Search

Begin New Search Topic Cybersecurity Political Geography United States of America

91. The Dispatch (Fall 2016)

Author:
David J. Bercuson, Julian Lindley-French, Alan Stephenson, Neil Desai, John Adams, Charity Weeden, Elinor Sloan, Mike Day, Stephen M. Saideman, Kyle Matthews, and David McLaughlin
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Global Exchange
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The Dispatch (later called The Global Exchange) is the Canadian Global Affairs Institute’s quarterly magazine featuring topical articles written by our fellows and other contributing experts. Each issue contains approximately a dozen articles exploring political and strategic challenges in international affairs and Canadian foreign and defence policy. This Fall 2016 issue includes articles on climate change, digital security, Brexit and more.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Cybersecurity, Brexit, Military Spending, Alliance, and Space
Political Geography:
Britain, Turkey, Canada, North America, and United States of America

92. The PLA General Staff Department Third Department Second Bureau: An Organizational Overview of Unit 61398

Author:
Mark Stokes
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
In May 2014, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced indictments against five Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) officers on charges of cyber espionage directed against U.S. firms. According to the indictments, the five officers were assigned to the Third Office of the PLA General Staff Department (GSD) Technical Reconnaissance Department (alternatively known as the Third Department) Second Bureau. While assigned personnel may well engage in cyber espionage, a survey of Second Bureau infrastructure indicates a much broader communications intelligence mission.
Topic:
Intelligence, Cybersecurity, and Espionage
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

93. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Fall 2015

Author:
Julia McQuaid, Patricio Asfura-Heim, Dr. Jose de Arimateia da Cruz, Taylor Alvarez, and Tal Tovy
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
In 2009, a militant Islamist group commonly known as Boko Haram began a campaign of terror across northeastern Nigeria with the main purpose of removing all Western influences and replacing the national government with an Islamic state. For more than a decade, the U.S. government has worked extensively with foreign governments to counter these types of acts around the world, often with mixed results. As such, interoperability, or the capacity of one element of the government to work with another, has become a critical component of America’s international relations and national security policies. As we transition from U.S. involvement in ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to monitoring civil unrest throughout the Middle East and Africa, American forces must continue to apply the fundamentals of counterinsurgency (COIN) and cultural operations to their roles within the evolving battlespace.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cybersecurity, History, Boko Haram, and Vietnam War
Political Geography:
Africa, Vietnam, South America, North America, Nigeria, and United States of America

94. North Korea: The Myth of Maxed-Out Sanctions

Author:
Joshua Stanton
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
On December 19, 2014, President Obama publicly blamed North Korea for the cyberattack against Sony Pictures and for the subsequent cyberterrorism against the American people, and promised to "respond proportionally." Almost immediately thereafter, one could hear a familiar narrative repeated, typified by New York Times correspondent David Sanger, who wrote that "North Korea is under so many sanctions already that adding more seems futile." One could have heard similar arguments in 2006, after North Korea's first nuclear test, and in 2013, after its third nuclear test. A variation of this argument is that “Washington … can do little ... without the cooperation of China.” ​ For years, journalists have quoted “experts” who insisted that U.S. sanctions options against North Korea were exhausted and had failed as an instrument of policy. As a matter of both fact and law, however, that is false; it even suggests that these experts have not read and understood the sanctions authorities. Why does this view persist, then? Some scholars may accept and propagate it because they oppose sanctions as a matter of policy. Others have simply ceased to question a myth that has entered the received wisdom. A true understanding of the potential effectiveness of sanctions first requires an understanding of what these sanctions are, what they are not, and how they work. This article will first summarize the sanctions authorities – U.N. Security Council resolutions, and the U.S. sanctions that should be an important part of the effective enforcement of the measures that the U.N. Security Council has adopted. It will also explain the role of the Treasury Department in regulating the international financial system, and the power this gives the United States to isolate the North Korean government from that system. It will explain which U.S. and U.N. sanctions against North Korea have succeeded and failed, and why. Finally, it will explain what current U.S. national sanctions do, and what they do not do. Only after one understands how little the current sanctions do – and how much they could do – can one begin to understand how to strengthen them into an effective part of a coherent foreign policy... ​
Topic:
Science and Technology, United Nations, Sanctions, Cybersecurity, and Economy
Political Geography:
Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

95. Full Issue: Emerging Domains of Security

Author:
Meg Guliford, Thomas McCarthy, Alison Russell, Michael M. Tsai, Po-Chang Huang, Feng-tai Hwang, Ian Easton, Matthew Testerman, Nikolas Ott, Anthony Gilgis, Todd Diamond, Michael Wackenreuter, Sebastian Bruns, Andrew Mark Spencer, Wendy A. Wayman, and Charles Cleveland
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The theme of this special edition is “Emerging Domains of Security.” Coupled with previously unpublished work developed under a prior “Winning Without War” theme, the articles therein honor Professor Martel’s diverse, yet forward-leaning, research interests. This edition maintains the journal’s four traditional sections of policy, history, interviews, and current affairs. Our authors include established academics and practitioners as well as two Fletcher students, Nikolas Ott and Michael Wackenreuter. Each of the articles analyzes critical issues in the study and practice of international security, and our authors make salient arguments about an array of security-related issues. The articles are borne out of countless hours of work by FSR’s dedicated editorial staff. I deeply appreciate the time and effort they devoted to the publication of this volume. They are full-time graduate students who masterfully balanced a host of responsibilities.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Intelligence, International Cooperation, International Law, History, Military Affairs, Counter-terrorism, Cybersecurity, Navy, Conflict, Space, Interview, Army, Baath Party, and Norms
Political Geography:
China, Iraq, Europe, Middle East, Taiwan, Germany, Asia-Pacific, Global Focus, and United States of America

96. Roadmap for a Code of Conduct for Cyberspace

Author:
Thomas McCarthy and Alison Russell
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Professor Martel, author of Grand Strategy in Theory and Practice: The Need for an Effective American Foreign Policy, offers three guiding principles for U.S. grand strategy: rebuilding domestic foundations of power; exercising American leadership to restrain sources of disorder that directly threaten U.S. vital interests; and forging both alliances and partnerships to confront the most pressing threats to global stability.[2] The last of Martel’s three principles foreshadows the three cyber security activities at the heart of the newly released U.S. Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. The three activities around which the new U.S. DoD cyber strategy revolves are: Information sharing and interagency coordination; building bridges to the private sector; and building alliances, coalitions, and partnerships abroad.[3] These three coordinating and collaborating activities are the key to building relationships between actors influencing the development of the cyber domain, and are necessary to identify and counter threats. To advance global cyber security, the Cyber Strategy suggests the U.S. must “build and maintain robust international alliances and partnerships to deter shared threats and increase international security and stability.”[4] As part of this effort, the United States seeks to build security relationships to respond to shifts in the international environment, including sources of disorder. These relationships are built upon trust and cooperation of many actors with varied interests and objectives in cyberspace. Given the wide variety of actors and interests within the cyber domain, establishing relationships of trust based on a shared understanding of acceptable conduct, expected behavior, and governing principles represents a daunting challenge...
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Cybersecurity, and Grand Strategy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

97. Conflict in Cyberspace: How International Legal Norms Can Reduce Military Escalation in Cyberspace

Author:
Nikolas Ott
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
This paper examines the current technical and legal considerations around the development of international legal norms and confidence-building measures in cyberspace. With an emphasis on state-based armed attacks and the use of force in cyberspace, it summarizes the current status of international efforts within the United Nations and several regional organizations. The paper concludes with several suggestions on how policymakers can reduce the gap between technological and legal considerations.
Topic:
International Law, Military Affairs, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
United Nations, North America, and United States of America

98. Bridging the Planning Gap: Incorporating Cyberspace Into Operational Planning

Author:
Colonel Martha S. H. VanDriel
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Cyberspace operations have a far-reaching, permanent impact on military operations. At the conceptual level, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) now recognizes five warfighting domains: land, maritime, air, space, and cyber.1 While there are examples of how cyberspace support to military operations have advanced over the past decade, one gap has not been addressed in detail—operational planning. It is clear that in U.S. military operations, the land, maritime, air, and space domains rely heavily on cyberspace. Therefore, cyberspace operations must be viewed in the context of all domains and be included as part of the overall operational scheme of maneuver. For if a commander postures his or her command to fight an adversary in the first four domains but ignores cyberspace, not only will that commander have ceded the cyberspace domain to the adversary, but the adversary can then proceed to undermine that commander’s effectiveness in the other four domains.
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, War, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
United States of America

99. Journal of Public and International Affairs 2014

Author:
Daphne McCurdy, Chikara Onda, Aaron Aitken, Lucia Adriana Baltazar Vazquez, John Paul Bumpus, John Speed Meyers, Pierina Ana Sanchez, Yolaine Frossard de Saugy, Melanie Harris, Steve Moilanen, Stephen Pritchard, Nicolas Collin dit de Montesson, and Naomi Crowther
Publication Date:
05-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
From pressing foreign policy issues such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea and homicide rates in Honduras to contentious domestic policy debates such as the rights of Mexican immigrants in the United States and the construction of the Keystone pipeline, the topics in this year’s journal are wide-ranging in both functional and geographic focus. However, they all share a strong commitment to seeking solutions to the world’s most serious challenges through sound policy.
Topic:
Crime, Government, Oil, Poverty, Sovereignty, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Foreign Aid, Immigration, Governance, Law, Cybersecurity, and Grand Strategy
Political Geography:
Africa, China, Iran, Canada, Philippines, Mexico, Honduras, United States of America, and South China Sea

100. 2013-14 IGCC White Paper on Defense Transparency in Northeast Asia

Author:
Tai Ming Cheung and Jordan Wilson
Publication Date:
11-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
The 2013‒2014 Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index (DTI) measures transparency in de-fense activities in one of the most strategically important but politically volatile regions of the world. In the fifth year of this Index, its central goal remains to provide a rigorous, quantitative-based measurement of this essential but contested concept. Improving trust, confidence, and credibility in Northeast Asia’s security environment is becoming ever more pressing as arms competition intensifies among major regional powers and security interests become increasingly entangled. In this climate of growing security anxiety, the demand for timely and relevant defense information has grown, not only from governments and their mil-itaries but also from many other quarters, including the general public, media, and business com-munity. But while the case has been made by policy and academic experts that increased transpar-ency could potentially meet some of these demands and strengthen mutual trust between states, defense transparency lacks agreed-upon definitions and standardized means of measurement. The Institute on Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) has sought to address this analytical gap to provide a general framework for defining and measuring defense transparency, specifically for the six states covered in the DTI: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Japan, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Russian Federation (Russia), and the United States.The brief begins by presenting the methodology used by IGCC to initially develop the DTI, then highlights changes made to improve the process in this latest edition. This is followed by the final scores achieved by states in the 2013–2014 DTI, which are compared with previous years. The Analysis section examines what brought about scoring changes for these states from the previous editions of the index. Finally, the Country Assessments and Recommendations section summarizes trends for each of the six countries. By taking a comprehensive approach to defense transparency and continuing to refine our meth-odology, we want to ensure that the DTI will remain an informative, relevant and adaptive tool for measuring defense transparency going forward, enabling comparison both across states and over time.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Budget, Cybersecurity, Media, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Korea, and United States of America