Commentary
Though Orban is gone, Putin can still count on some like-minded individuals in Central and Eastern Europe. However, they will seek to avoid open confrontation with EU institutions over Ukraine and their ties with Moscow.
Dimitar Bechev
{
"authors": [
"Tim Maurer"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Cyber and Digital Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Technology and International Affairs"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Technology"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
‘Proxies’ and Cyberspace
States use proxies to project power through cyberspace, some capable of causing significant harm. But there is a lack of clarity on what, exactly, the term ‘proxy’ means.
By Tim Maurer
Published on Dec 17, 2016
Source: Journal of Conflict and Security Law
States use proxies to project power through cyberspace, some capable of causing significant harm. In recent years, media outlets have published reports about proxies using Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) from Northeast Asia to India, Pakistan, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Two of the landmark documents providing insight into how the international community thinks about rules of the road for cyberspace explicitly reference the term ‘proxies’. However, neither report defines ‘proxy’, nor does the term easily translate into non-English languages. This article therefore reviews what this term means and how it has been used in various contexts. It focuses on the subset of proxies that are non-state actors used by a state actor, analysing the different logical distinctions and levels of detachment between a state and a non-state actor’s activity. The goal is 2-fold: first, to provide a framework to think about the diverse array of existing proxy definitions; second, to conceptualise the relationships between a state and non-state proxies that can offer a guide for political decision-makers and a roadmap for future research on proxy actors and cyberspace.
This article was originally published in the Journal of Conflict and Security Law.
About the Author
Tim Maurer
Former Senior Fellow, Technology and International Affairs Program
Dr. Tim Maurer was a senior fellow in Carnegie’s Technology and International Affairs program.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- What Does Central Europe’s Post-Orban Russia Policy Look Like?
- China’s Pivot on Global AIArticle
Beijing’s AI diplomacy is pivoting from infrastructure and associated technical standards toward a more comprehensive effort aimed at recrafting global norms and institutions of AI governance.
Arindrajit Basu
- Are Russia-Japan Relations Really Warming Up?Commentary
The truth is that Japan’s government is seeking a degree of reengagement but at a vastly reduced level than under Abe. Most significantly, Japan has shown no willingness to ease sanctions.
James D.J. Brown
- Brussels and Baku Are Talking Again: What Next?Commentary
Azerbaijan’s relations with the EU appear to be going from strength to strength after several years in the deep freeze following the military escalation in Karabakh in 2023 and Azerbaijan’s bitter fallout with France and several other EU member states.
Shujaat Ahmadzada
- Trump Turns NATO into a Tool of CoercionCommentary
The full list of humiliations Europe has endured since Donald Trump returned to the White House makes for grim reading. But Washington’s adversarial approach to its allies undermines its own power base.
Rym Momtaz
