SİBER GÜÇ ARAÇLARI VE ULUSAL GÜVENLİK: DEVLETLERİN HEGEMONYA ALANLARI

Öz

Soğuk savaş sonrası dönemde uluslararası ilişkiler açısından ‘siber güvenlik’ kişisel alanın ötesinde devlet egemenlik alanlarına yönelik de oldukça önemli bir güvenlik meselesi olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Siber tehditlerin kamu kurum ve kuruluşlarının işleyişine yönelik olumsuz etkilerinin yanı sıra, manipülatif etkilere daha açık bir toplum yaratmak suretiyle devletler için algı operasyonlarını yönetmek gibi bir sorunsalı da ortaya çıkardığı bilinmektedir. Küreselleşen dünyamızda sistemin en önemli aktörü olarak devletlerin birbirlerine olan bağımlılığının arttığı ve aynı zamanda devletler açısından temel güvenlik konularının da iç içe girdiği bir dönemi beraberinde getirmektedir. Devletler nezdinde kendini sistemin dışında görme durumunun mümkün olamayacağı böylesi bir ortamda klasik realist yaklaşımlar değişen –ve gitgide soyutlaşan- güvenlik alanlarını açıklamada yeteriz kalmaktadır. Ulus devletlerin bu yeni güvenlik tehditleriyle baş edebilmek için artık daha komplike beceriler geliştirmeleri ve işbirliğini ön planda tutmaları gerekmektedir. Devletlerin ulusal boyuttaki siber güvenlik algılamaları üzerine odaklanan çalışmamızda, kurumsal işleyiş ve beka sorunları gibi öncelikli konularda devletlerin siber düzlemde almış oldukları önlemler, ulusal güvenlik stratejileri nezdinde incelenmektedir. ‘Yeni güvenlik’ temasında aktörlerin günden güne artan ve çeşitlenen siber tehditler karşısında ‘hızlı cevap ve kolay adaptasyon’ mantığı ile yeni savunma yetenekleri geliştirmelerinin gerekliliği üzerine odaklanılmaktadır. 21. yüzyıl egemenlik alanlarını belirlemede dijital ulus devletlerin siber uzayda etkinliğini artırma çabaları ile siber savaş araçlarına yönelme eğilimlerindeki artışın ele alındığı çalışmamızda devletlerin siber güvenlik stratejileri perspektifinde izledikleri aktif/pasif savunma yöntemleri değerlendirilmiştir. Bu bağlamda bilhassa devletler için –eğitim ve sağlık gibi- hayati kurumlara yönelik gerçekleşebilecek siber saldırılardan kaçınmak amacıyla ‘aktif savunma modelini’ tercih ediyor olmaları en kabul edilebilir yöntem olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siber güvenlik
• Ulus devlet
• Hegemonya.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE TOOLS OF CYBER POWER: A REVIEW ON THE AREAS OF STATE HEGEMONIA

Öz

In the post-Cold War era, in terms of international relations, 'cyber security' emerges as a significant security issue for the spheres of state sovereignty beyond the personal sphere. In addition to the harmful effects of cyber threats on the functioning of public institutions and organizations, İt also raises a problem for states, such as managing perception operations by creating a society more open to manipulative influences. In our globalizing world, as the most important actor of the system, the States' dependence on each other has increased, and at the same time, there has been a period in which the fundamental security issues are intertwined for the States. In such a situation where it is not possible for the States to define themselves outside the system, classical realist approaches are insufficient to explain the changing -and increasingly abstracted-security areas. Nation-states must develop more complex skills and prioritize cooperation to deal with these new security threats. In our study, which focuses on the national cyber security perceptions of states, the measures taken by the States in the cyber world on priority issues, such as institutional functioning and survival problems, are analyzed in terms of national security strategies. On the theme of 'new security', the main focus is the necessity for actors to develop new defense capabilities within the framework of the 'quick response and easy adaptation' in the face of increasing and diversifying cyber threats. In our study, which deals with the efforts of digital Nation-states to increase their effectiveness in cyberspace in determining the 21st-century sovereignty areas and the increase in their tendency towards cyber warfare tools, the active/passive defense methods followed by the States in the perspective of cyber security strategies have been evaluated. In this context, it is the most acceptable method for the States to prefer the 'active defense model' in order to avoid cyber attacks against vital institutions such as education and health.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cyber security
• Nation-state
• Hegemony

