What's in a Name? Metaphors and Cybersecurity

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Branch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
Physical Space ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Specific Interests

Abstract For more than a decade, the United States military has conceptualized and discussed the Internet and related systems as “cyberspace,” understood as a “domain” of conflict like land, sea, air, and outer space. How and why did this concept become entrenched in US doctrine? What are its effects? Focusing on the emergence and consolidation of this terminology, I make three arguments about the role of language in cybersecurity policy. First, I propose a new, politically consequential category of metaphor: foundational metaphors, implied by using particular labels rather than stated outright. These metaphors support specific ways to understand complex issues, provide discursive resources to some arguments over others, and shape policy contestation and outcomes. Second, I present a detailed empirical study of US military strategy and doctrine that traces the emergence and consolidation of terminology built on the “cyberspace domain.” This concept supported implicit metaphorical correspondences between the Internet and physical space, yielding specific analogies and arguments for understanding the Internet and its effects. Third, I focus on the rhetorical effects of this terminology to reveal two important institutional consequences: this language has been essential to expanding the military's role in cybersecurity, and specific interests within the Department of Defense have used this framework to support the creation of US Cyber Command. These linguistic effects in the United States also have implications for how other states approach cybersecurity, for how international law is applied to cyber operations, and for how International Relations understands language and technological change.

scholarly journals LBJ, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Ignore Today?

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-143
Author(s):  
Rory Fidler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Johnson Administration ◽  
American System ◽  
Actual Effectiveness ◽  
The Government ◽  
North Vietnam

The actual effectiveness of the American anti-war movement from 1964-68 and its attempts to sway the policy of President Johnson's administration on the topic of the Vietnam War is debatable. While popular myth has exaggerated the role of protestors in stopping the war, the movement failed to alter state policy on the war in any serious fashion. The anti-war movement could not develop a universal policy of their aims, differing from a gradual exit from Vietnam to a complete anarchist overthrow of the American system, and as such were unable to lobby the government effectively. Within the war itself, however, the Johnson administration and the United States Military encountered a stronger stimulus to reconsider their involvement: the inability to adapt to a guerilla war, the immense man power and resources required to ensure victory, and ultimately the communist Tet offensive of 1968 pushing American forces back. When President Johnson did seek to negotiate with North Vietnam at the end of his term, it was because America had simply failed to beat the Vietcong.

scholarly journals To model of participation of interested parties in governance of the Internet on the international level

2020 ◽  
pp. 90-109
Author(s):  
Nikita Istomin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Internet Governance ◽  
International Level ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
Transnational Organizations ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
History Of

This article analyzes the model of participation of many interested parties in governance of the Internet, as well as its definition on the international level and within the doctrine. The goal consists in determining the importance and the role of participation of multiple interested parties in the context of Internet governance, and its correlation to the transnational approach in international law. The model of participation of multiple interested parties is predominantly examined as participation in Internet governance of the actors of international law and private entities. The subject of this research is the provisions of summary documents, summits on the highest level regarding the questions of information community, resolution of the UN General Assembly and other branches of the UN system, provisions of acts of other transnational organizations that are dedicated to development of state policy in the area of Internet governance, as well as doctrinal sources covering history of the question. The scientific novelty lies in determination of correlation of the participation of interested parties in Internet governance. It is noted that in the practice of Internet governance there are two clear approaches for implementation of this model: ran by states and international organizations, or one that is ran by private entities. The international legal acts reflect the former approach towards implementation of this model. In accordance with this approach, the work on Internet governance in consultation of state with private entities, allowing private entities as observers, or creation of public-private partnerships aimed at solution of global issues. The leading role of the private sector is advanced by the United States and several other Western nations as an alternative to translational multilateral approach, which contradicts the international legal acts, since the role ICANN as a leader is delegated to private entities, rather than states.

International and Foreign Law in Domestic Constitutional Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 373-392
Author(s):  
Muna Ndulo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
World Wide ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Domestic Courts

This chapter illustrates the role of international and foreign law in domestic constitutional law. Through the case analysis of South Africa (a post conflict state) and the United States (often seen as a country that is not too friendly to international and foreign legal systems), it discusses the role of international and foreign law in reconciling the regional development of the rule of law in a country, by working closely together with domestic constitutional law. The domestic courts both in the United States and South Africa, whenever they deem it appropriate, do consider international and foreign law in the resolution of disputes before them. The conditions under which each jurisdiction may resort to foreign or international law, as well as the criteria used for taking them into consideration, vary. However, most importantly, this practice should be encouraged as it promotes the uniform interpretation of international law and the progressive advancement of norms world-wide, which are aspects that are especially important in the field of human rights.

The 2008 United States-India Nuclear Co-operation Agreement and the Work of the International Law Commission on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P. BARNIDGE
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Impact Assessments ◽  
The Government ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission

This article examines the 2008 Agreement for Co-operation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy [“123 Agreement”] within the context of the International Law Commission's (ILC) work on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law. Attention is paid to three issues in particular, namely how international environmental law has developed to interact with vaguely worded environmental protection provisions, such as those in the 123 Agreement, and the role of experts in this regard, the issue of civil nuclear liability, and the question of what international law might require for environmental impact assessments under the 123 Agreement to pass muster.

Application of Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution in international context—fear of foreign prosecution as ground for invoking privilege against self-incrimination—relevance of growing international law enforcement cooperation—role of U.S. judiciary in foreign relations

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-764
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Diane Marie Amann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Context ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Domestic Law

United States v. Balsys. 118 S.Ct. 2218.U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1998.Resolving a long-open question, the U.S. Supreme Court held in this 7-2 decision that a witness in a domestic proceeding may not invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination if the witness fears that the testimony may be used in a prosecution outside the United States. Although grounded in domestic law, the three opinions in Balsys reveal tension between the judiciary's traditional deference to the political branches in foreign relations matters and its concern over the risk that individuals subject to prosecution abroad will suffer deprivation of liberty because of that deference.

The Role of Domestic Courts in Effectuating International Law

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 77-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry G. Schermers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Domestic Courts

In his article on the implementation of international law by the domestic courts in the United States, Richard Falk focuses on the possible role of domestic courts with respect to the acts of foreign policy which may be contrary to international law. In general that role is limited. This is the same in Europe. Falk mentions efforts of individuals, to change national foreign policy by means such as the Russell Tribunal, boycotts of products, blocking of tracks and the occupation of buildings. Such activities also happen in Europe but rather with the intention to attract public attention than with the purpose to litigate in court. In Europe it is generally accepted that courts should not take policy decisions of that kind.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document