Ensuring the security of the Internet space through the "new multipolarity"

Kosinova Sofiya Student, Department of World Political Processes, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation 119454, Russia, Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Vernadskogo Prospekt, 76, aud. 3113 kosinova.s@my.mgimo.ru

The Internet is the most dynamically developing means of communication in terms of the growth of the number of users from year to year. The explosive increase in network subscribers has opened up new opportunities for managing public opinion without the geographical and other restrictions that traditional mass media had. An important factor is the constant development of tools for analyzing the relevance of certain topics and problems, as well as measures to manage public sentiment.

In this regard, the Internet can be considered one of the most important factors of international politics, the formation of a global society. Due to its potential, the Internet has become an object and instrument of international policy, since the development of this communication environment raises problems related to ensuring the sovereignty of states, information security, promoting social, political and economic development, as well as many other problems of international security^[1].

The article applies a conceptual analysis of the main approaches to the study of the problem of regulation of the Internet, recorded in various legal documents, intergovernmental agreements and government statements, as well as an institutional approach that allows analyzing the basic rules and regulations expressing various principles and values of global network management.

National and international approaches to the regulation of the World Wide Web as a search for answers to international security challenges

There are several approaches to the international regulation of the global network.

The first approach was formed at the beginning of the process of connecting many countries of the world to the Internet. This approach can be called idealistic, since it involves the inclusion of all countries of the world in the Internet governance process on the basis of a certain supranational body to coordinate the actions of all actors. The development of such a model is due to the transnational nature of the Internet, as well as the global nature of the threats that have manifested themselves under the influence of Internet technologies. For example, V. Kleinwechter notes that the priority model is multilevel global governance, in which both states and non-governmental actors participate.

Such models have been criticized by other researchers. In particular, the thesis was put forward that the most influential actors, which include the great powers, should play a key role in Internet governance. D. Drezner also notes that the influence of private actors is quite limited, since they act as a "screen" to promote the positions of states. In earlier works, researchers argued that the key role in Internet governance should be assigned to the United States, since this state is the discoverer of the Internet, and also because the leading Internet giants work in the United States: Google, Amazon, Facebook and many other companies.

The third approach is based on the priority of the norms of international law, in connection with which its proponents note the need to form an international treaty that will allow managing the Internet at the global level, which will overcome the geographical limitations of national legislation, as well as eliminate conflicts of legislation.

In addition, the approach of the "new multipolarity" is highlighted, when the global information space is considered not as a single one, but as a set of interrelated fields, still including non-state actors and private companies in the Internet management process, whose role at the present stage is significant (they have personal data, can analyze the "digital footprint" of users, as well as develop tools that allow you to manage this data more efficiently). The management process in this case is an international network. Political scientist A. Konovalov argues that a "new bipolarity" is being formed - states are one pole, non–state actors are the other.

According to the author of the work, the approach of the "new multipolarity" seems to be the most sound from a scientific point of view, since the influence of non-state actors is now obvious, and some states even prefer to fight their influence by introducing censorship.

Despite the late emergence of the Internet and social networks in China, the Chinese authorities began to regulate these means of communication earlier than many European countries and the United States. Since the advent of the Internet in 1994 and the widespread use of social networks in the late 1990s, laws, administrative regulations and rules have been adopted in China one after another, regulating the Internet and introducing censorship of content.

However, the main objectives of regulation differ in different eras due to technical difficulties in earlier periods, changing government priorities and the amazing technological progress in China. During the introduction of Internet regulation, 39 legislative and regulatory acts concerning social networks have been adopted. At the same time, the researchers argue that social control is not always the main goal of Chinese regulators of the Internet and social networks.

In the period from 1994 to 2012, Chinese Internet regulatory structures sought primarily to create a common regulatory framework and develop a system of possible norms and standards for Internet governance. It was in the period 2012-2017 that social control was at the center of state regulation of social networks^[2]. Since 2018, the priority of regulation has shifted again. The disclosure of the potential of social networks to stimulate the development of e-commerce is becoming an important goal of regulatory activities^[3].

The central norm is the law "On Cybersecurity", which regulates the actions of suppliers of network products, storage and processing of user data^[4]. The purpose of the introduction of this law is to protect the national "cyber-sovereignty". The law significantly restricts the anonymity of users by introducing the requirement of mandatory verification for access to the network. If the user does not provide real identification data, the provider does not have the right to open access to the network.

In the USA, the Law "On the exchange of information about cyber threats" was adopted in 2016. Designed to "enhance cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced information exchange on cybersecurity threats and for other purposes." The law allows the exchange of information about Internet traffic between US government agencies and technology and manufacturing companies. The text of the bill was included by amending the US budget, which was signed by President Obama on December 18, 2015^[5].

