پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 162 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,693 |
| تعداد مقالات | 72,239 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 129,226,574 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 102,057,448 |
اینترنت و تکنوژئوپلیتیک: الگوها و فرایندهای حکمرانی | ||
| فصلنامه سیاست | ||
| دوره 55، شماره 1، فروردین 1404، صفحه 123-87 اصل مقاله (1.35 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jpq.2025.385491.1008247 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| جلال درخشه1؛ محمد مهدی گلشاهی* 2 | ||
| 1استاد، علوم سیاسی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه امام صادق (ع)، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری سیاستگذاری عمومی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| اینترنت به‌عنوان پدیده‌ای که عمده رشد و بقای خویش را مدیون توسعه‌دهندگان خصوصی است، نه‌تنها برای مرزهای ژئوپلیتیکی اهمیتی قائل نمی‌شود، بلکه در قامت پدیده‌ای نوظهور اغلب در جهت تضعیف این مرزهای سنتی حرکت می‌کند و دولت‌ها را با چالش حکمرانی و موازنه قوای سیاسی در مقابل ژئوپلیتیک اطلاعات مواجه می‌سازد، این روند با توسعه فناوری‌های اینترنت پایه سبب شکل‌گیری ادبیات جدیدی در روابط بین‌الملل و علوم سیاسی با محوریت تکنوژئوپلیتیک می‌شود که اشاره‌ای است به بستری جدید از روابط سیاسی که در قالب آن نقش دسترسی دولت به اطلاعات، ثروت و ارتباطات همچون رمزارزها، هوش مصنوعی و هک به‌عنوان منابع جدید قدرت سیاسی، مفاهیم محوری و سنتی این حوزه چون موقعیت فیزیکی، اندازه، آب‌وهوا و توپوگرافی کشورها را به چالش می‌کشد و سبب شکل‌گیری ادبیات جدیدی در زمینه فناوری و ژئوپلیتیک می‌شود. سؤال محوری پژوهش آن است که نسبت حکمرانی اینترنت و تحولات فناوری چگونه قابل توضیح است و الگوهای حکمرانی اینترنت چه سیر تحولی را طی کرده‌اند؟ نتایج این پژوهش که با استفاده از روش ترکیبی مبتنی بر تحلیل محتوای کیفی و روش مقایسه‌ای صورت گرفته است، حاکی از آن است الگوی حکمرانی اینترنت از الگوی آنارشیستی تا حکمرانی چند ذی‌ربطی قابل تغییر است که رویکرد یکسویه ایالات متحده در استفاده فناوری‌های اینترنت پایه در ذیل مفهوم تکنوژئوپلیتیک به‌عنوان الگوی سلطه جدید، سبب مواجهه دو الگوی حکمرانی جهانی با محوریت ایالات متحده و متحدان و الگوی حکمرانی ملی با محوریت چین، روسیه و منطقه آسه‌آن در سطح ملی_منطقه‌ای شده است که الگوی حکمرانی چندذی‌نفعی در پی آن است که استانداردهای این دو الگوی حکمرانی را به یکدیگر نزدیک کند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| اینترنت؛ تکنوژئوپلیتیک؛ حکمرانی؛ چند ذی‌ربطی ذی‌ربطی؛ چین | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Internet and Technogeopolitics: Governance Patterns and Processes | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Jalal Dorakhshah1؛ Mohamad mahdi Golshahi2 | ||
| 1Professor, Department of Political Science, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2PhD Student in Public Policy, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction The term "Internet" is used as a paradigm for flexibility, creativity, and freedom for development and evolution, freedom of expression, freedom of information, and free flow. This paradigm is sometimes referred to as the "open and free Internet" and refers to a broad range of protocols, services, and applications, as well as a set of interconnected networks that share a common transport protocol and pursue various economic, political, and cultural goals. This phenomenon owes much of its growth and survival to private developers, not only challenging governments with the need to share governance with the private sector and other stakeholders, such as technical associations and international organizations, but also acting as an emerging force that weakens traditional political boundaries. Under the concept of techno-geopolitics, it challenges the security and authority of states. If we define techno-geopolitics as the application of information, knowledge, and technology in altering the power hierarchy and the political behavior between states and tech companies, then it must be accepted that the geopolitics of information has confronted governments not only with new competitors, such as multinational corporations, but also transformed the political battleground from traditional geopolitical concepts like physical location, size, climate, topography, demographics, and natural resources to new concepts centered on knowledge and technology. These include government access to information, wealth, and communications, such as hacking and cyberattacks on other countries, economic capabilities like chip production, liquidity in financial markets, and investments in artificial intelligence. In this context, what is particularly important is how governments face new technologies in shaping Internet governance models, considering two key factors in this area: the ambiguity of international accountability and the uncertainty in how technology and Internet governance will evolve. Ambiguity of accountability refers to the dominance and misuse of the United States and its central role in domain name service provision (ICANN), which uses this technology as a strategic political tool in cyber warfare against countries opposing the U.S. The second issue, uncertainty, primarily refers to the lack of a unified governance model and the transition from the traditional governance model centered on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This transition creates a challenge of convergence and the balancing of interests among new stakeholders in governance, including markets, networks, and hierarchies, under multi-stakeholder governance, which is reflected in new legislation in the field. Governance is not defined by unilateral and imposed laws of national legislators or international bodies, but rather by a set of values, norms, cultures, soft laws, and hard laws, where sovereignty is seen as a public matter involving all stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society, and technical associations. Moreover, this uncertainty refers to the emergence of new economic markets, which have so far led to the formation of political-economic alliances such as the Five Eyes alliance, with the U.S. at its core, in response to China's technological development. This has resulted in an unpredictable global landscape in both the economic and political spheres. The present study aims to examine the Internet governance models, identifying their similarities and differences, in order to identify the most effective model in the era of technological conflict. In this regard, it addresses the following questions: first, what governance models has Internet governance followed over the past two decades? what similarities and differences exist between these models? how are the interests of stakeholders addressed in these models, and with what methods? Lastly, how is the relationship between techno-geopolitics and governance represented in the framework of governance models. Materials and Methods The conceptual framework of this research is based on two key concepts: Internet governance with a focus on identifying stakeholders and the scope of government authority, and techno-geopolitics with an emphasis on technological conflict. In this regard, the study traces the evolution of Internet governance through three key phases: the formation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which was an attempt to organize an internet community similar to the United Nations; the transition from the dominance of ICANN (formerly AIANA) in 2013 and the introduction of the four core principles of the Internet (ROAM), which include access to the internet as a human right, freedom of information as a public right, universal access without restriction, and finally, the multi-stakeholder governance model as the model for Internet governance; and the shift to the technological conflict arena between China and the U.S. and their allies following the sanctions and expulsion of Huawei from the United States in 2018. These three phases represent the central transformation of the internet and technology. Taking into account the concept of techno-geopolitics and Internet governance, this study employs Philip Mayering's qualitative analysis method within an inductive approach, structured in three stages: data collection and organization, coding and categorization to explain the various models of Internet governance. Results and Discussion The central question of this research was that what evolutionary path has Internet governance taken, and what are the similarities and differences between the various governance models in this field? Additionally, the subsidiary question addressed the relationship between techno-geopolitics and Internet governance. In response, it can be stated that there are two main approaches to Internet governance: the military-security approach and the economic approach. The nine governance models in this field, developed after the formation of ICANN and the Information Society community, have emerged under the economic approach. These models, while addressing two central issues of the Internet and technology—namely, the ambiguity in the accountability of domestic and international institutions and the use of the Internet as a political tool under techno-geopolitics, as well as the uncertainty surrounding technology development and its positioning in domestic and foreign economies based on government interests—have evolved. In its most basic form, the anarchistic model, which focuses on a cultural-philosophical approach to the Internet, emphasizes decentralization, openness, equality, and anonymity. The outcome of this governance model is the formation of cryptocurrencies and investments in VPNs to preserve the freedom of information without regard to government interests. The two central components of Internet governance—ambiguity and uncertainty—are evident here. The hierarchical governance model, focusing on the ambiguity of Internet security challenges such as cyberattacks and the lack of accountability of the ICANN, places the interests of Internet stakeholders—from users to the private sector—under the security interests of governments. In this context, two opposing governance models, global and national, have emerged. The result has been the formation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and an effort to find a middle ground with a focus on consensus-based, democratic, and ultimately multi-stakeholder governance. In the consensual and democratic governance model, the focus is on recognizing the rights of stakeholders and responding to the needs of the second and third generations of the Internet, i.e., the formation of social networks and cryptocurrencies, through two democratic models: consultative and participatory democracy. In the democratic model, key components such as power balance, veto rights, and decision-making independence are explored, yet the main challenge remains the guarantee of stakeholders' rights at both domestic and international levels and the development of an applicable model aligned with technological advancements, such as cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence.The solution lies in the rise of multi-stakeholder governance to address the interests of stakeholders, especially the private sector and technical associations, to promote technological development. This model introduces a new governance paradigm based on four key elements: sustainability, networking, international community-building, and the freedom of information. These elements are aligned with UNESCO's four principles of the Internet. While this model