Week 11 Pre-class

The question of how much juristiction states have in cyberspace is an issue which is being taken very seriously by states, and being handled with in a variety of manners. At the heart of the issue of state juristiction in cyberspace is how much sovereignty do states truly have there, and how do they enforce their external sovereignty in this realm? Some states view the seemingly unfettered international transactions across borders as condusive to good business and essential for developing an international marketplace while others seek to enforce their territorial authority over cyberspace within their borders.

The United States serves as the quintessential laisse-faire model of cyber governance. The general consensus among policymakers in the US is that the unrestricted flow of information is not only good for business, but is good for society as a whole. The focus for cyber governance of the US is ensuring that corporations do not exploit the rights of individuals, particularly with regards to issues of privacy, however legislation in the US is considerably more lax than that in the European Union.

China has taken a radically different approach to cyber governance and employs what is called nationally segmented sections of the internet. By segmenting a special Chinese section of the internet, the Chinese government is able to monitor and censor content on the Chinese segment of the internet. This greatly inhibits the way in which multinational corporations are able to reach the Chinese market, but it does provide the Chinese government with a greater sense of security and authority in terms of their external sovereignty in cyberspace.

This debate will likely continue to play out on the international until some consensus is made in terms of defining sovereignty in cyberspace and the establishment of coherent and elicit cyber norms which states follow. Attempts at this have been made by the United Nations Group of Government Experts in the Fields of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, however there was not enough buy in from states who favor a more open and unrestricted internet and as a result talks on this matter have grinded to a standstill.

Socialism is not Communism

When it comes to the global market, free-trade can bring about some problems. The solution to these problems is socialism. As was discussed in class last week, it can be difficult, or even impossible, to hold global economic actors accountable. By global economic actors, I am referring to corporations that do business in at least three different countries. This business can be manufacturing, selling of products, or even the purchasing of materials used to create their products. The issue with capitalism in regards to these organizations is that because they are private actors, it becomes difficult to hold them accountable for their actions. I discussed the reasons why accountability is difficult in the previous blog post, therefore this post will emphasize just why socialism should be given a chance and why it is given a bad rap.

I want to begin by reiterating that socialism is not communism. I repeat, socialism is not communism. The existence of socialism does not automatically mean that communism is also present. Typically when I bring up socialism in conversation, people automatically jump on the defense claiming that it did not work in the Soviet Union. I believe that the problem here is that people often think of the Soviet Union because of their education on the topic, as some were not taught extensively enough that there is a difference between socialism and communism, and that they are not the same theory with synonymous names.

In addition, people tend to ignore examples of socialism positively effecting countries. My favorite example is Canada, where free healthcare and the low cost of higher education make the country comparable to a city upon a hill. Some other examples of socialism benefiting citizens of a country are Finland, Sweden and Norway. My question, therefore is if socialism works on a state level, why wouldn't it work on a global level? If global corporations can be held accountable for their actions in this type of economic structure, why not give it a try? It is my belief that one cannot complain about the lack of accountability of a corporation, if one does not support the idea of alternative global economic structures.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/socialism-is-not-communism.html

What would Kobrin think of blockchain?

I thought one of the more intriguing articles for this module was the Kobrin article on the role of technology in creating a globalized economy. He goes back and forth a little on the pros and cons technology has had on private networks, hierarchies and markets but his final line of the chapter, my favorite line, says “Modern economic and political actors will have to learn to deal with the ambiguity and the uncertainty of the post-modern future.” Essentially he goes through how technology has influenced the emergence of a globalized economy from an internationalized economy but that technology is here to stay and the drive for it will probably only increase. This push for technology has spurred on the idea of privatized authority beyond the state. One if his examples, the inability to regulate goods that are not transmitted across geographic boundaries but are transferred digitally makes it problematic to control, threatening autonomy and sovereignty. This example made me consider the boom of blockchain technologies and cryptocurrency. I would love to know his opinions on the use of blockchain.

My limited knowledge of blockchain is that at least some of the technology is based on distributed ledger technology (DLT). Distributed ledgers use independent computers to record, share, and synchronize transactions in their respective electronic ledgers. DLT enables the recording of interactions and transfer of “value” peer-to-peer without the need for a centrally coordinating identity (World Bank). There are tech companies using DLT to create verification systems for traceability and transparency in supply chains. Companies like BanQu are using DLT to track a product, or “value” from one step to the next in a supply chain “as the record is etched on the immutable decentralized ledger that is the blockchain. This record is updated in real time and creates a viewable and searchable ledger. This ledger can be viewed and searched by anyone who has been granted permissions, but it can never be tampered with.” (BanQu) Essentially, they are creating a trust network through this distributed ledger on each of the independent computers recording and synchronizing the data.

For those interested in adding more sovereign authority to economic governance, maybe this isn’t the greatest news but it’s great news for the millions of people around the world who previously had not “bankable” identity. They can now take part in DLT through an app on their cell phone and begin to do things like build a record to apply for credit, open bank accounts, etc. And if the average person can use the technology on their cell phone, perhaps there is a use to be found for governments to ensure secure trade and monitor transactions.

Kobrin, Stephen, “Economic Governance in an Electronically Networked Global Economy” in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).

BanQu, “Revolutionizing Supply Chain,” 2018 http://www.banquapp.com/supply-chain-management/our-solution/.

World Bank, “Blockchain & Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT)” The World Bank, April 12, 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/brief/blockchain-dlt.