Towards Pollution-Control in Cyberspace: Problem Structure and Institutional Design in International Cybersecurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In their contest for domination in cyberspace states engage powers of technology, money, persuasion and norms. Clashes between two competing approaches resulted in the creation of two parallel working groups in the UN that address issues of international cybersecurity, including principles, norms and laws. Although there are very few treaties that deal expressly with cyber activities, normative aspirations and frequent use of imported rules and principles from other realms to cyberspace suggest the emergence of a new cyber normative regime – though, in the short term probably short of a global treaty. The substantive content of existing and potentially applicable norms to cyberspace has been examined to a great extent, but less scholarly attention has been paid to mechanisms that can produce cooperation and compliant behavior with international norms in cyberspace. This study draws inspiration from environmental agreements from procedural aspects and we identified two environmental regimes, which address problems sufficiently similar to the challenges of international cyber security and which have been the most successful in terms of cooperation. Selection of the Montreal Protocol and REDD+ mechanism was based on the following main factors: incentives in terms of game theory, capacities of actors, information and scientific uncertainty, the time of institution creation in normative lifecycle, number of actors, and asymmetry in power and positions taken among actors. Further analysis focuses on institutional design elements in the chosen cases, and examines if or under what conditions could these be used for international normative frameworks on cyberspace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".