Kaynakça

1. AFCEA (Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association) (2012). The Russo- Georgian War 2008: The role of the cyber attacks in the conflict, Fairfax, VA: AFCEA, Access:07.07.2023, http://www.afcea.org/committees/cyber/documents/TheRusso-GeorgianWar2008.pdf.
2. Amoroso, E. (2006). Cyber Security. New Jersey: Silicon Press.
3. Anderson, C. and Sadjadpour, K. (2018). Iran's Cyber Threat: Espionage, Sabotage, and Revenge, Massachusetts: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Pub.
4. Baylis, J. (2008). Uluslararası İlişkilerde Güvenlik Kavramı, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5(18), 69-85.
5. Bird, D. A. (2020). Real-Time and Retrospective Analyses of Cyber Security, IGI Global. DOI:10.4018/978-1-7998-3979-8
6. Canongia, C. and Mandarino, R. (2014). Cybersecurity: The New Challenge of the Information Society. I. Management Association (Ed.), In Crisis Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 60-80). IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4707-7.ch003
7. Chen, T. M. (2014). Cyberterrorism After Stuxnet, Strategic Studies Institute, Monographs, Books, and Publications. Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College Press.
8. Clarke, R. A. and Robert E. K. (2019). The Fifth Domain Area: Defending Our Country, Our Companies, Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats, NewYork: Penguin Press.

9. Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) (2022). Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Glossary, Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Instruction No. 4009 Access:14.06.2023,https://www.niap-ccevs.org/Ref/CNSSI_4009.pdf
10. Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) (2014). Concept of Russia’s Cyber Security Strategy – draft underway. NATO. Access:14.06.2023, http://council.gov.ru/media/files/41d4b3dfbdb25cea8a73.pdf
11. Cox, Robert W. (1993). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations. An Essay in Method, (eds.), Stephen Gill, Gramsci, Historical materialism and International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 49-66.
12. Crowther, G. A. (2017). Cyber Domain, The Cyber Defense Review, 2(3), 63-79.
13. Department of Defence (DOD) Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (2021). Joint Publicstion. Access:15.06.2023, https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/dictionary.pdf
14. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service (2022). Russia's war on Ukraine: Timeline of cyber-attacks, (by Jakub Przetacznik and Simona Tarpova) Members' Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733549/EPRS_BRI(2022)733549_EN.pdf
15. Fang, B. (2018). Cyberspace Sovereignty, Reflexions on Building a Community of Common Future in Cyberspace, Beijing: Science Press.
16. Gray, C. S. (1999). Modern Strategy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Hogan, M. and Newton E. (2015). Supplemental Information for the Interagency Report on Strategic U.S. Government Engagement in International Standardization to Achieve U.S. Objectives for Cybersecurity, U.S. Department of Commerce, NISTIR 8074. Access: 20.08.2023, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2015/NIST.IR.8074v2.pdf
18. International Telecommunication Union, ITU (2009). Overview of Cybersecurity. Recommendation ITU-T X.1205. Geneva. Access:30.08.2023, http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1205-200804-I/en
19. Jasper, S. (2020). Russian Cyber Operations: Coding the Boundaries of Conflict, Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2k88t3d
20. Kemmerer, R. A. (2003). Cybersecurity. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, USA. 705-715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2003.1201257
21. Kesan J. P. and Hayes, C. M. (2010). Thinking Through Active Defense in Cyberspace, Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series No. 10-11.
22. Kneale, J. (2004). The Virtual Realities of Technology and Fiction: William Gibson’s Cyberspace, Crang, Mike, Phil Crang, Jon May (Ed.) in Virtual Geographies: Bodies, Space and Relations, (pp.319-330), London: Routledge.
23. Kolbe, P. R. (2022). The cybersecurity risks of an escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict. Harvard Business Review. Access:11.07.2023, hbr.org/2022/02/the-cybersecurity-risks-of-an-escalating-russia-ukraine-conflict.
24. Körpe, Ö. (2022). “Reading the USA through Strategy Documents: An Analysis on the Change of Hegemonic Security Understanding”. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi 18, 265-93. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1104894.
25. Lewis, J. A. (2006). Cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Access: 20.08.2023, https://www.csis.org/analysis/cybersecurity-and-critical-infrastructure-protection
26. MacGibbon, A. (2009). Cyber security: threats and responses in the information age, Australian Strategic Policy Institute Specia Report, Issue 26.
27. Majuca, R. P. and Kesan, J. P. (2009). Hacking Back: Optimal Use of Self-Defense in Cyberspace, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 3, 1-69.
28. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST (2020). Special Publication 800-53, Revision 5. Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations, Joint Task Force. Access:10.09.2023, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r5.pdf
29. Nan, Y.(2024) “ American cyber hegemony: Science fiction turned into reality”, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-23/American-cyber-hegemony-Science-fiction-turned-into-reality-16cvlPiBg9W/index.html
30. National Institute of Standards Technology NIST (n.d.). Glossary: Cyber Attack, U.S. Department of Commerce. Access: 06.09.2023, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/cyber_attack#:~:text=Definition(s)%3A,data%20or%20stealing%20controlled%20information.
31. OECD (n.d.). Gross domestic spending on R&D. Access:02.09.2023, https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm
32. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government FISCAL YEAR 2023, Te White House, Washington, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.pdf
33. Orend, B.(2014). Fog in the Fifth Dimension: The Ethics of Cyber-War, The Ethics of Information Warfare, 2014, Volume 14, 3-23.
34. Oxford Online Dictionary (2014). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Access: 10.08.2023, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Cybersecurity
35. Özçelik, S. (2005). Neorealist and Neo-gramscian hegemony in international relations and conflict resolution during the 1990s. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi.
36. Özçelik, S. (2018). II Soğuk Savaş ve Kırım’daki Jeostratejik Gambit: Rusya’nın Stratejik derinliği Bağlamında Kırım’ın işgali ve Kırım Tatarlar, Osman Orhan (Ed.), Karadeniz ve Kafkaslar, Riskler ve Fırsatlar: Ekonomi, Enerji ve Güvenlik içinde, (57-77). İstanbul: TASAM Yayınları.
37. Pernik, P. (2018). The early days of cyberattacks: the cases of Estonia, Georgia and Ukraine, in Hacks, Leaks And Disruptions-Russian Cyber Strategies, European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), Chaillot Papers no:148, 53-64.
38. Slawotsky, J. (2017). The Clash of Architects: Impending Developments and Transformations in International Law. The Chinese Journal of Global Governance, 3(2), 120-122. https://doi.org/10.1163/23525207-12340025
39. Statista (n.d.). Forecast number of mobile users worldwide 2020-2025 Access:07.09.2023, https://www.statista.com/statistics/218984/number-of-global-mobile-users-since-2010/
40. Statista (n.d.). Internet usage worldwide - Statistics & Facts Access: 23.08.2023, https://www.statista.com/topics/1145/internet-usage-worldwide/#dossierKeyfigures
41. Statista (n.d.). Demographics and Use of the Internet, Access:07.09.2023, https://www.statista.com/markets/424/topic/537/demographics-use/#overview
42. Stoffer, C. (2022). 115 cybersecurity statistics + trends to know in 2023, Norton. Access: 23.08.2023, https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-cyberthreat-trends-cybersecurity-threat-review.html
43. Volz, D. and Viswanatha, A. (2018). FBI says Chinese espionage poses ‘most severe’ threat to American security, Access:08.09.2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-sifts-evidence-of-chinese-cyberespionage-11544635251
44. Worth, O (2015). Rethinking Hegemony, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.