Abstract
Despite raising fears over the use of states’ cyber capabilities as a tool of foreign policy, little empirical evidence is provided about its actual diffusion. Using a newly developed dataset collecting information on cyber interactions between rival states from 2000 to 2014, I analyse the evolution of the network of cyber incidents over the considered period by the mean of a Social Network Analysis approach. Results show that the level of cohesion in the network is low and the number of countries which does not make use of cyber tactics is high. Furthermore, Russia is emerging as the major offender while the USA is the most attacked country. Finally, geography appears to be a driving factor in influencing links formation.
Appendix
Geographical classes 1
| Northern Africa: Egypt, Libya, Sudan |
| Sub-Saharan Africa: Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea. Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda |
| Latin America and the Caribbean: Argentina, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela |
| Northern America: Canada, United States of America |
| Central Asia: Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, |
| Eastern Asia: China, Japan, North Korea, Republic of Korea, Taiwan |
| South-Eastern Asia: Cambodia, Viet Nam, Philippines, Thailand |
| Southern Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Pakistan |
| Western Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen |
| Eastern Europe: Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine |
| Northern Europe: Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
| Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands |
| Southern Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Portugal, Spain, Yugoslavia |
| Oceania: Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands |
Geographical classes 2
| Africa: Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania |
| Americas:Argentina, Belize, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, Venezuela |
| Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Czechia, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan |
| Eastern and South-eastern Asia: Cambodia, China, Japan, North Korea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Viet Nam |
| Southern and Western Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen |
| Western and Southern Europe: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia |
| Oceania: Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands |
Geographical classes 3
| Africa: Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania |
| Americas: Argentina, Belize, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, Venezuela |
| Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen |
| Europe: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia |
| Oceania: Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands |
References
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. & Johnson, J. C.(2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Breiger, R. (1981). Structures of economic interdependence among nations. In P. M. Blau, & R. K. Merton (Eds.), Continuities in structural inquiry (pp. 353–380). Los Angeles: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Clarke, R. A., & Knake, R. K. (2010). Cyber war: the next threat to national security and what to do about it. The Library of Congress. New York: Harper Collins.Search in Google Scholar
Gartzke, E. (2013). The myth of cyberwar: bringing war in cyberspace back down to earth. International Security, 38(2), 41–73.10.1162/ISEC_a_00136Search in Google Scholar
Gartzke, E., & Lindsay, J. R. (2015). Weaving tangled webs: offense, defense, and deception in cyberspace. Security Studies, 24(2), 316–348.10.1080/09636412.2015.1038188Search in Google Scholar
Hoff, P. D., & Ward, M. D. (2004). Modeling dependencies in international relations networks. Political Analysis, 12(2), 160–175.10.1093/pan/mph012Search in Google Scholar
Kello, L. (2013). The meaning of the cyber revolution: perils to theory and statecraft. International Security, 38(2), 7–40.10.1162/ISEC_a_00138Search in Google Scholar
Kostyuk, N., & Zhukov, Y. M. (2017). Invisible digital front: can cyber attacks shape battlefield events? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 0022002717737138.10.1177/0022002717737138Search in Google Scholar
Maness, R., Valeriano, B., & Jensen, B. (2017). The dyadic cyber incident and dispute dataset, version 1.1. Retrieved from https://drryanmaness.wixsite.com/cyberconflcit/cyber-conflict-dataset.Search in Google Scholar
Maoz, Z. (2006). Network polarization, network interdependence, and international conflict, 1816–2002. Journal of Peace Research, 43(4), 391–411.10.1177/0022343306065720Search in Google Scholar
Maoz, Z. (2010). Networks of nations: the evolution, structure, and impact of international networks, 1816–2001 (Vol. 32). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511762659Search in Google Scholar
Maoz, Z. (2012). Preferential attachment, homophily, and the structure of international networks, 1816–2003. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3), 341–369.10.1177/0738894212443344Search in Google Scholar
Nemeth, R. J., & Smith, D. A. (1985). International trade and world-system structure: a multiple network analysis. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 8(4), 517–560.Search in Google Scholar
Newman, M. E. (2003). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E, 67(2), 026126.10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126Search in Google Scholar
Rid, T. (2012). Cyber war will not take place. Journal of Strategic Studies, 35(1), 5–32.10.1080/01402390.2011.608939Search in Google Scholar
Rid, T. (2013). Cyber war will not take place. USA: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, D. A., & White, D. R. (1992). Structure and dynamics of the global economy: network analysis of international trade 1965–1980. Social Forces, 70(4), 857–893.10.2307/2580193Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, D., & Kick, E. L. (1979). Structural position in the world system and economic growth, 1955–1970: A multiple-network analysis of transnational interactions. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1096–1126.10.1086/226902Search in Google Scholar
Toft, M. D. (2014). Territory and war. Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), 185–198.10.1177/0022343313515695Search in Google Scholar
Toset, H. P. W., Gleditsch, N. P., & Hegre, H. (2000). Shared rivers and interstate conflict. Political Geography, 19(8), 971–996.10.1016/S0962-6298(00)00038-XSearch in Google Scholar
United Nations. Statistical Office. (1999). Standard country or area codes for statistical use (Vol. 42). UN.Search in Google Scholar
Valeriano, B., & Maness, R. C. (2014). The dynamics of cyber conflict between rival antagonists, 2001–11. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 347–360.10.1177/0022343313518940Search in Google Scholar
Valeriano, B., & Maness, R. C. (2015). Cyber war versus cyber realities: cyber conflict in the international system. USA: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190204792.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Valeriano, B., & Maness, R. C. (2018). How we stopped worrying about cyber doom and started collecting data. Politics and Governance, 6(2), 49–60.10.17645/pag.v6i2.1368Search in Google Scholar
Van Rossem, R. (1996). The world system paradigm as general theory of development: a cross-national test. American Sociological Review, 61, 508–527.10.2307/2096362Search in Google Scholar
Vasquez, J. A. (1995). Why do neighbors fight? Proximity, interaction, or territoriality. Journal of Peace Research, 32(3), 277–293.10.1177/0022343395032003003Search in Google Scholar
Ward, H. (2006). International linkages and environmental sustainability: the effectiveness of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research, 43(2), 149–166.10.1177/0022343306061545Search in Google Scholar
Ward, M. D., Siverson, R. M., & Cao, X. (2007). Disputes, democracies, and dependencies: a reexamination of the Kantian peace. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 583–601.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00269.xSearch in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
