Research Portfolio Post #4: Article Comparison
In “Why the World Needs an International Cyberwar Convention,” Eilstrup-Sangiovanni[1] explains how to reduce the increasing severity of cyber dangers. She begins her argument by redefining previous scholar’s definitions of cyber warfare. Using small-N analysis, she grounds her argument in international relations theory to compare the “Cult of Offensive” that happened prior to World War II to what she terms is the current “Cult of (Cyber) Offensive.”[2] The current arms buildup in cyber weapons and increase in aggression both diplomatically and technically, merits the need for an International Cyberwar Convention (ICWC.) Her conception of the ICWC addresses all the shortcoming of deterring cyber attacks and also presents a means to establish norms and accountability standards.
In Mariarosaria Taddeo’s article “Deterrence and Norms to Foster Stability in Cyberspace,”[3] the scholar acknowledges that deterrence theory does not apply to cyber warfare in the same way that the original theory applies to ground war. Through a critical analysis of scholarship on deterrence, she presents three elements that are important to achieving success in the application of deterrence. These are “target identification, retaliation, and demonstration.”[4] Taddeo asserts a call to action to the global community to engage the UN security council to implement the triangle of deterrence.
Both agree that the cyber domain presents new challenges for achieving peace when compared to kinetic war. They both also agree on how cyber related problems need to be addressed in such a way that promotes cyber norms. Although the authors disagree on the importance of deterrence theory, they both agree on the need to establish or strengthen an autonomous power that monitors the risks that come with cyber warfare. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni suggests creating a new international institution while Taddeo calls for an existing institution to strengthen its power in the cyber realm.
The first article applies to my research because of the categories the author presents within the conception of the ICWC. I could use the categories she presents in my operationalization of data. Similarly, Taddeo’s triangular structure to secure cyber threats presents a useful organization for evaluating the ability to deal with cyber threats within the context of deterrence theory. Lastly, the debate between the applicability of deterrence to the cyber domain offers and interesting puzzle to this research discussion that ought to be clarified.
[1] Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, “Why the World Needs an International Cyberwar Convention,” Philosophy & Technology 31, no. 3 (September 1, 2018): 379–407.
[2] Ibid., 384
[3] Mariarosaria Taddeo, “Deterrence and Norms to Foster Stability in Cyberspace,” Philosophy & Technology 31, no. 3 (September 1, 2018): 323–329.
[4] Ibid., 325
Hannah,
I don’t know very much about cyber warfare, but your topic is quite interesting and definitely relevant today. One research dilemma that Booth et al. discuss in Chapter 4 is making sure that your problem will help your readers understand something new, answer a different question, or solve a problem they have. Since establishing cyber norms and rules carry such obvious consequences, I think your topic area is very well suited to establishing that exigence. One technique they talk about in Chapter 3 is phrasing your question in the negative; something that came to mind for me when reading your post was phrasing your question along the lines of “why hasn’t there been a UN convention on cyber norms yet?” or “why hasn’t there been a major cyber attack yet if there is so much latent tension?” Not sure if that’s the direction you want to go, but those are just a few of my thoughts. Looking forward to seeing where you go from here!
Overall you’ve done a good job here Hannah. Both articles are clearly relevant to your research, though the second piece you discuss (from Taddeo) is more of an extended literature review / concept formation piece rather than the explanatory scholarship (scholarship that focuses on analyzing particular cases or instances of a phenomenon) that is usually more useful for a literature review. When you do find explanatory scholarship like the first piece you discuss it is good to go into a bit more detail on the methodology, using some specific terms, to help further unpack these methodologies. In the case of neopositivist research, for example, you should note what the DV is along with the key IV(s) and hypotheses tested (this helps further contextualize the main claims and the different explanations that scholars offer for similar puzzles). Both of these articles are good for establishing the theoretical foundation for you project, though, so keep reading and researching with an eye to these things!