.А. Кибер-Вашингтон: глобальные амбиции. М.: Международные отношения, 2014. 848 c. Шаклеина Т.А. Лидерство и современный мировой порядок // Международные процессы. 2015. № 4. С. 6–19.Buchanan B. (2016). The Cybersecurity Dilemma: Hacking, Trust, and Fear between Nations. Oxford University Press, 2016. 304 p.A Fierce Domain: Conflict in Cyberspace, 1986 to 2012. Ed. by J. Healey Cyber Conflict Studies Association, 2013. 356 p.Cavelty M.D. (2014). Breaking the Cyber-Security Dilemma: Aligning Security Needs and Removing Vulnerabilities. Science and Engineering Ethics. No. 3. P. 701–715.Borghard E.D., Lonergan S.W. Can States Calculate the Risks of Using Cyber Proxies? // Orbis. 2016. No. 3. P. 395–416.Clarke R.A., Knake R.K. (2014). Cyber War. Tantor Media, Incorporated. 136 p.Brenner J. America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime, and Warfare. NY: Penguin Press, 2014. 320 p.Cooper J. R. (2012). A New Framework for Cyber Deterrence. In Reveron D.S. (ed.) Cyberspace and National Security Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World. Washington: Georgetown University Press. P. 105–120.Brantly A.F. The Cyber Deterrence Problem // 2018 10th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon). IEEE, 2018. P. 31–54.Craig A., Valeriano B. (2016). Conceptualising Cyber Arms Races. 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon). IEEE. P. 141-158. URL: https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/Art-10-ConceptualisingCyber-Arms-Races.pdfBrantly A.F. Conceptualizing Cyber Deterrence by Entanglement (April 05, 2018). URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2624926Deibert R. (2015). Trajectories for Future Cybersecurity Research. In Gheciu A., Wohlforth W.C. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Perss, 2015. P. 531–556.Buchanan B. The Cybersecurity Dilemma: Hacking, Trust, and Fear between Nations. Oxford University Press, 2016. 304 p.Demidov O., Simonenko M. (2013). Pozhar v kiberprostranstve [Cyberspace on Fire]. Indeks bezopasnosti. No. 1. P. 229–232.Cavelty M.D. Breaking the Cyber-Security Dilemma: Aligning Security Needs and Removing Vulnerabilities // Science and Engineering Ethics. 2014. No. 3. P. 701–715.Finnemore M. (2019). Talking Past Each Other: Government, Business and Civil Society Discussing Cyber Security. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. Vol. 12. No. 5. P. 7–11.Clarke R.A., Knake R.K. Cyber War. Tantor Media, Incorporated, 2014. 136 p.Finnemore M., Hollis D.B. (2016). Constructing Norms for Global Cybersecurity. American Journal of International Law. Vol. 110. No. 3. P. 425–479.Cooper J.R. A New Framework for Cyber Deterrence // Cyberspace and National Security Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World. Ed. by D.S. Reveron. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2012. P. 105–120.Gaver W.W. (1991). Technology Affordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. P. 79–84.Craig A., Valeriano B. Conceptualising Cyber Arms Races // 2016 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon). IEEE, 2016. P. 141–158. URL: https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/Art-10Conceptualising-Cyber-Arms-Races.pdfGlaser C.L. (2011). Deterrence of Cyber Attacks and US National Security. Developing Cyber Security Synergy. Vol. 47. URL: http://www.offnews.info/downloads/2011-5CyberDeterrenceGlaser.pdfDeibert R. Trajectories for Future Cybersecurity Research. In The Oxford Handbook of International Security. Ed. by A. Gheciu and W. C. Wohlforth. Oxford: Oxford University Perss, 2015. P. 531–556.Healey J. (ed.) (2013). A Fierce Domain: Conflict in Cyberspace, 1986 to 2012. Cyber Conflict Studies Association. 356 p.Finnemore M. Talking Past Each Other: Government, Business and Civil Society Discussing Cyber Security // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2019. Т. 12. №5. C. 7–11.Herz J. H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World politics. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 157–180.Finnemore M., Hollis D.B. Constructing Norms for Global Cybersecurity // American Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 110. No. 3. P. 425–479.Istomin I. (2012). Nauchnoe obespechenie vneshnej politiki SShA. [Scientific support of the US foreign policy]. PhD Dissertation. Political Sciences.Gaver W.W. Technology Affordances // Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1991. P. 79–84.Jervis R. (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 167–214.Glaser C.L. Deterrence of Cyber Attacks and US National Security // Developing Cyber Security Synergy.Jervis R. (1989a). Rational Deterrence: Theory and Evidence. World Politics. Vol. 41. No. 2. P. 183–207. Jervis R. (2016). Some Thoughts on Deterrence in the Cyber Era. Journal of Information Warfare. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 66–73.Vol. 47. URL: http://www.offnews.info/downloads/2011-5CyberDeterrenceGlaser.pdfJervis, R. (1989b). The meaning of the nuclear revolution: Statecraft and the prospect of Armageddon. Cornell University Press. 