In 2018, the British and French governments agreed on a joint action plan to improve the effectiveness of identifying and removing content that qualifies as terrorist, radical or hateful. It is proposed, in particular, to require companies to automate the process of identifying illegal content and speed up its blocking or deletion, as well as provide access to encrypted traffic.

Since 2019, the "EU Directive on Copyright Protection" has been under discussion. The document has been developed since 2016. In September 2018, members of the European Parliament voted for her. 438 deputies voted on the new draft, 226 of them opposed it, another 39 abstained. Now the project is aimed at trilateral negotiations with the European Commission and the EU Council^[6].

The Iranian government takes a strict approach to regulating the Internet, and it continues to develop systems that will minimize costs while imposing more and more restrictions on its citizens. Most of the content submitted to Iranian citizens is carefully filtered in advance, without the possibility of viewing restricted content without sanctions^[7].

Cuba has also been developing systems for limiting and tracking the use of the Internet by its citizens for a long time. Most people who want to connect to the Internet are forced to connect to the network through special access points approved by the government, where all their actions will be carefully monitored and analyzed. The government uses a restrictive approach^[8].

According to the statements of the Cuban government, the introduction of restrictive measures is forced due to US policy, although many claim that these allegations are not confirmed and are criticized. Some researchers suggest that the Cuban government is more interested in controlling the Internet activity of its citizens than previously thought, and that they are trying to manipulate public perception to advance their agenda.

Many international organizations, as participants in the process of multilateral regulation of the Internet, deal with certain issues of global network management. These include the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the G8, the G20, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and numerous regional organizations.

These issues are complex and require the coordination of policies and actions of many different stakeholders, depending on the context. Researchers believe that issues such as confidentiality can be resolved through multilateral negotiations, whereas cyber warfare can be partially regulated by "declarative policies, confidence-building measures and strict rules"^[9].

In this regard, it can be concluded that States seek to introduce restrictive policies, and international organizations seek to coordinate actions and conduct a dialogue between all participants in regulating the Internet as a communication system.

Prospects of Internet governance: directions of development

Stakeholders, States and regions, as it was established in the previous paragraph, adhere to different approaches when solving issues related to the use and development of the Internet. They also have different opportunities to discuss such issues and participate in national, regional and international Internet governance processes. That is why it is extremely important to support and strengthen local processes created within the framework of a multilateral, open, transparent and inclusive policy. These values are the main principles of the Internet Governance Forum, as well as national and regional initiatives of the Forum^[10].

The purpose of supporting multilateral regulation within the framework of the Forum is to strengthen global understanding of Internet governance issues by strengthening bottom-up interaction and coordinating the activities of many stakeholders. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) brings together representatives of various stakeholder groups who discuss Internet-related issues on an equal footing. This Forum is convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) and coordinated by the IGF Secretariat under the auspices of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs - UNDESA). Its format and agenda are developed by members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which is appointed annually by the UN Secretary-General on the basis of proposals received from a wide range of stakeholders during open, public consultations^[11].

Strengthening the global Internet governance system by raising awareness of the importance of more active and consistent interaction between local and regional communities is an essential aspect of the activities of States, international organizations and non-governmental initiatives, including the Internet Governance Forum.

The most important area of international cooperation is ensuring transparency and neutrality with the open participation of all interested parties, and this remains the main priority and task. It is also extremely important to ensure the participation of developing countries in existing Internet governance mechanisms. During the meeting at the UN General Assembly on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society in December 2015, Member States also stressed that over the next ten years, the Forum should continue to work to enhance the role of relevant stakeholders from developing countries^[12].

The achievement of these goals includes, among other things, the preparation of consolidated documents, as well as thematic reports and meeting materials. This also includes reaching out to all relevant stakeholders and being able to read content in multiple languages and in many regions through various communication channels. Equally important is interaction with organizations dealing with various issues of Internet governance, and improving interaction and communication with other organizations in order to further global policy dialogue on Internet governance^[13]. One of the challenges that participants in the multilateral regulation of the network will face in the coming years will be to achieve a balance between the need to ensure the full and active participation of all stakeholders and the effectiveness of the process.

The founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, called technological advances a "revolution" because of their "speed, scale and systemic impact." When discussing what he called the "fourth industrial revolution", Schwab highlighted a number of emerging policy issues and regulation of new technologies^[14]. Similarly, the 2019 document prepared for the WEF emphasizes the need to "transform traditional governance structures and policy-making models" and introduce more "flexible" management methods.

But responding to the associated risks and problems will require not only the study of new management structures, tools and processes. This task requires a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, economic and geopolitical context in which policies, norms and rules are developed, as well as a deeper understanding of ethical and philosophical issues. Moreover, active public participation is extremely necessary, since governments and companies cannot and should not solve these problems exclusively on their own^[15].

First of all, it is important to define the key principles and values. The subjects of the Internet governance process should formulate a common vision of principles and values, such as equality, inclusiveness, responsibility, transparency and accountability. This task will require new approaches to how to ensure that certain technologies (for example, forecasting algorithms, biotechnologies or technologies that allow the use of space resources) do not exacerbate existing socio-economic inequality.

Defining relevant principles and values requires more than a general understanding of how technological innovations develop, how they were developed and how they can be used. Such normative reflection also requires a clear understanding of the various values and principles that exist in various communities around the world, as well as the means and actors by which such values and principles should be protected. It also requires a transition from the simple formulation and dissemination of principles to their practical application and recognition of the associated problems and limitations.

A promising direction is the effective involvement of stakeholders: legislators, regulators, representatives of private business, researchers and civil actors should be prepared to respond more responsibly and effectively to the consequences and consequences of technological progress and the potential social risks they pose. It is worth noting that the ongoing experiments with new rules, principles and protocols to address specific topical policy issues certainly deserve attention, one example is the "flexible" initiative of the WEF management.

Nevertheless, these measures are being implemented at scale and applied to a range of cross-border socio-economic issues. and security issues will be challenging. This task is likely to require a combination of approaches, increased spending on independent public research and the participation of many parties other than States. To this end, it is vital that the relevant actors distinguish between domestic and international aspects in order to determine which technology-related problems should be addressed within the State, and which problems require cross-border coordination and cooperation.

In addition, it is necessary to expand existing platforms for multilateral interaction: it is necessary to clarify how various participants (and not only States) can responsibly participate in the work of multilateral mechanisms focused on how current international law or political norms are applied to the use of certain technologies by the State.

These platforms include various groups of United Nations governmental experts, as well as other specialized working groups dealing with technology issues (including ICT, machine learning, biotechnology and space technologies) and international security. Such efforts may also contribute to continuing discussions on how to ensure that multilateral mechanisms are sufficiently flexible, as well as on what new global norms or rules (mandatory and/or optional) are required to manage technological challenges and risks and limit certain aspects of the use of these technologies.

Thus, international Internet governance has several promising areas that require the involvement of all participants: States, including developing countries, international organizations, business, non-profit and non-governmental associations, representatives of the public and other interested groups.

The approach of the "new multipolarity" seems to be the most promising, when the Internet is considered as a set of many interconnected fields analyzed from the standpoint of the network approach. This approach shows the involvement of various actors, including non-state actors, in the process of Internet governance, since this trend is already obvious. The activities of different segments of this communication field should be coordinated by international organizations to prevent threats to global security, while providing an opportunity to introduce independent, but coordinated measures for global Internet governance.

Conclusions

The Internet is an increasingly popular communication medium, as more than half of the world's population has access to it. In this regard, there is a need to regulate the Internet, as new challenges for states are being formed in this communication environment: the spread of terrorist and extremist sentiments, control over information about users, the distribution of illegal goods, the recruitment of terrorists and extremist groups of people. This is a whole set of problems that pose a threat to security at the national and international level.

Among the most active actors of global Internet governance, States stand out first of all. Both democratic and authoritarian states strive to control the volume and quality of content, as well as to gain access to personal data of citizens.

In addition, there are private companies that develop software and new products for users, and are also the main drivers of the development of the Internet. On the other hand, international organizations strive to ensure a dialogue between all participants in Internet regulation, including developing States, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, as well as representatives of various groups of the public.

Since the measures of states are fragmented, and the role of private companies is becoming increasingly important, and it is impossible not to take it into account when building a system of global Internet governance, it is necessary to develop a sustainable approach to global network management.  It is worth noting that this area has received a strong institutional formalization: UN organizations and agencies, various forums are actively working, the main purpose of which is to coordinate the actions of various actors.

The following approaches to Internet management are highlighted:

· multi-level global governance;

· network management;

· management with a focus on strong players;

· governance based on the principle of "new multipolarity".

However, as the number of authoritarian states in the world increases, the open model of the Internet and multilevel diplomacy are becoming less in demand. In these conditions, there is a danger of fragmentation of the Internet, its disintegration into several unrelated segments.

In this case, the most promising approach seems to be the "new multipolarity", which allows taking into account the interests of many actors, as well as making the Internet management system more efficient and flexible, which makes it possible to respond to threats to global security more quickly and effectively.