Open Access
The pursuit of positive accountability in the cyber domain
Loading...
Files
The_pursuit_of_positive_accountability.pdf (120.02 KB)
Full text in Open Access, Published version
License
Attribution 4.0 International
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1758-5880; 1758-5899
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Global policy, 2024, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 142-148
Cite
PAWLAK, Patryk, The pursuit of positive accountability in the cyber domain, Global policy, 2024, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 142-148 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/76146
Abstract
Debates about accountability in cyberspace are dominated by state-centric and security-driven approaches that disregard the complexity of the institutional ecosystem in cyberspace and the diverse ways through which different stakeholder groups may pursue accountability. Such an approach has contributed to a flawed interpretation of accountability in cyberspace as applicable solely to malicious actors who need to be punished for their actions. Despite greater policy and research attention to this line of reasoning, holding states accountable for their behaviour has yielded limited results due to the legal, political and technical complexities. At the same time, the non-malicious activities in cyberspace that might have unintended negative effects remain exempted from scrutiny. Cyber capacity-building activities, which aim at supporting governments and societies in strengthening their cyber resilience, illustrate this point well. This article introduces the concept of positive accountability to describe accountability for actions that are not malicious in their intent. It argues that the anticipatory potential of mechanisms like deliberation, joint problem-solving, interactive learning and competition plays an important role in strengthening accountability by eliminating or minimising any unintended or undesired spillovers. It concludes with a proposal that broadly defined capacity building might also be considered a form of anticipatory and deliberative accountability mechanism.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published online: 28 November 2023
External Links
Publisher
Version
Research Projects
Sponsorship and Funder Information
This article was published Open Access with the support from the EUI Library through the CRUI - Wiley Transformative Agreement (2020-2023)