{"title":"半正式的外交","authors":"Nigel Inkster","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198800682.013.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter assesses semi-official diplomacy in the cyber domain. It begins by describing Track 2 and Track 1.5 diplomacy. Track 2 diplomacy consists of a broad spectrum of activities ranging from academic conferences designed to address specific conflict-related diplomatic issues to much more generic people-to-people contacts designed to create a climate of greater mutual understanding. Meanwhile, Track 1.5 diplomacy seeks to leverage the strengths of both Track 1 and Track 2 diplomacy. It became clear from an early stage that the United States, Russia, and China were in a position to determine the strategic evolution of the cyber domain due to their status as global geo-political actors, their advanced cyber capabilities, their possession of nuclear weapons, and their differences in values and ideology. Russia was the first to make a move towards semi-official diplomacy. Whereas Russia has taken a leading role in international negotiations on cyber governance and cybersecurity, China has arguably become more consequential in terms of how its relationship with the United States will shape the normative culture of the cyber domain. The chapter then considers other examples of semi-official diplomacy as well as prospects for further semi-official diplomacy in the cyber domain.","PeriodicalId":336846,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Cyber Security","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semi-Formal Diplomacy\",\"authors\":\"Nigel Inkster\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198800682.013.33\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter assesses semi-official diplomacy in the cyber domain. It begins by describing Track 2 and Track 1.5 diplomacy. Track 2 diplomacy consists of a broad spectrum of activities ranging from academic conferences designed to address specific conflict-related diplomatic issues to much more generic people-to-people contacts designed to create a climate of greater mutual understanding. Meanwhile, Track 1.5 diplomacy seeks to leverage the strengths of both Track 1 and Track 2 diplomacy. It became clear from an early stage that the United States, Russia, and China were in a position to determine the strategic evolution of the cyber domain due to their status as global geo-political actors, their advanced cyber capabilities, their possession of nuclear weapons, and their differences in values and ideology. Russia was the first to make a move towards semi-official diplomacy. Whereas Russia has taken a leading role in international negotiations on cyber governance and cybersecurity, China has arguably become more consequential in terms of how its relationship with the United States will shape the normative culture of the cyber domain. The chapter then considers other examples of semi-official diplomacy as well as prospects for further semi-official diplomacy in the cyber domain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":336846,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Cyber Security\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Cyber Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198800682.013.33\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Cyber Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198800682.013.33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter assesses semi-official diplomacy in the cyber domain. It begins by describing Track 2 and Track 1.5 diplomacy. Track 2 diplomacy consists of a broad spectrum of activities ranging from academic conferences designed to address specific conflict-related diplomatic issues to much more generic people-to-people contacts designed to create a climate of greater mutual understanding. Meanwhile, Track 1.5 diplomacy seeks to leverage the strengths of both Track 1 and Track 2 diplomacy. It became clear from an early stage that the United States, Russia, and China were in a position to determine the strategic evolution of the cyber domain due to their status as global geo-political actors, their advanced cyber capabilities, their possession of nuclear weapons, and their differences in values and ideology. Russia was the first to make a move towards semi-official diplomacy. Whereas Russia has taken a leading role in international negotiations on cyber governance and cybersecurity, China has arguably become more consequential in terms of how its relationship with the United States will shape the normative culture of the cyber domain. The chapter then considers other examples of semi-official diplomacy as well as prospects for further semi-official diplomacy in the cyber domain.