金砖国家互联网治理议程

A. Ignatov
{"title":"金砖国家互联网治理议程","authors":"A. Ignatov","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The key features of the modern Internet governance system are its decentralized structure, inhomogeneous internal “geography,” and the diverse nature of its decision-making actors. These factors determine the complexity of the decision-making process on Internet governance-related issues. Under these conditions, the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa is viewed as a suitable platform to establish a common ground and align the interests of the participating countries on five key spheres of Internet governance: infrastructure development, legal matters, economic issues, development, and social and cultural perspectives. The goal of this article is to study BRICS’ approach to Internet governance. The study presents an analysis of the BRICS countries’ priorities regarding Internet governance and incorporates a panel data on BRICS’ commitments and decisions regarding the issue. Several conclusions on the BRICS approach to Internet governance were drawn: the most prominent sphere for BRICS cooperation is digital infrastructure development; considerable discrepancies exist among the BRICS states regarding managing Internet content that contribute to a lack of concrete decisions on social and cultural aspects of Internet governance; there is a step-by-step convergence of the BRICS counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda with a broader issue of cybersecurity. The author assumes that the infrastructure component dominates the BRICS Internet governance discussion due to China’s influence, which gives it the potential to be one of the key players and agenda-setters within BRICS, along with Russia. Steady incorporation of the counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda into the cybersecurity discussion is strongly supported by Russia, in keeping with its declared national priorities regarding Internet governance. In the author’s opinion, it would be problematic for BRICS to reach a collective decision regarding Internet content governance given the conflict of interests among the participating countries revealed by this analysis.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The BRICS Agenda on the Internet Governance\",\"authors\":\"A. Ignatov\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The key features of the modern Internet governance system are its decentralized structure, inhomogeneous internal “geography,” and the diverse nature of its decision-making actors. These factors determine the complexity of the decision-making process on Internet governance-related issues. Under these conditions, the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa is viewed as a suitable platform to establish a common ground and align the interests of the participating countries on five key spheres of Internet governance: infrastructure development, legal matters, economic issues, development, and social and cultural perspectives. The goal of this article is to study BRICS’ approach to Internet governance. The study presents an analysis of the BRICS countries’ priorities regarding Internet governance and incorporates a panel data on BRICS’ commitments and decisions regarding the issue. Several conclusions on the BRICS approach to Internet governance were drawn: the most prominent sphere for BRICS cooperation is digital infrastructure development; considerable discrepancies exist among the BRICS states regarding managing Internet content that contribute to a lack of concrete decisions on social and cultural aspects of Internet governance; there is a step-by-step convergence of the BRICS counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda with a broader issue of cybersecurity. The author assumes that the infrastructure component dominates the BRICS Internet governance discussion due to China’s influence, which gives it the potential to be one of the key players and agenda-setters within BRICS, along with Russia. Steady incorporation of the counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda into the cybersecurity discussion is strongly supported by Russia, in keeping with its declared national priorities regarding Internet governance. In the author’s opinion, it would be problematic for BRICS to reach a collective decision regarding Internet content governance given the conflict of interests among the participating countries revealed by this analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代互联网治理体系的主要特征是其分散的结构、不均匀的内部“地理”以及决策参与者的多样性。这些因素决定了互联网治理相关问题决策过程的复杂性。在这些条件下,由巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非组成的金砖国家集团被视为一个合适的平台,可以在互联网治理的五个关键领域建立共识并协调参与国的利益:基础设施发展、法律事务、经济问题、发展以及社会和文化视角。本文的目的是研究金砖国家的互联网治理方法。该研究对金砖国家在互联网治理方面的优先事项进行了分析,并纳入了金砖国家在这一问题上的承诺和决定的小组数据。就金砖国家互联网治理方式得出以下结论:金砖国家合作最突出的领域是数字基础设施发展;金砖国家在管理互联网内容方面存在相当大的差异,导致在互联网治理的社会和文化方面缺乏具体决策;金砖国家的反恐和反极端主义议程与更广泛的网络安全问题逐步趋同。作者认为,由于中国的影响力,基础设施部分在金砖国家互联网治理讨论中占据主导地位,这使其有可能与俄罗斯一起成为金砖国家的关键参与者和议程制定者之一。俄罗斯坚决支持将反恐和反极端主义议程稳步纳入网络安全讨论,这符合其宣布的互联网治理国家优先事项。在作者看来,鉴于这一分析揭示的参与国之间的利益冲突,金砖国家就互联网内容治理达成集体决定将是有问题的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The BRICS Agenda on the Internet Governance
The key features of the modern Internet governance system are its decentralized structure, inhomogeneous internal “geography,” and the diverse nature of its decision-making actors. These factors determine the complexity of the decision-making process on Internet governance-related issues. Under these conditions, the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa is viewed as a suitable platform to establish a common ground and align the interests of the participating countries on five key spheres of Internet governance: infrastructure development, legal matters, economic issues, development, and social and cultural perspectives. The goal of this article is to study BRICS’ approach to Internet governance. The study presents an analysis of the BRICS countries’ priorities regarding Internet governance and incorporates a panel data on BRICS’ commitments and decisions regarding the issue. Several conclusions on the BRICS approach to Internet governance were drawn: the most prominent sphere for BRICS cooperation is digital infrastructure development; considerable discrepancies exist among the BRICS states regarding managing Internet content that contribute to a lack of concrete decisions on social and cultural aspects of Internet governance; there is a step-by-step convergence of the BRICS counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda with a broader issue of cybersecurity. The author assumes that the infrastructure component dominates the BRICS Internet governance discussion due to China’s influence, which gives it the potential to be one of the key players and agenda-setters within BRICS, along with Russia. Steady incorporation of the counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda into the cybersecurity discussion is strongly supported by Russia, in keeping with its declared national priorities regarding Internet governance. In the author’s opinion, it would be problematic for BRICS to reach a collective decision regarding Internet content governance given the conflict of interests among the participating countries revealed by this analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The journal mission is to disseminate Russian and international research in global governance, international cooperation on a wide range of social and economic policies; as well as to create a professional framework for discussion of trends and prognoses in these areas. International Organisations Research Journal publishes academic and analytical papers of Russian and international authors on activities of international multilateral institutions: G8, G20, BRICS, OECD, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, UN, and alliances: European Union, Eurasian Economic Union, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and others. Analytical and research papers on international cooperation in higher education, trends in higher education developments at the national, regional and global levels are welcomed for reviewing and publication. The journal is aimed at researchers, analysts, practitioners in international affairs and world economics and at a wide audience interested in political issues of international affairs and global development. IORJ supports publications of graduate and postgraduate students, young researchers in Russia and abroad. All IORJ publications are peer-reviewed.
期刊最新文献
G20 at the Critical Juncture. Indonesia’s 2022 Presidency: Internal and External Shocks, Risks of Power Rebalancing and Eventual Demise, Causes of Resilience and Re-Equilibrium Transformation of the “Climate Club” Concept: From Theory to Practice (Review) Why multilateralism is losing ground in audiovisual services in the WTO Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: Reassessment of the Priorities Against the Background of Old Problems and New Challenges. Book Review: «The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Exploring New Horizons» Climate Risks and Financial Stability: The Role of Central Banks and Implications for Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1