addresses the two challenges of ambiguity and uncertainty in technological development, it also moves towards harmonizing the standards for Internet services across countries. Furthermore, it creates international pressure on countries that restrict the Internet, facilitating broader access for people. By establishing cyber-interpol and creating a platform for international accountability, this model aims to respond to challenges such as cyberattacks. Although this model faces execution challenges, it represents a significant step in aligning technological standards with the four principles of freedom of information, universal access, human rights, and multi-stakeholder governance, both domestically and internationally. It suggests that by accepting the risks associated with the Internet and technologies such as hacking and cyber-sabotage, countries can foster economic competition and technological development while reducing cyber risks through the participation of internal and external stakeholders. Conclusion The conclusion of this research, which uses the framework of Internet governance and techno-geopolitics, based on the two concepts of ambiguity (including how international institutions respond to risks such as data theft and hacking) and uncertainty (based on how technology develops and the formation of new markets and countries' share in these markets), is that the transformations in the second and third generations of the Internet, along with the technological conflicts emerging under the concept of techno-geopolitics, compel governments to adopt a multi-stakeholder governance model. Therefore, the relationship between Internet governance and techno-geopolitics can be observed in multi-stakeholder governance at three levels: Domestic level: This includes considering veto rights for stakeholders and ensuring government accountability towards stakeholders' rights in policymaking in the areas of Internet and technology. 2. Regional level: This includes the formation of alliances such as the six ASEAN countries, and at 3. the transnational and global level: cooperation between China, private companies, and EU governments to control technology pricing and reduce the influence of the Five Eyes alliance. Although the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conferences aim to shape a global multi-stakeholder governance model, the technological conflict reduces this model to the domestic and regional levels. The innovation of this research lies in its reliance on primary sources within this field to explain this transformation, namely techno-geopolitics and Internet governance, and to examine the evolution of Internet governance models, including anarchistic, hierarchical (bureaucratic, oligarchic, meritocratic), hybrid, hierarchical-anarchistic, democratic, consensual, and finally, multi-stakeholder governance. This progression had not been addressed in previous research. This study, by comparing Internet governance and technological conflict, paves the way for further research on techno-geopolitics, the new equations in international relations, and the exploration of Internet governance models in light of emerging technologies. Based on these findings, the following recommendations are made: Examine the evolution of Internet governance in Iran. Assess the country's capabilities in techno-geopolitics to conduct a diagnosis for dealing with cyberattacks and emerging economic sectors such as artificial intelligence and digital currency. Compare and analyze Internet governance models in China, the United States, Russia, and the European Union as reference models for Internet governance. Evaluate and assess the feasibility of multi-stakeholder governance in Iran. Analyze and position Iran in the context of the global technological equations to balance political power. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Internet, Echno-Geopolitics, Multistakeholder, Governance, China | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aristotle (2023). Politics, translated by Hamid Enayat, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications, 11th edition. Auerbach, K (2014). A letter to Congress about NTIA and ICANN.April 21. Accessed July 27,2016.http://www.cavebear.com/docs/ntia-icann-2014-others.pdf. Broeders, D (2015). The Public core of the Internet:An International Agenda For Internet Governance,Published: Amsterdam University Press. Coleman, M.(2007). a Geopolitics of Engagement:Neoliberalism, the War on Terrorism, and the Reconfiguration of US Immigration Enforcement. Geopolitics 12,P.P.607–34. Denardis, l (2020). The Internet in Everything:freedom and security in a world with no off switch, Published with assistance from the foundation established in memory of Philip Hamilton McMillan of the Class. Donnelly,Ch; Stolz, M (2023). JTF-ARES as a Model of a Persistent, Joint Cyber Task Force, Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security,Vol. 22 No.1,P.P.169-176. DunnCavelty, M. (2008). Cyber Security and Threat Politics:US Efforts to Secure the Information Age. London: Routledge. DunnCavelty, M; Wenger, A (2022). Cyber Security Politics Socio-Technological Transformations and Political Fragmentation,Frist Publish,New York:Routledge,doi.org/10.4324/9781003110224. Epstein, D; Katzenbach, C; Musiani, F (2016). Doing internet governance: practices,controversies, infrastructures, and institutions.Journal on internet regulation:Internet Policy Review,5(3).P.P.1-14: DOI: 10.14763/2016.3.435. Farhadi, M (2019). Russian Internet Law, Supreme Council of Cyberspace,Report No.1.[In Persian] Feigenbaum, E.A. (2019). ‘In Asia, Disruptive Technonationalism Returns.’Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.13 November 2019. Firouzabadi, A.H (2020). An Introduction to Cyberspace Governance,Imam Sadeq University Publications, Third Edition.[In Persian] Galston,W.A (2004). The Internet in Public Life Lanham,MD: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers,2004,The Impact of the Internet on CivicLife: An Early Assessment,P.P.59-67. Gleckman, H (2018). Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy:A Global Challenge, First published, New York: Routledge. Gomez, M.A; Whyte, C. (2022). Cyber Uncertainties: Observations from Cross-National Wargames. In M. Dunn Cavelty and A. Wenger (eds),Cyber Security: Socio-Technological Uncertainty and Political Fragmentation. London: Routledge, P.P.111–127. Helm, T (2020).‘Pressure from Trump Led to 5G Ban, Britain Tells Huawei.’ The Guardian. 18 July 2020.A. [In Persian] Hill, R. (2013).The New International Telecommunication Regulations and the Internet:A Commentary and Legal History, Published: Schulthess/ Springer [In Press] Hill, R (2014). Internet governance, multi-stakeholder models,and the IANA transition: shining example or dark side? Journal of Cyber Policy,1(2),P.P.176-197,DOI:10.1080/23738871.2016.1227866. Hofmann, J (2016). Multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance: putting a fiction into practice,Journal of Cyber Policy,1:1,P.P.29-49. Khojasteh, H (2021). Studying the behavior of the main stakeholders in the use of cyberspace,Bi-Quarterly Scientific Research Journal of Religion and Cultural Policy,Issue 17.[In Persian] MalekMohammadi,H.R (2015). Techno-Geopolitics;a pro classical geopolitics challenging critical approach,Geopolitics Quarterly,Volume:10,No 4,P.P.109-121.[In Persian] Malcolm, J (2008). Multi-StakeholderGOVERNANCE and the Internet Governance Forum, Published in Australia by Terminus Press. Manouchehri, A; Tajik, M.R; Hosseini Beheshti, A; Kowsari, M; Haqiqit, S; Nejati Hosseini, M (2020). Approach and Method in Political Science,Tehran: Samt Publishing, Fifth Edition May, T.C (2001). Crypto Anarchy,Cyberstates and Pirate Utopias Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,Crypto Anarchy and VirtualCommunities,P.65. Multi-stakeholder Governance of Cyberspace (2019). Supreme Council for Cyberspace,Report.No3. Mueller, M (2002). Ruling the Root:Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,P.48. Nawaz, F; AbuSaleem,Kh; Kayani, U (2024).THE MADE IN CHINA 2025 STRATEGY: PERCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF CHINA’S STATE CAPITALIST ECONOMIC MODEL,Corporate & Business Strategy Review,5(1),P.P.432-439. Netanel, Neil Weinstock (2000). Cyberspace Self-Governance:A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic Theory, Calif L Rev,P.395-415. Nye J.R, J.S. (2014).“The Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities,”Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series,No.1,CIGI. Painter, J. (2008). Geographies of Space and Power. In K.R. Cox, M. Low, and J.Robinson(eds.)the Sage Handbook of Political Geography.London: Sage,pp.57–72. Palfrey, J (2004). The End of The Experiment :How ICANN Foray Into Global Internet Democracy Failed, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology,17(2),P.P.410-471. Patton, M.Q (1990).”Qualitative Researchand Evaluation Methods”London, Publisher:sage group. Pourakhond Darzi, N;Taherkhenkondari, M; Abbasi, M (2022). International Institutions and Government Socialization(Case Study of the Financial Action Task Force),Strategic Studies Quarterly,Year 25,No.4, P.P.283-310.[In Persian] Radu, R (2019). Negotiating Internet Governance,Frist publish, United Kingdom:Oxford University Press. Raymond, E.S (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, Revised edition Sebastopol,CA: O’Reilly & Associates. Reagle, J (1998). Why the Internet is Good: Community Governance That Works Well !URL:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ reagle/regulation-19990326.html". Rheingold, H (1993). The Virtual Community Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing,P.P.128-143. Reynolds, G (2006). An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths Nashville, TN: Nelson Current, P.28-36. Skelcher, C (2005). Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance, Governance 18:1,P.P.89-96. The hexagonal model of governance of the Islamic Republic of Iran in cyberspace (2019),Supreme Council for Cyberspace,Report No.6. Theocharis, J; Van Det, J (2022). Political Participation in a Changing World,Translated by:Behjat Abbasi,Tehran:Joyandeh Publications. Vakil, A; Nowruzpour, H (2020). Multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet and international law: common concepts or a new approach? Quarterly Journal of Public Law Research,21(66),P.P.107-141.[in Persian] Van Eeten, M; Mueller, M (2012).Where is the governancein Internet governance?Journal of new media & society,15(5),P.P.1-17. Wachhaus, A (2011). Anarchy as a Model for Network Governance,Journal of Public Administration,72(1),P.P.33-42. Weber, M )2013). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,Editor:Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich,Publisher: University of California Press. WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance)(2005). Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance.http://www.wgig.org/docs/ Wong, P.N (2022). Techno_GeoPolitics:U.S.-China Tech War and the Practice of Digital Statecraft, Frist Publish, New York: Routledge.doi.org/10.4324/9781003047100. Young, I.M (1996). Six Communication and the Other:Beyond Deliberative Democracy, published:PrincetonUniversity Press. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 84 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 81 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب