The pervasive informality of the international cybersecurity regime: Geopolitics, non-state actors and diplomacy

Reference list

• Abbott, K. W., & Faude, B. (2021). Choosing low-cost institutions in global governance. International Theory, 13(3), 397–426. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971920000202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2020). Competence versus control: The governor’s dilemma. Regulation & Governance, 14(4), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70(2), 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818315000338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, E., & Haas, P. M. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46(1), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adler-Nissen, R. (2014). Opting out of the European union: Diplomacy, sovereignty and European integration. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337916.001.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, G. C., & Benson, E. (2023). Clues to the U.S.–Dutch–Japanese semiconductor export controls deal are hiding in plain sight. https://www.csis.org/analysis/clues-us-dutch-japanese-semiconductor-export-controls-deal-are-hiding-plain-sight
   Google Scholar
• Alter, K., & Raustiala, K. (2018). The rise of international regime complexity. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alter, K. J. (2022). The promise and perils of theorizing international regime complexity in an evolving world. The Review of International Organizations, 17(2), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09448-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrosio, T. (2001). Russia's quest for multipolarity: A response to US foreign policy in the post-cold war era. European Security, 10(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830108407482
   Google Scholar
• Andonova, L. B. (2017). Governance entrepreneurs: International organizations and the rise of global public-private partnerships. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arquila, J. (2021). Bitskrieg. The new challenge off cyber warfare. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, M. N., Pevehouse, J. C., & Raustiala, K. (Eds.). (2021). Global governance in a world of change. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barrinha, A., & Renard, T. (2017). Cyber-diplomacy: The making of an international society in the digital age. Global Affairs, 3(4–5), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2017.1414924
   Google Scholar
• Barrinha, A., & Renard, T. (2020). Power and diplomacy in the post-liberal cyberspace. International Affairs, 96(3), 749–766. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrinha, A., & Turner, R. (2024). Strategic narratives and the multilateral governance of cyberspace: The cases of European Union, Russia, and India. Contemporary Security Policy, 45(1), 72–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2266906
   Google Scholar
• Basu, A., Poetranto, I., & Lau, J. (2021, May 19). The UN struggles to make progress on securing cyberspace. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/05/19/un-struggles-to-make-progress-on-securing-cyberspace-pub-84491
   Google Scholar
• Berman, A., & Pauwelyn, J. (2022). Assessing stakeholder participation reforms in global health governance. In J. Pauwelyn, M. Maggetti, T. Büthe, & A. Berman (Eds.), Rethinking participation in global governance: Voice and influence after stakeholder reforms in global finance and health (pp. 381–393). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198852568.003.0018
   Google Scholar
• Bes, B. J., Sommerer, T., & Agné, H. (2019). On legitimacy crises and the resources of global governance institutions: A surprisingly weak relationship? Global Policy, 10(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi, A., & Hirsch, M. (Eds.). (2021). International law’s invisible frames: Social cognition and knowledge production in international legal processes. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192847539.003.0001
   Google Scholar
• Bode, I., Huelss, H., Nadibaidze, A., Qiao-Franco, G., & Watts, T. F. A. (2023). Prospects for the global governance of autonomous weapons: Comparing Chinese, Russian, and US practices. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09678-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozhkov, N. (2020). China’s cyber diplomacy: A primer. EU Cyber Direct. https://eucd.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/eucd/assets/-GXl50Cl/bozhkov-digital-dialogue-final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, C., Goldsmith, J., & Hathaway, O. A. (2023). The rise of nonbinding international agreements: An empirical, comparative, and normative analysis. University of Chicago Law Review, 90. https://live-chicago-law-review.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2023-09/01_Bradley_ART_Final.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratus, S., Capelis, D. J., Locasto, M., & Shubina, A. (2014). Why Wassenaar arrangement’s definitions of intrusion software and controlled items put security research and defense at risk-and how to fix it. Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Broeders, D. (2021). The (im)possibilities of addressing election interference and the public core of the internet in the UN GGE and OEWG: A mid-process assessment. Journal of Cyber Policy, 6(3), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2021.1916976
   Google Scholar
• Broeders, D. (2023). Addressing the elephant in the room. Cyber intelligence and international security. Inaugural address University of Leiden. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3572086/view
   Google Scholar
• Broeders, D., de Busser, E., Cristiano, F., & Tropina, T. (2022). Revisiting past cyber operations in light of new cyber norms and interpretations of international law: Inching towards lines in the sand? Journal of Cyber Policy, 7(1), 97–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2022.2041061
   Google Scholar
• Brosig, M. (2023). Military ad hoc coalitions and functional differentiation in inter-organisational relations. European Journal of International Security, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2023.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broude, T., & Shereshevsky, Y. (2021). Explaining the practical purchase of soft law: Competing and complementary behavior hypotheses. In H. G. Cohen & T. Meyer (Eds.), International Law as behavior (pp. 98–127). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979792.005
   Google Scholar
• Brunnee, J., & Toope, S. J. (2010). Legitimacy and legality in international law: An interactional account. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781261
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x
   Google Scholar
• Bueger, C. (2018). Territory, authority, expertise: Global governance and the counter-piracy assemblage. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 614–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117725155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueger, C., & Edmunds, T. (2021). Pragmatic ordering: Informality, experimentation, and the maritime security agenda. Review of International Studies, 47(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210520000479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueger, C., & Liebetrau, T. (2023). Critical maritime infrastructure protection: What’s the trouble? Marine Policy, 155, 105772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büthe, T., & Mattli, W. (2011). The new global rulers: The privatization of regulation in the world economy. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2022, April). Effects of cloud market concentration – carnegie cloud governance toolkit. https://cloud.carnegieendowment.org/cloud-governance-issues/effects-of-cloud-market-concentration/
   Google Scholar
• Caserta, S., & Madsen, M. R. (2016). Between community law and common law: The rise of the Caribbean court of justice at the intersection of regional integration and post-colonial legacies. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(1), 89–115. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43920646
   Google Scholar
• Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1998). The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chernenko, E. (2018). Russia’s cyber diplomacy. In N. Popescu & S. Secrieru (Eds.), Hacks, leaks and disruptions. Russian cyber strategies (pp. 43–50). European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21140.8
   Google Scholar
• Chesney, R., & Smeets, M. (Eds.). (2023). Deter, disrupt or deceive. Assessing cyber conflict as an intelligence contest. Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• China. (2021). Oral Statement at the third substantive session of the OEWG, 8–12 March 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Chuanying, L. (2022). A Chinese perspective on public cyber attribution. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/28/chinese-perspective-on-public-cyber-attribution-pub-86699
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R. (2021). Pool or duel? Cooperation and competition among international organizations. International Organization, 75(4), 1133–1153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818321000229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Convention on Cybercrime: Special edition dedicated to the drafters of the Convention (1997–2001). (2022). Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/special-edition-budapest-convention-en-2022/1680a6992e
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, A. F., Parlar Dal, E., & Cannon, B. (2022). The cascading dynamics of informal institutions: Organizational processes and governance implications. International Politics. Online first, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-022-00399-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creemers, R. (2020). China’s conception of cyber sovereignty: Rhetoric and realization. In D. Broeders & B. Van den Berg (Eds.), Governing cyberspace: Behaviour, power and diplomacy (pp. 107–144). Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). (2022). Update: Destructive malware targeting organizations in Ukraine. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa22-057a
   Google Scholar
• de Coning, C., Yaw Tchie, A. E., & Grand, A. O. (2022). Ad-hoc security initiatives, an African response to insecurity. African Security Review, 31(4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10246029.2022.2134810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delerue, F., Douzet, F., & Géry, A. (2020). The geopolitical representations of international law in the international negotiations on the security and stability of cyberspace (Report No. 75). IRSEM/EU Cyber Direct. https://www.irsem.fr/media/5-publications/etudes/report-75-delerue-et-al.pdf
   Google Scholar
• DeNardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drezner, D. W. (2009). The power and peril of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709090100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drieschova, A., Bueger, C., & Hopf, T. (Eds.). (2022). Conceptualizing international practices. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunoff, J. L., & Pollack, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Interdisciplinary perspectives on international Law and international relations: The state of the Art. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107310
   Google Scholar
• Efrony, D. (2021, July 16). The UN cyber groups, GGE and OEWG – a consensus is optimal, but time is of the essence. Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/77480/the-un-cyber-groups-gge-and-oewg-a-consensus-is-optimal-but-time-is-of-the-essence/
   Google Scholar
• Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2009). Varieties of cooperation: Government networks in international security. In M. Kahler (Ed.), Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance (1st ed., pp. 194–227). Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M., & Hofmann, S. C. (2020). Of the contemporary global order, crisis, and change. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(7), 1077–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1678665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M., & Hollis, D. (2016). Constructing norms for global cybersecurity. American Journal of International Law, 110(3), 425–479. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000016894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M., & Jurkovich, M. (2020). The politics of aspiration. International Studies Quarterly, 64(4), 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaa052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Five Principles for Shaping Cybersecurity Norms. (2013). Microsoft. https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/REVmc9
   Google Scholar
• Gafoor, B. (2022). Letter from the chair. https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Letter-from-OEWG-Chair-22-April-2022.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gao, X. (2022). An attractive alternative? China’s approach to cyber governance and its implications for the western model. The International Spectator, 57(3), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2022.2074710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garth, B. G. (2018). Issues of empire, contestation, and hierarchy in the globalization of law. In Research handbook on the sociology of international Law (pp. 19–36). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gatti, F. (2023). Focal organizations under global governance complexity. Paper Presented at 2023 ISA Annual Convention.
   Google Scholar
• Géry, A., & Delerue, F. (2020, October 6). A new UN path to cyber stability. Directions – Cyber Digital Europe. https://directionsblog.eu/a-new-un-path-to-cyber-stability/
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, R. D., & Herzog, S. (2022). Durable institution under fire? The NPT confronts emerging multipolarity. Contemporary Security Policy, 43(1), 50–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1998294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, C. L. (2019). A flawed framework: Why the liberal international order concept is misguided. International Security, 43(4), 51–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC). (2018). GCSC request for proposals: Call for research [Archived]. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from https://web.archive.org/web/20210423120218/https://cyberstability.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/GCSC_Request_For_Proposals_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC). (2019). Advancing cyberstability. Final report. Advancing Cyberstability: Final Report | HCSS & GCSC.
   Google Scholar
• Global Partners Digital. (2019, December). Unpacking the GGE’s framework on responsible state behaviour: Cyber norms. https://www.gp-digital.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/unpacking_gge_cyber-norms.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Goddard, S. (2018). Embedded revisionism: Networks, institutions, and challenges to world order. International Organization, 72(4), 763–797. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goddard, S. (2022). The outsiders: How the international system can still check China and Russia the world after the war. Foreign Affairs, 101(3), 28–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, J., Kahler, M., Keohane, R. O., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). Introduction: Legalization and world politics. International Organization, 54(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2004). How to influence states: Socialization and international human rights law. Duke Law Journal, 54(3), 621–703. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40040507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman, A. T., & Meyer, T. (2016). Soft law. In E. Kontorovitch & F. Parisi (Eds.), Economic analysis of international law (pp. 123–154). Edward Elgar Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hinck, G. (2018, January 5). Wassenaar export controls on surveillance tools: New exemptions for vulnerability research. Lawfare. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wassenaar-export-controls-surveillance-tools-new-exemptions-vulnerability-research.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann, S., & Pawlak, P. (2023). Governing cyberspace: Policy boundary politics across organizations. Review of International Political Economy, Online First, https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2023.2249002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann, S. C., & Yeo, A. (2023). Historical institutionalism and institutional design: Divergent pathways to regime complexes in Asia and Europe. European Journal of International Relations, Online First, https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231170717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang. (2012). Statement at Budapest conference on cyber issues. https://vienna.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/zgbd/201210/t20121009_8848606.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Hurel, L. M., & Cruz Lobato, L. (2020). Cyber-norms entrepreneurship? Understanding microsoft’s advocacy on cybersecurity. In D. Broeders & B. Van den Berg (Eds.), Governing cyberspace: Behavior, power and diplomacy (pp. 285–313). Rowman & Littlefield International.
   Google Scholar
• ICT4Peace. (2021). First session of Paris Call Working Group 3 moderated by Anne-Marie Buzatu, ICT4Peace. ICT4Peace Foundation (blog). May 25, 2021. https://ict4peace.org/activities/first-session-of-paris-call-working-group-3-moderated-by-anne-marie-buzatu/
   Google Scholar
• Inkster, N. (2021). The great decoupling: China, America and the struggle for technological supremacy. Hurst.
   Google Scholar
• Internet Society. (2012). Internet society submission for the ITU World Conference on International Telecommunication Regulations (WCIT-12). Internet Society. Retrieved September 11, 2023, from https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2012/internet-society-submission-for-the-itu-world-conference-on-international-telecommunication-regulations-wcit-12/
   Google Scholar
• Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, R. (1998). U.S. export control policy in the high performance computer sector. The Nonproliferation Review, 5(2), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736709808436706
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, I., & Ratner, S. (Eds.). (2021). Talking international law: Legal argumentation outside the courtroom. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, I., & Sukumar, A. (forthcoming). Constructivism, interpretation, and cognitive sociology. In A. Van Aaken & M. Hirsch (Eds.), International legal theory and the cognitive turn. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, I., Sukumar, A., & Trachtman, J. (Eds.). (2023). Building an international cybersecurity regime. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Jongen, H., & Scholte, J. A. (2021). Legitimacy in multistakeholder global governance at ICANN. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 27(2), 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02702004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavanagh, C. (2017). The United Nations, Cyberspace and International Peace and Security: Responding to Complexity in the 21st Century. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. https://unidir.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs//theunited-nations-cyberspace-and-international-peace-and-security-en-691.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, J. G., & Simmons, B. A. (Eds.). (2020). The power of global performance indicators. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108763493
   Google Scholar
• Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kiss, J. (2012, December 3). ITU and Google face off at Dubai conference over future of the internet. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/03/telecoms-unitednations.
   Google Scholar
• Klabbers, J. (2012). International courts and informal international law. In J. Pauwelyn, R. Wessel, & J. Wouters (Eds.), Informal international lawmaking (pp. 219–240). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199658589.003.0011
   Google Scholar
• Kleinwachter, W. (2012, October 13). The London process arrived in Budapest: Another travel circus for the internet community? CircleID. https://circleid.com/posts/20121013_london_process_budapest_another_travel_circus_internet_community
   Google Scholar
• Kurowska, X. (2020). What does Russia want in cyber diplomacy? A primer. In D. Broeders & B. Van den Berg (Eds.), Governing cyberspace: Behaviour, power and diplomacy (pp. 85–106). Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Lake, D. A. (2021). The organizational ecology of global governance. European Journal of International Relations, 27(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120959407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landau, S. (2022). The conflict over cryptography. Horizons, Winter 2020 (20). 0c36cebeafbb70bca90b6a53337f6c9be2ed1020.pdf (cirsd.org).
   Google Scholar
• Let’s Talk Cyber. (2023). Let’s Talk Cyber. Retrieved September 11, 2023, from https://letstalkcyber.org/
   Google Scholar
• London Conference on Cyberspace: Chair’s statement. (2011). GOV.UK. Retrieved September 11, 2023, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/london-conference-on-cyberspace-chairs-statement
   Google Scholar
• Lotrionte, C. (2022). Bringing the law in: Unlearned lessons for diplomats and others. The Cyber Defense Review, 7(1), 23–32.
   Google Scholar
• Manulak, M. W., & Snidal, D. (2021). The supply of informal international governance: Hierarchy plus networks in global governance. In M. N. Barnett, J. C. W. Pevehouse, & K. Raustiala (Eds.), Global governance in a world of change (1st ed., pp. 182–213). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108915199.007
   Google Scholar
• Margulis, M. E. (2021). Intervention by international organizations in regime complexes. The Review of International Organizations, 16(4), 871–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09403-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, L. L. (1992). Interests, power, and multilateralism. International Organization, 46(4), 765–792. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300033245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer, T. (2020). A dose of realism: The contestation and politics of cyber norms. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 12(2), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-019-00129-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer, T., & Morgus, R. (2014, May 5). Tipping the scale: An analysis of global swing states in the internet governance debate. Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/tipping-scale-analysis-global-swing-states-internet-governance-debate/
   Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller, M. (2010). Networks and states. The global politics of internet governance. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, M. (2017). Will the internet fragment? Sovereignty, globalization and cyberspace. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Multi-Stakeholder Letter for OEWG Chair on Modalities: Let’s Talk Cyber. (2022). Let’s Talk Cyber. Retrieved October 28, 2022, from https://letstalkcyber.org/resources/multi-stakeholder-letter-for-oewg-chair-on-modalities.
   Google Scholar
• Nye, J. (2014). The regime complex for managing global cyber activities. Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series, Paper, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Сommunity Talks on Cyber Diplomacy: Summary of a short series of multi-stakeholder conversations. (2021). Kaspersky. https://media.kaspersky.com/en/community-talks-on-cyber-diplomacy.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Öniş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2017). The dynamics of emerging middle-power influence in regional and global governance: The paradoxical case of Turkey. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1183586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford Process. (2022, October 14). The Oxford process on international law protections in cyberspace: A compendium. Oxford-Process-Compendium-Digital-1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Paltiel, D. (2022). Russian newspaper Kommersant interviews special representative krutskikh on UN GGE cyber arrangements. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved November 24, 2022, from https://www.csis.org/blogs/strategic-technologies-blog/russian-newspaper-kommersant-interviews-special-representative
   Google Scholar
• Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace. (2018). https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/paris_call_cyber_cle443433-1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pattberg, P., & Widerberg, O. (2015). Theorising global environmental governance: Key findings and future questions. Millennium, 43(2), 684–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814561773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauwelyn, J., Wessel, R., & Wouters, J. (Eds.). (2012). Informal international lawmaking. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pell, S. (2022, December 1). Private-sector cyber defense in armed conflict. Lawfare. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/private-sector-cyber-defense-armed-conflict
   Google Scholar
• Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: A theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(2), 257–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pouliot, V. (2021). The gray area of institutional change: How the security council transforms Its practices on the fly. Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(3), 043. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radu, R., & Hausding, M. (2020). Consolidation in the DNS resolver market–how much, how fast, how dangerous? Journal of Cyber Policy, 5(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1722191
   Google Scholar
• Ratner, S. (2021). Persuasion about/without international law the case of cybersecurity norms: Steven Ratner. In I. Johnstone & S. Ratner (Eds.), Talking international law: Legal argumentation outside the courtroom (pp. 104–128). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197588437.003.0006
   Google Scholar
• Ravaioli, E. (2021, December 1). Support for multistakeholder letter | Open letter to the OEWG chair on multistakeholder engagement | Deadline 2 December 2021 [Public communication].
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, M. (2021). Social practices of rule-making for international law in the cyber domain. Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, M., & Sherman, J. (2024). Authoritarian multilateralism in the global cyber regime complex: The double transformation of an international diplomatic practice. Contemporary Security Policy, 45(1), 110–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2269809
   Google Scholar
• Reykers, Y., Karlsrud, J., Brosig, M., Hofmann, S. C., Maglia, C., & Rieker, P. (2023). Ad hoc coalitions in global governance: Short-notice, task- and time-specific cooperation. International Affairs, 99(2), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rid, T. (2013). Cyber war will not take place. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roger, C., & Rowan, S. (2023). The New terrain of global governance: Mapping membership in informal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 67(6), 1248–1269. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221139431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roger, C., Snidal, D., & Vabulas, F. (2023). The importance of rational institutionalism in the analysis of informal international institutions. International Politics. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00483-3
   Google Scholar
• Roger, C. B. (2020). The origins of informality: Why the legal foundations of global governance are shifting, and why it matters. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roguski, P. (2020). Application of international law to cyber operations: A comparative analysis of states’ views. The Hague Program For Cyber Norms Policy Brief. March 2020, The Hague Program for Cyber Norms (thehaguecybernorms.nl).
   Google Scholar
• Rovner, J. (2023). The elements of an intelligence contest. In R. Chesney & M. Smeets (Eds.), Deter, disrupt or deceive. Assessing cyber conflict as an intelligence contest (pp. 17–42). Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruhl, C., Hollis, D., Hoffman, W., & Maurer, T. (2020). Cyberspace and geopolitics: Assessing global cybersecurity norm processes at a crossroads. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Cyberspace_and_Geopolitics_Carnegie_v1_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sanger, D. E., Barnes, J. E., & Conger, K. (2022, February 28). As tanks rolled into Ukraine, so did malware. Then Microsoft entered the war. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/us/politics/ukraine-russia-microsoft.html
   Google Scholar
• Sarfaty, G. (2012). Values in translation: Human rights and the culture of the world bank. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scholte, J. A. (2020). Multistakeholderism: Filling the global governance Gap? Global Challenges Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Schuette, L., & Dijkstra, H. (2023). The show must go on: The EU’s quest to sustain multilateral institutions since 2016. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(5), 1318–1336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13466
   Google Scholar
• Schweller, R. L., & Pu, X. (2011). After unipolarity: China’s visions of international order in an era of U.S. decline. International Security, 36(1), 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton, D. (2009). Soft law. In D. Armstrong (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international Law (pp. 68–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884621.ch4
   Google Scholar
• Shires, J. (2024). Career connections: Transnational expert networks and multilateral cybercrime negotiations. Contemporary Security Policy, 45(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2274775
   Google Scholar
• Smeets, M. (2022). No shortcuts: Why states struggle to develop a military cyber-force. Hurst & Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, B. (2017). The need for a digital Geneva convention. Microsoft On the Issues, https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2017/02/14/need-digital-geneva-convention/
   Google Scholar
• Sokolsky, P., & Richard, S. (2020). Multipolarity in practice: Understanding Russia’s engagement with regional institutions. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/01/08/multipolarity-in-practice-understanding-russia-s-engagement-with-regional-institutions-pub-80717
   Google Scholar
• Stone, R. W. (2013). Informal governance in international organizations: Introduction to the special issue. The Review of International Organizations, 8(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-013-9168-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stronski, P., & Sokolsky, R. (2020). Multipolarity in practice: understanding Russia’s engagement with regional institutions. https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/01/08/multipolarity-in-practice-understanding-russia-s-engagement-with-regional-institutions-pub-80717.
   Google Scholar
• Sukumar, A. (2023). The geopolitics of multistakeholder cyber diplomacy: A comparative analysis. In I. Johnstone, A. Sukumar, & J. Trachtman (Eds.), Building an international cybersecurity regime: Multistakeholder diplomacy (pp. 20–59). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Taggart, J., & Abraham, K. J. (2023). Norm dynamics in a post-hegemonic world: Multistakeholder global governance and the end of liberal international order. Review of International Political Economy, online first, https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2023.2213441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallberg, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Scholte, J. A. (Eds.). (2018). Legitimacy in global governance: Sources, processes, and consequences. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tiirmaa-Klaar, H. (2021). The evolution of the UN group of governmental experts on cyber issues. Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace and The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies. https://hcss.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Klaar.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Trachtman, J. (2014). Reports of the death of treaty are premature, but customary international law may have outlived its usefulness. AJIL Unbound, 108, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398772300001811
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. (2002). Fifty-eighth session. “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security”, A/RES/58/32 December 18, 2003. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/454/83/PDF/N0345483.pdf?OpenElement
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. (2011). Sixty-fifth session. “Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice”. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/526/34/PDF/N1052634.pdf?OpenElement
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. (2015). Seventieth session. “Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security”, A/70/174, July 22, 2015, 7. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/228/35/PDF/N1522835.pdf?OpenElement
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly 3rd Committee. (2019). Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes: Report of the 3rd Committee: General Assembly, 74th session. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3837326
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. (2021). Seventy-sixth session. “Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security”, A/76/135. July 14, 2021, 5. https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/A_76_135-2104030E-1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. (2023). Seventy-eighth session. “Programme of action to advance responsible State behaviour in the use of information and communications technologies in the context of international security”, A/C.1/78/L.60/REV.1, October 24, 2023. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/317/97/PDF/N2331797.pdf
   Google Scholar
• US Cyber Command. (2018). Achieve and maintain cyberspace superiority: Command vision for US cyber command. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4419681/Command-Vision-for-USCYBERCOM-23-Mar-18.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vabulas, F., & Snidal, D. (2021). Cooperation under autonomy: Building and analyzing the informal intergovernmental organizations 2.0 dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 58(4), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320943920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VERTIC. (2017). Means to reinforce research on nuclear disarmament verification: Report on a series of regional conversations. Matters No. 13 (November 2017). http://www.vertic.org/media/assets/Publications/VM13.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Westerwinter, O., Abbott, K. W., & Biersteker, T. (2021). Informal governance in world politics. The Review of International Organizations, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09382-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff, J. (2024). The role of insurers in shaping international cyber-security norms about cyber-war. Contemporary Security Policy, 45(1), 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2279033
   Google Scholar
• Working Group 4 of the Paris Call. (2021). Advancing international cyber norms: Multistakeholder recommendations. https://pariscall.international/assets/files/WG4-Final-Report-101121.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Young, O. R. (1989). The politics of international regime formation: Managing natural resources and the environment. International Organization, 43(3), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300032963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, E., & Creemers, R. (2023). The evolution of Chinese perspectives on cyber deterrence and attribution. Leiden Asia Centre. https://leidenasiacentre.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Chinese-Perspectives-of-Deterrence-and-Attribution-in-Cyberspace-1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zürn, M. (2018). A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar