SİBER UZAYDA AKTÖR - GÜÇ İLİŞKİSİ

Öz

Siber alanın hızla büyümesi dünya siyasetinde önemli bir bağlamdır ve siber, gücü kendisine bağlamaktadır. Anonimlik unsuru, güvenlikte asimetrilerin varlığı, siber araçlara erişmenin maliyetinin düşük olması gibi sebepler devletdışı aktörlerin de siber alanda sert ve yumuşak bir güç sunma kapasitesine sahip olmalarını kolaylaştırmaktadır. Siberin doğasında var olan özellikler, aktörler arasındaki güç farklılıklarını önemli oranda azaltmakta ve bu durum 21. yüzyılda küresel siyaseti simgeleyen başat unsurların “gücün dağılımı” veya “gücün yayılması” gibi konular üzerinde şekillenmesine sebebiyet vermektedir. Devletlerin, özellikle büyük güçlerin kara, deniz veya hava gibi alanlarda söz sahibi oldukları gibi siber alanda da hâkimiyet kurmaları kolay değildir. Dolayısıyla devletler, siber alanda devlet-dışı aktörler tarafından güçlü bir meydan okumayla karşı karşıya kalmaktadırlar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siber Alan,Güç,Aktör,Devlet,Devletdışı Aktör

ACTOR - POWER RELATIONSHIP IN CYBERSPACE

Öz

The rapid growth of the cyberspace is an important domain in world politics, and cyber is connecting its power to itself. The anonymity, the presence of safety asymmetries, and the low cost of accessing cyber tools make it easier for non-state actors to have a hard and soft power delivery capability in the cyberspace. The inherent characteristics of cyberspace considerably reduce the power disparities between actors, and this leads to the formation of dominant elements, which symbolize global politics in the 21st century, on issues such as "distribution of power" or "diffusion of power". It is not easy for the states, particularly great powers to dominate the cyberspace, as they have a say in domains such as land, sea or air. Therefore, the states are faced with a strong challenge by the non-state actors in the cyberspace.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cyberspace,Power,Actor,State,Non-State Actors

Kaynakça

1. Ackerman, S. and S. Thielman. (2016). US Officially Accuses Russia of Hacking DNC and Interfering with Election. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russiadnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election (Erişim Tarihi: 21.08.2017).
2. Ahmad T. (2012). Pakistani Cyber Armies Hacking Indian Websites, Using Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to Cause Ethnic Conflicts in India. http://cjlab.memri.org/uncategorized/pakistani-cyber-armies-hacking-indian-websitesusing-twitter-facebook-and-youtube-to-cause-ethnic-conflicts-in-india/ (Erişim Tarihi: 18.08.2017).
3. Aydın, M. (2004). Uluslararası İlişkilerin ‘Gerçekçi’ Teorisi: Kökeni, Kapsamı, Kritiği. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi. Cilt 1. Sayı 1.
4. Bendiek, A. (2016). Making States Responsible for Their Activities in Cyberspace: The Role of the European Union. https://www.cfr.org/blog/making-states-responsible-theiractivities-cyberspace-role-european-union (Erişim Tarihi: 30.08.2017).
5. Betz, D. (2012). Cyberpower in Strategic Affairs: Neither Unthinkable nor Blessed. The Journal of Strategic Studies. Vol 35, No 5.
6. Boeke, S. (2016). Who Determines the Cyber Security Agenda?. Journal of Security and Global Affairs. No 1.
7. Buchan, R. (2016). Special Issue: Non-State Actors and Responsibility in Cyberspace: State Responsibility, Individual Criminal Responsibility and Issues of Evidence. Journal of Conflict and Security Law. Vol 21, No 3.
8. Carafano, J. J. (2013). Fighting on the Cyber Battlefield: Weak States and Nonstate Actors pose Threats. http://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/fighting-the-cyber-battlefieldweak- states-and-nonstate-actors-pose-threats (Erişim Tarihi: 18.09.2017).

