Commentary
The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.
Marc Pierini
{
"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 Europe
- Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good Reasons
- Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the New Geopolitics of ConnectivityArticle
The U.S.-sponsored TRIPP deal is driving the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process forward. But foreign and domestic hurdles remain before connectivity and economic interdependence can open up the South Caucasus.
Thomas de Waal, Areg Kochinyan, Zaur Shiriyev
- Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?Commentary
Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Time to Merge the Commission and EEASCommentary
The EU is structurally incapable of reacting to today’s foreign policy crises. The union must fold the EEAS into the European Commission and create a security council better prepared to take action on the global stage.
Stefan Lehne
- Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic OpportunityCommentary
The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.
William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk
