Improving the practice of cyber diplomacy: Training, tools, and other resources

This study is made up of two phases. Phase I analyses aspects of capacity development to increase the engagement of every country, that is, the availability of training opportunities, tools, and other resources and their reach and take-up. While we appreciate that technical training (such as how to set up a Computer Emergency Response Team […]
Resource type
Author
Year
File
Briefs and Reports
Stephanie Borg Psaila
2021

This study is made up of two phases.

Phase I analyses aspects of capacity development to increase the engagement of every country, that is, the availability of training opportunities, tools, and other resources and their reach and take-up. While we appreciate that technical training (such as how to set up a Computer Emergency Response Team ) is extremely important, this study focuses mainly on the need for diplomats to engage in cyber diplomacy. By that, we mean the need to understand the cyber security aspects of countries and organisations face, the laws that can address them, and how cross-border investigations work; how some countries engage in dubious activities to try to cripple each other’s critical infrastructures, and how laws can be interpreted to justify this behaviour; the policy measures a country needs to undertake to bring its hospitals back online if they are attacked, and how other countries can assist; the foreign policy a country’s ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) needs to develop for its diplomats to be guided by. The list goes on.

The survey we conducted as part of this study confirmed that training and tools are indeed available (whether there are thematic gaps is a slightly different story), but they are certainly not reaching everyone. The findings also uncovered the reasons why practitioners are often not taking any, or further, training, and why they were not making use of the whole range of tools available to help them in their cyber diplomacy work.

There are three main reasons.

  • The first is simple: If they aren’t aware of training and tools in the first place, they can’t make use of them.
  • The second is that even if practitioners know about existing training, they often do not have the financial means to enrol.
  • The third is that practitioners are often too busy to spend time training or exploring tools and possibly not encouraged to do so.

Related Resources

30 Aug, 2018

Searching for Meaningful Human Control. The April 2018 Meeting on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (Briefing Paper #10)

In this briefing paper, Ms Barbara Rosen Jacobson analyses the debate of the April 2018 meeting of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The group was established to discuss emerging technologies in the area of... Read more...

07 Aug, 1998

The waning of the state and the waxing of cyberworld

This paper discusses whether IT is functioning mainly as an instrument of states in their quest for power and wealth or is principally operating as a transformative agent by market forces and various sectors of civil society.... Read more...

12 Aug, 2016

Cybersecurity in the Western Balkans: Policy gaps and cooperation opportunities

Report on cybersecurity cooperation in the Western Balkans.... Read more...