9. Carr, E. H. (1946). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press.
10. Castells. M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. ,
11. Choney, S. (2013). New York Times Hacked, Syrian Electronic Army Suspected. https://www.nbcnews.com/technology/new-york-times-hacked-syrian-electronic-armysuspected-8c11016739 (Erişim Tarihi: 04.10.2017).
12. Choucri, N. (2012). Cyberpolitics in International Relations, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
13. Craig, A. and B. Valeriano. (2016). Conceptualising Cyber Arms Races. 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Cyber Power.
14. Çelik, M. (2015). Siber Ordu Kurmak İçin Devletler Özel Sektör ile Çalışıyor. TMMOB Bilgisayar Mühendisleri Odası Dergisi. Sayı 5.
15. Drezner, D. W. (2004). The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State Back In. Political Science Quarterly. Vol 199, No 3.
16. Dunn, M. (2012). Information Age Conflicts Myriam Dunn A Study of the Information Revolution and a Changing Operating Environment, Zurich: Zürcher Beiträge. http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securitiesstudies/ pdfs/ZB_64.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 21.08.2017).
17. Dunn, M., S. F. Krishna-Hensel and V. Mauer. (2007). Power And Securıty In The Informatıon Age: Investigating the Role of the State in Cyberspace. Ashgate Publishing.
18. Gady, F. (2011). From the Middle Ages to the Cyber Age: Non-State Actors. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/franzstefan-gady/from-the-middle-ages-tot_b_818650.html (Erişim Tarihi: 28.08.2017).
19. Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. Ace Books.
20. Gomez, M. A. (2010). Identifying Cyber Strategies vis-a-vis Cyber Power. http://cybersummit.info/sites/cybersummit.info/files/Identifying%20Cyber%20Strategies%20vis-a vis%20Cyber%20Power.pdf_Miguel%20Gomez.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 07.09.2017).
21. Graham, D. E. (2010). Cyber Threats and the Law of War. Journal of National Security Law and Policy. Vol 87. No 4.
22. Grohe, E. (2015). The Cyber Dımensıons of the Syrıan Cıvıl War: Implications for Future Conflict. The Johns Hopkıns Unıversıty Applıed Physıcs Laboratory. Vol 14. No 7.
23. Guzman, G. (2017). Cyberpower – the Great Equalizer: Estonian Cyberpower Development. https://www.iapss.org/shop/budapest/uploads/2512_guzman_g_cyberpower_the_great_eq ualizer_03_2017_politikon_ela.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.10.2017).
24. Guzzini, S. (2001). The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International Relations. Copenhagen Peace Research İnstitute.
25. Gücüyener, A. (2016). 21. Yüzyılda “Siber” Rekabet: Yeni Hedef Kritik Altyapılar mı?. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/21-y%C3%BCzy%C4%B1lda-siber-rekabet-yeni-hedefkritik-m%C4%B1-ayhan-gucuyener (Erişim Tarihi: 19.08.2017).
26. Haley, C. (2016). A Theory of Cyber Deterrence. http://journal.georgetown.edu/a-theory-ofcyber-deterrence-christopher-haley/ (Erişim Tarihi: 01.09.2017).
27. Hart, J. (1976). Three Approaches to the Measurement of Power in International Relations. International Organization. Vol 30. No 2.
28. Hensel, S. F. Krishna. (2007). Cybersecurity: Perspectives on the Challenges of the Information Revolution. Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Victor Mauer, Power and Security in the Information Age Investigating the Role of the State in Cyberspace. Ashgate Publishing.
29. Jensen, E. T. (2012). Cyber Deterrence. Emory International Law Review. No 26.
30. Joey, S. (2016). The Role of Non-state Actors in International Relations. http://www.academia.edu/5124220/The_Role_of_Nonstate_ Actors_in_International_Relations (Erişim Tarihi: 05.09.2017).
31. Kennan, G. F. (1966). Realities of American Foreign Policy. New York: The Norton Library.
32. Keohane, R. O. and J. S. Nye. (1998). Power and Interdependence in the Information Age. Foreign Affairs. Vol 77. No 5.
33. Kitchin, R. (1998). Cyberspace: The World in the Wires. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
34. Kostadinov, D. (2013). The Attribution Problem in Cyber Attacks. http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/attribution-problem-in-cyber-attacks/#gref (Erişim Tarihi: 11.08.2017).
35. Kreiss, D. (2010). A Vision of and for the Networked World: John Perry Barlow's A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace at Twenty. https://danielkreiss.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/kreiss_barlow202.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 18.10.2017).
36. Libicki, M. (2007). Conquest in Cyberspace National Security and Information Warfare. Cambridge.
37. Lin, H. (2017). On Cooperating with Bad Actors in Cyberspace. https://www.lawfareblog.com/cooperating-bad-actors-cyberspace (Erişim Tarihi: 17.09.2017).
38. Loader, B. D. (1997). The Governance of Cyberspace: Politics, Technology, and Global Restructuring. B. D. Loader (eds). The Governance of Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
39. Marmon, W. (2011). Main Cyber Threats Now Coming From Governments As “State Actors”. https://www.europeaninstitute.org/index.php/136-european-affairs/ea-november-2011/1464-main-cyber-threats-now-coming-from-governments-as-state-actors (Erişim Tarihi: 03.10.2017).
40. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization. Vol 51. No 4.
41. Morgenthau, H. J (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
42. Murphy, E. C. (2009). Theorizing ICTs in the Arab World: Informational Capitalism and the Public Sphere. International Studies Quarterly. Vol 53. No 4.
43. Nagorski, A. (2010). Global Cyber Deterrence: Views From China, The U.S., Russia, India, and Norway. East- West Institute.
44. Nagy, V. (2012). The Geostrategic Struggle in Cyberspace between the United States, China, and Russia. AARMS. Vol 11. No 1.
45. Nye, J. S. (2010). Cyber Power. Harvard Kennedy School,Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. No 18.
46. Nye, J. S. (2011). The Future of Power. Los Angeles World Affairs Council. http://www.lawac.org/speech-archive/pdf/1596.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2017).
47. Papp, D. S. and D. Alberts. (1997). The Impacts of the Information Age on International Actors and the International System. Papp and Alberts (eds). The Information Age: An Anthology of its Impacts and Consequences. CCRP Publication Series.
48. Parag, K. (2015). How Small States Prepare for Cyber-War. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/02/opinions/estonia-cyber-war/index.html (Erişim Tarihi: 05.10.2017).
49. Perlroth, N. (2013). Hunting for Syrian Hackers Chain of Command. New York Times.
50. Pihelgas, M. (2013). Back-Tracing and Anonymity in Cyberspace. Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.) Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publication.
51. Ralston, R. J. (2014). Ontological Security: State Identity and Self-Image in the Digital Age. Master of Arts in Political Science. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
52. Ramishvili T. (2016). Estonia’s D5 Presidency. https://www.fpri.org/2016/01/estonias-d5-presidency/ (Erişim Tarihi: 09.10.2017).
53. Rauscher, K. F. (2011). First Joint Russian-U.S. report on Cyber Conflict. https://www.eastwest.ngo/idea/towards-rules-governing-cyber-conflict-0 (25.08.2017).
54. Reinbold, M. (2010). Superempowerment, Networked Tribes and the End to Business as We Know It. http://igniteshow.com/videos/super-empowerment-networked-tribes-and-endworld-we- know-it (Erişim Tarihi: 16.10.2017).
55. Rojansky, M. (2016). Russia and America's Cyber Deterrence Dilemma. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-americas-cyber-deterrence-dilemma-18900 (Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2017).
56. Rothkopf, D. J. (1998). Cyberpolitik: The Changing Nature of Power in the Information Age Journal of International Affairs. Vol 51. No 2.
57. Schmidt, E. and J. Cohen. (2010). The Digital Disruption: Connectivity and the Power of Diffusion. Foreign Affairs Vol 89. No 6.
58. Schmidt, N. (2016). Super-empowering of Non-State Actors in Cyberspace. http://www.academia.edu/10088487/Super-empowering_of_Non-State_Actors_in_Cyberspace (Erişim Tarihi: 02.09.2017).
59. Schmitt, M. (2014). International Law and Cyber Attacks: Sony v. North Korea. https://www.justsecurity.org/18460/international-humanitarian-law-cyber-attacks-sony-vnorth-korea/ (Erişim Tarihi: 24.08.2017).
60. Schmitt, M. N. (2011). Cyber Operations and the Jus Ad Bellum Revisited. Villanova Law Review. Vol 56.
61. Sheldon, J. B. (2011). Deciphering Cyberpower: Strategic Purpose in Peace and War. Strategic Studies Quarterly. No 18.
62. Sigholm, J. (2013). Non-State Actors in Cyberspace Operations. Journal of Military Studies, Vol 4. No 1.
63. Toffler, A. and H. Toffler. (1993). War and Anti–War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century. New York.
64. Vandenberg, J. (2013). From Information Security to Cyber Warfare: Security to Cyber Warfare: Some Paradigm Shifts and Research Callenges. http://www.w-ic.org/MWM2013/VanDenBerg_paradigmshifts.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.08.2017).
65. Vlahos, M. (1998). Entering the Infosphere. Journal of International Affairs.
66. Volgy, T. J., K. Kanthak, D. Frazier, and R. S. Ingersoll. (2004). Structural Versus Relational Strength: The Cohesion of the G7 and the Development of the Post-Cold War International System. Fifth Annual Pan European International Relations Conference.
67. Walt, S. M. (1997). The Progressive Power of Realism. The American Political Science Review. Vol 91. No 4. 1997.
68. Wilhelmsen, V. C. R. (2014). Soft War in Cyberspace: How Syrian Non-state Actors Use Hacking to Influence the Conflict’s Battle of Narratives. Master’s Thesis - Political Science, Universıty of Oslo.
69. Winston, H. R. (2011). On the Nature of Military Theory. Charles Lutes (ed.). Toward a Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays. Washington: NDU Press.
70. Yüksel, M. (2016). 3. Dünya Savaşı Öncesi Siber Güç Testinde Zayiat Büyük. http://www.yenisoz.com.tr/3-dunya-savasi-oncesi-siber-guc-testinde-zayiat-buyukmakale-16757 (Erişim Tarihi: 01.10.2017).
71. Yüksel, M. (2017). Siber Savaş Oyunları. http://www.yenisoz.com.tr/siber-savas-oyunlarimakale-22631 (Erişim Tarihi: 09.09.2017).
72. Zacher, M. W. (1992). The Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple: Implications for International Order and Governance. James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel (eds). Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.