IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v15y2024i1p142-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The pursuit of positive accountability in the cyber domain

Author

Listed:
  • Patryk Pawlak

Abstract

Debates about accountability in cyberspace are dominated by state‐centric and security‐driven approaches that disregard the complexity of the institutional ecosystem in cyberspace and the diverse ways through which different stakeholder groups may pursue accountability. Such an approach has contributed to a flawed interpretation of accountability in cyberspace as applicable solely to malicious actors who need to be punished for their actions. Despite greater policy and research attention to this line of reasoning, holding states accountable for their behaviour has yielded limited results due to the legal, political and technical complexities. At the same time, the non‐malicious activities in cyberspace that might have unintended negative effects remain exempted from scrutiny. Cyber capacity‐building activities, which aim at supporting governments and societies in strengthening their cyber resilience, illustrate this point well. This article introduces the concept of positive accountability to describe accountability for actions that are not malicious in their intent. It argues that the anticipatory potential of mechanisms like deliberation, joint problem‐solving, interactive learning and competition plays an important role in strengthening accountability by eliminating or minimising any unintended or undesired spillovers. It concludes with a proposal that broadly defined capacity building might also be considered a form of anticipatory and deliberative accountability mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Patryk Pawlak, 2024. "The pursuit of positive accountability in the cyber domain," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 142-148, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:142-148
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13302
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mette Eilstrup‐Sangiovanni & Stephanie C. Hofmann, 2024. "Accountability in densely institutionalized governance spaces," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 103-113, February.
    2. Patryk Pawlak & Panagiota-Nayia Barmpaliou, 2017. "Politics of cybersecurity capacity building: conundrum and opportunity," Journal of Cyber Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 123-144, January.
    3. Grant, Ruth W. & Keohane, Robert O., 2005. "Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 29-43, February.
    4. Robert Wolfe, 2015. "An Anatomy of Accountability at the WTO," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 6(1), pages 13-23, February.
    5. Patryk Pawlak, 2016. "Capacity Building in Cyberspace as an Instrument of Foreign Policy," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(1), pages 83-92, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charles B. Roger, 2024. "Informality and the governance dilemma: How institutional inter‐linkages can bridge accountability gaps," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 114-120, February.
    2. Sebastian Haug & Jack Taggart, 2024. "Global Development Governance 2.0: Fractured accountabilities in a divided governance complex," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 128-134, February.
    3. Jonas Tallberg & Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito, 2016. "Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 59-87, March.
    4. Marco Grasso & J. David Tàbara, 2019. "Towards a Moral Compass to Guide Sustainability Transformations in a High-End Climate Change World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    6. Joerges, Christian, 2007. "Integration through de-legislation? An irritated heckler," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 3, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    7. Georgios Dimitropoulos, 2022. "The use of blockchain by international organizations: effectiveness and legitimacy [The governance of blockchain dispute resolution]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(3), pages 328-342.
    8. Philippe Stoesslé & Valeria Alejandra Patiño Díaz & Yetzi Rosales Martínez, 2020. "Transnational Advocacy Networks of Migrants and Asylum Seekers’ Human Rights: The San Diego—Tijuana Border in the Trump Era," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2013. "Why do they want the UN to decide? A two-step model of public support for UN authority," TranState Working Papers 171, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    10. Wilde, Pieter de & Junk, Wiebke Marie & Palmtag, Tabea, 2016. "Accountability and opposition to globalization in international assemblies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 22(4), pages 823-846.
    11. Christian Joerges; Jurgen Neyer, 2006. "Deliberative Supranationalism Revisited," EUI-LAW Working Papers 20, European University Institute (EUI), Department of Law.
    12. Francesco De Luca & Jenice Prather-Kinsey, 2018. "Legitimacy theory may explain the failure of global adoption of IFRS: the case of Europe and the U.S," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(3), pages 501-534, September.
    13. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.
    14. Robert Wolfe, 2020. "Reforming WTO Conflict Management. Why and How to Improve the Use of “Specific Trade Concerns”," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/53, European University Institute.
    15. Axel Dreher & Katharina Michaelowa, 2008. "The political economy of international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 331-334, December.
    16. Terrence L. Chapman, 2007. "International Security Institutions, Domestic Politics, and Institutional Legitimacy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 134-166, February.
    17. Michelle Scobie, 2018. "Accountability in climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 769-787, April.
    18. Giuseppe Zaccaria, 2022. "You’re Fired! International Courts, Re‐contracting, and the WTO Appellate Body during the Trump Presidency," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(3), pages 322-333, June.
    19. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2010. "Problem perception and public expectations in international institutions: Evidence from a German representative survey," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2010-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Stephanie C. Hofmann & John Karlsrud & Yf Reykers, 2024. "Ad hoc coalitions: From hierarchical to network accountability in peace operations?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 121-127, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:142-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.