By: Suryendu Bhattacharya
In International Politics, the universally accepted oldest actor is known to be the state. But with the advent of globalisation, there have been advent of multiple actors outside the purview of the state, such as MNCs. TNCs, IGOs, NGOs, Civil Societies, Terrorist Organisations, Religious Organisations or Diasporas, termed as non-state actors. In modern day affairs of the state these actors have made an impact over the decision-making process. As an off-shoot of globalisation, the cyber space has emerged as the newest strand in international politics. The virtual communities have been serving as an influencer of states’ decision-making.
International politics is known to be governed by various policies which emerges from a proliferation of various state actors, alongside the backing of the principle of good governance. Having said that, the key consideration argument is that a major role of state decision-making and policy design is being influenced by the emergence of various non-state actors within international politics, ranging from sub-state actors, inter-governmental organisations, MNCs and TNCs, NGOs, communities within cyberspace various international groupings with criminal intent, and extremist and terrorist organisations, leading to a phenomenon regarded as the depleting role of the state.
The idea of good governance, coupled with globalisation and global change has given rise to multiple non-state actors and new forms of multi-actor and multilevel governance. One of the major underpinnings of globalisation has been technological change or development of Information and Communication Technologies. The internet and international telephony have been one of the key tools of transnational networking, which have contributed to the growth of non-state actors’ involvement in global governance. Although states also benefit from the development of ICTs, but its returns are enjoyed by the non-state actors more. It reduces the ability of the state to act as a gatekeeper between state polity and international governance, thus enabling easy and cheap communication across boundaries which facilitates transnational governance. This helps non-state actors to monitor state and corporate behaviour and to assess their adherence to international and transnational standards.
With the rapid development and the advancement of ICTs in the 21st century, the world has witnessed the emergence of a number of non-state actors in the cyberspace. Although different cyberspace non-state actors (CNSA) operate with different motives – some are financially motivated, which the others have some sort of political motivation. Nevertheless, all these actors have a growing crucial importance within society with the capability to influence state decision. With the passage of time, the number of non-state actors operating in the cyberspace, using cyber tool in warfare to make a hard attribution similar to conventional warfare, are increasing. The asymmetric nature and the low barriers for entry within the cyberspace have been a growing concern for every government, thus influencing various legal actions. This makes the cyberspace an interesting arena for both the nation-state and the non-state actors.
Cyberspace non-state actors can be classified based on their motivation, form of organisation, and their relation to the host state. Some CNSA could help the government financially, by providing them with the profits generated by malicious activities or conduct operations for the political or ideological motives of the state. Some CNSA operates unofficially, but under the control of the host state, i.e., military and intelligence agencies, while some offer immunity to state’s actions to foreign entities. On the contrary, a starkly different kind of CNSAs are the ones which have no connection to the state, rather has political or ideological motives which opposes the state’s ideology, i.e., terrorist organisations or extremist groups operating within the cyberspace.
Organisations within the cyberspace operating with criminal intent, have cumulatively been regarded as world’s third largest economy after the United States and China. Cybercrime was estimated to cost US$ 10.5 trillion annually to global economy by 2025, according to the Internet Crime Report 2020 which was released in 2021. The resultant causes of cybercrime activities often include destruction of data and infrastructure, intellectual properties, and theft of personal and financial data, which more often than not poses a threat to the state structure. Herein lies the question of the degree and kind of damage cyberspace non-state actors pose to nation-state.
To understand the role CNSAs play in state diplomacy, we can cite the example of the collective called ‘Anonymous’ operating in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is significant from the spectrum of international law and geopolitics. In this particular scenario a non-state actor, with unmarked territory or any territorial sovereignty, is moving war to a state. With reference to this, a number of questions arise – how would international law be applicable in such scenario? What are the possible state actions to bring peace? How would cyber diplomacy play out in this regard? To understand this, it is imperative for us to understand the negative and positive impacts these actors have over state decisions.
From a negative standpoint, the certain CNSAs work with the aim to damage critical infrastructures, private businesses and government organisations, which ripples out a direct impact on the economic and social stability of the government. The issue of individual privacy is also questioned with the presence of a string CNSA in a particular state. With the emergence of Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake AI tools, impersonation of any individuals sits at the fingertips of cyber criminals, making state prone to unforeseen threats. International Politics has witnessed a number of cyber threats over the years. Examples can be cited of the Stuxnet Virus which attacked the Iranian Nuclear Program, the cyber-attack in Estonia in 2007, and the attack on Ukrainian rocket forces and artillery by group called Fancy Bear in 2014 and 2016.
The positive side of the spectrum is that if these CNSAs are taken to act within the purview of the state, it could bear encouraging effects socio-economically. In an era where cyberspace is dictating the way of life, and the introduction of Metaverse and augmented reality determines the way we connect socially or how we work, the usage of these actors within the state system as ‘competent tools’ would increase the state’s capability to secure the socio-economic spheres of cyberspace. As long as the aim and motive of the CNSAs align with that of the state, it benefits both the parties involved. It enhances cyber-competence, while also being available to be used a tool of retaliation which often beyond laws and regulations.
The states do often opt to enter into collaboration with CNSAs for using them covertly in cyberwarfare. Often the usage of conventional techniques of warfare comes with certain political, legal, and military burden, and the adherence to the IHL becomes absolutely imperative. Thus, opting to use irregular forces, i.e., cyberwarfare helps state skip the burden of IHL rules and regulations. It also helps the state move past the questions of legality due to the difficulty in tracing the link of the attack between the state and a cyberspace non-state actor.
To conclude, cyberspace and the actors within it are growing important with the passage of time which poses a severe concern for states. With the fast-paced advancement, newer forms of technologies will be at the disposal various non-state actors operating within the cyberspace. It might have a two-fold reaction towards state polity. It could either pose a direct threat to the state, or it can be brought under state legitimacy to carry out covert operations or to secure more efficient cyberspace for the state. Nevertheless, there will be a constant oscillation of the impacts of the emergence of non-state actors within the cyberspace and the ready availability of advanced technologies for them. The state’s reaction towards such actors would determine whether or not it would increase or decrease the gravity of the issue of cyber defense.
