Objectives: This article will attempt to analyse securitisation theory to explore the discursive features of cyber security, using a multi-actor approach that considers the role of state and non-state actors in the creation and management of cyber security discourses.
Material and methods: The paper aims to assess the contribution of securitization theory to the understanding of both traditional and contemporary security policy issues. More specifically, it is an attempt to reflect on the identification of the challenges facing the modern state.
Results: Growing dependence on digital technology is inevitable, making the future more threatening than the present. Cyber technology is inherently vulnerable and thus impossible to fully secure. The call for "greater security" becomes justified because the more a country depends on cyber technology, the more inevitable cyber threats become. They are consistently treated by government circles as a security challenge, meaning that the problem is presented as an existential threat, requiring emergency measures and justifying action beyond the normal bounds of political procedure.
Conclusions: As some conclusion and conclusion, it is worth reiterating observations about the multi-stakeholder nature of cyber security and observations about the co-creation of this security by a wide range of actors representing different and in some cases conflicting interests. It can be argued that there is no single discourse on cyber security or cyber threats, and it is simplistic to assume that there is even a single discourse that represents every securitization actor, be it government or the private sector. This diversity explains why the assumption and logic of securitization theory can only apply to some, but not all, cyber security discourses.
Balzacq T. (2011). A Theory of Securitization: Origins, Core Assumptions, and Variants W: T. Balzacq (ed.). Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve, London, New York: Routledge: 1–30.
Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context, European Journal of International Relations, 11/2: 171-201.
Bendrath, R. (2003).The American Cyber-Angst and the Real World – Any Link?, W: R. Latham (ed.), Bombs and Bandwidth: The emerging relationship between information technology and security, New York: The New Press: 49-73.
Boer, L. J. M., Lodder, A. R. (2012). Cyberwar: What Law to Apply? And to Whom?, W: R. Leukfeldt, W. Stol (eds.), Cyber Safety: An Introduction, The Hague: Eleven international publishing.
Brandt, M. J., Turner-Zwinkels F. M., B. Karapirinler, Van Leeuwen F., Bender M., van Osch Y., Adams B. (2021).The Association Between Threat and Politics Depends on the Type of Threat, the Political Domain, and the Country, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47/2: 324-343.
Cavelty, M. D. (2008). Cyber-Security and Threat Politics: US Efforts to Secure the Information Age, CSS Studies in Security and International Relations. London; New York: Routledge.
Cavelty, M. D. (2008). Cyber-Terror – Looming Threat or Phantom Menace? The Framing of the US Cyber-Threat Debate, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4/1: 19–36.
Gcaza, N., von Solms R., van Vuuren J. (2015), An Ontology for a National Cyber-Security Culture Environment, Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security & Assurance (HAISA): 1-11.
Huysmans, J. (1998). The Question of the Limit: Desecuritisation and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 27/3: 571.
Jackson, N. (2006). International Organizations, Security Dichotomies and the Trafficking of Persons and Narcotics in Post-Soviet Central Asia: A Critique of the Securitization Framework, Security Dialogue, 37:313.
Lawson, S. (2001).Beyond cyber-doom: Cyberattack Scenarios and the Evidence of History, http://www.voafanti.com/gate/b... – evidence-history_1.pdf. Access 12.09.2022.
Mudrinich, E. M. (2012). Cyber 3.0: The department of defense strategy for operating in cyberspace and the attribution problem, Air Force Law Review, 68: 167-206.
Mutimer, D. (1997). Beyond Strategy: Critical Thinking and the New Security Studies, W: C. A. Snyder (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Basingstoke: Macmillan: 90.
Olsson, Ch. (2015). Interventionism as Practice: On ‘Ordinary Transgressions’ and their Routinization, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 9/4: 429.
Rivera, J., Hare, F. (2014). The deployment of attribution agnostic cyberdefense constructs and internally based cyberthreat countermeasures, W: 6th International Conference On Cyber Conflict (CyCon 2014), 2014 6th International Conference On Cyber Conflict (CyCon 2014).
Searle, J. (2009). Language and Social Ontology, W: Ch. Mantzavinos (ed.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:19.
Vuori, J. A. (2008). Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders, European Journal of International Relations, 14/1: 69.
Wæver, O. (2004). Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New Schools in Security Theory and the Origins between Core and Periphery, International Studies Association, Montreal, 13.
Wæver, O. (2010). Podsumowanie programu badawczego: rewizje i przekształcenia teorii sekurytyzacji, W: Referat wygłoszony na dorocznym zjeździe International Studies Association , Nowy Orlean, LA , 17–20 lutego 2010.
Wæver, O. (2012). Bezpieczeństwo: konceptualna historia stosunków międzynarodowych. Referat wygłoszony na dorocznej konferencji British International Studies Association, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Werner, W., Boer, L. J. M. (2017). It Could Probably Just as Well Be Otherwise, Risk and the Regulation of Uncertainty in International Law, M. Ambrus, R. Rayfuse (eds.), Rosemary; W. Werner, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 39-60.
Zwilling, M., Klien, G., Lesjak, D., Wiechetek, Ł., Cetin, F., Basim, H. N. (2022). Cyber Security Awareness, Knowledge and Behavior: A Comparative Study, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 62/1.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.