266 p.Herz J.H. Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma // World politics. 1950. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 157–180. Jervis R. Cooperation under the Security Dilemma // World Politics. 1978. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 167–214. Jervis R. Rational Deterrence: Theory and Evidence // World Politics. 1989a. Vol. 41. No. 2. P. 183–207.Kello L. (2017). The Virtual Weapon and International Order. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press. 319 p.Jervis R. Some Thoughts on Deterrence in the Cyber Era // Journal of Information Warfare. 2016. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 66–73.Korotkov A.V., Zinovieva E.S. (2011). Bezopasnost' kriticheskih informacionnyh infrastruktur v mezhdunarodnom gumanitarnom prave [Critical Information Infrastructures Security in the International Humanitarian Law]. Vestnik MGIMO–Universiteta. No. 4. P. 154–162.Jervis R. The meaning of the nuclear revolution: Statecraft and the prospect of Armageddon. Cornell University Press, 1989. 266 p.Kugler R.L. (2009). Deterrence of Cyber Attacks and US National Security. In Kramer F., Starr S., Wentz L. (eds) Cyberpower and National Security. Washington DC: Potomac Books. P. 309–342.Kello L. The Virtual Weapon and International Order. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press, 2017. 319 p.Lewis J., Timlin K. (2011). Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare: Preliminary Assessment of National Doctrine and Organization, UNIDIR. URL: http://unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/cybersecurity-and-cyberwarfarepreliminary-assessment-of-national-doctrine-and-organization-380.pdf Libicki M. (2009). Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar. Rand Corporation. 214 p.Kugler R.L. Deterrence of Cyber Attacks and US National Security // Cyberpower and National Security. Ed by F. Kramer, S. Starr, L. Wentz. Washington DC: Potomac Books, 2009. P. 309–342.Libicki M. (2016). Cyberspace in Peace and War. Naval Institute Press. 478 p.Lewis J. Assessing the risks of cyber terrorism, cyber war and other cyber threats. – Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2002. URL: https://www.steptoe.com/images/ content/4/5/v1/4586/231a.pdfLibicki M. (2018). Expectations of Cyber Deterrence. Strategic Studies Quarterly. No. 4. P.44–57.Lewis J., Timlin K. Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare: Preliminary Assessment of National Doctrine and Organization, UNIDIR, 2011. URL: http://unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/cybersecurity-andcyberwarfare-preliminary-assessment-of-national-doctrine-and-organization-380.pdf Libicki M. Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar. Rand Corporation, 2009. 214 p.Lieber K.A. (2005). War and the engineers: The primacy of politics over technology. Cornell University Press. 226 p.Libicki M. Expectations of Cyber Deterrence // Strategic Studies Quarterly. 2018. No. 4. P.44 –57.Lindsay J. 2013. Stuxnet and the Limits of Cyber Warfare. Security Studies. No. 3. P. 36–404.Libicki M. Cyberspace in Peace and War. Naval Institute Press, 2016. 478 p.Lukasik S.J. (2010). A Framework for Thinking About Cyber Conflict and Cyber Deterrence with Possible Declaratory Policies for These Domains. Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyber Attacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for US Policy. Vol. 2. P. 99–122.Lindsay J. Stuxnet and the Limits of Cyber Warfare // Security Studies. 2013. No. 3. P. 36–404.Majchrzak A., Markus M.L. (2012). Technology Affordances and Constraints in Management Information Systems (MIS). In Kessler E. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Management Theory. London: Sage. URL: https:// ssrn.com/abstract=2192196Lieber K.A. War and the engineers: The primacy of politics over technology. Cornell University Press, 2005. 226 p.Maness R., Valeriano B. (2016). The Impact of Cyber Conflict on International Interactions. Armed Forces & Society. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 301–323.Lukasik S.J. A Framework for Thinking About Cyber Conflict and Cyber Deterrence with Possible Declaratory Policies for These Domains // Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyber Attacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for US Policy. 2010. Vol. 2. P. 99–122.Manjikian M. (2010). From Global Village to Virtual Battlespace: The Colonizing of the Internet and the Extension of Realpolitik. International Studies Quarterly. No. 2. Р. 381–401.Maness R., Valeriano B. The Impact of Cyber Conflict on International Interactions // Armed Forces & Society. 2016. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 301–323.Mazarr M., Bauer R., Casey A., Heintz S., Matthews L. (2019). The Emerging Risk of Virtual Societal Warfare. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/ RR2714.htmlMajchrzak A., Markus M.L. Technology Affordances and Constraints in Management Information Systems (MIS). In Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Ed. by E. Kessler. London: Sage, 2012.Mearsheimer J.J. (1985). Conventional Deterrence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 296 p.Manjikian M. From Global Village to Virtual Battlespace: The Colonizing of the Internet and the Extension of Realpolitik // International Studies Quarterly. 2010. No. 2. Р. 381–401.Morozov E. (2012). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. Public Affairs. 429 p.Mearsheimer J.J. Conventional Deterrence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985. 296 p.Nye J.S. (2011). The Future of Power. Public Affairs. 300 p.Morozov E. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. Public Affairs, 2012. 429 p.Nye J.S. (2017). Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace. International Security. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 44–71.Nye J.S. Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace // International Security. 2017. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 44–71.Panarin I.N. (2006). Informatsionnaya vojna i geopolitika [Information Warfare and Geopolititcs]. Мoscow: Pokolenie. 560 p.Nye J.S. The Future of Power. Public Affairs, 2011. 300 p.Rauscher K. F., Yaschenko V. (2011). Russia-US bilateral on cybersecurity: Critical terminology foundations. New York, USA: EastWest Institute. 48 p.Rauscher K. F., Yaschenko V. Russia-US bilateral on cybersecurity: Critical terminology foundations. New York, USA: EastWest Institute, 2011. 48 p.Reich P.C. et al. (2010). Cyber Warfare: a Review of Theories, Law, Policies, Actual Incidents – and the Dilemma of Anonymity. European Journal of Law and Technology. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 1–58.Reich P.C. et al. Cyber Warfare: a Review of Theories, Law, Policies, Actual Incidents – and the Dilemma of Anonymity // European Journal of Law and Technology. 2010. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 1–58.Rid T., Buchanan B. (2015). Attributing Cyber Attacks. Journal of Strategic Studies. Vol. 38. No. 1–2. P. 4–37.Rid T., Buchanan B. Attributing Cyber Attacks // Journal of Strategic Studies. 2015. Vol. 38. No. 1–2. P. 4–37.Rogovskij E.A. (2014). Kiber-Vashington: global'nye ambitsii [Cyber–Washington: Global Ambitions]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija. 848 p.Schelling T.C. (1966). Arms and influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Stevens T. A Cyberwar of Ideas? Deterrence and Norms in Cyberspace // Contemporary Security Policy. 2012. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 148–170.Schmitt M.N. (ed.) (2013). Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. (2013). Cambridge University Press. 281 p.Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Ed. by M. N. Schmitt. Cambridge University Press, 2013. 281 p.Schmitt M.N. (ed.) (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. (2017). Cambridge University Press. 597 p.Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Ed. by M. N. Schmitt. Cambridge University Press, 2017. 597 p.Shakleina T.A. (2015). Liderstvo i sovremennyj mirovoj porjadok [Leadership in the Contemporary International Order]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 4. P. 6–19.The Emerging Risk of Virtual Societal Warfare / M. Mazarr, R. Bauer, A. Casey, S. Heintz, L. Matthews. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019. URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/ RR2714.htmlStevens T. (2012). A Cyberwar of Ideas? Deterrence and Norms in Cyberspace. Contemporary Security Policy. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 148–170.Tor U. “Cumulative Deterrence” as a New Paradigm for Cyber Deterrence // Journal of Strategic Studies. 2017. Vol. 40. No. 1–2. P. 92–117.Tor U. (2017). “Cumulative Deterrence” as a New Paradigm for Cyber Deterrence. Journal of Strategic Studies. Vol. 40. No. 1-2. P. 92–117.Valeriano B., Maness R. International Relations Theory and Cyber Security: Threats, Conflicts and Ethics in an Emergent Domain // The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory / Ed. by C. Brown, R. Eckersley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. P. 259–275.Valeriano B., Maness R. (2018). International Relations Theory and Cyber Security: Threats, Conflicts and Ethics in an Emergent Domain. In Brown C., Eckersley R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 259–275.Wilner A. US Cyber Deterrence: Practice Guiding Theory // Journal of Strategic Studies. 2019. P. 1–36. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2018.1563779#aHR0cHM6Ly93d 3cudGFuZGZvbmxpbmUuY29tL2RvaS9wZGYvMTAuMTA4MC8wMTQwMjM5MC4yMDE4LjE1NjM3N zk/bmVlZEFjY2Vzcz10cnVlQEBAMA==Wilner A. (2019). US Cyber Deterrence: Practice Guiding Theory. Journal of Strategic Studies. P. 1–36.Zetter K. Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World's First Digital Weapon. NY: Crown Publishers, 2014. 449 p.Zetter K. (2014). Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World's First Digital Weapon. NY: Crown Publishers. 449 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.