SİBER UZAYIN MEKANSAL TAHAYYÜLÜ AVRUPA VE TÜRKİYE İÇİN GÜVENLİK SORUNLARI

Öz

Bu makale, siber uzayın mekânsal tahayyülünü ve bunun Avrupa Birliği ile Türkiye arasındaki ilişkilere etkilerini incelemektedir. Siber uzay genellikle internetin bir uzantısı olarak görülse de, egemenlik, güç ve toprak gibi geleneksel kavramları yeniden şekillendiren, dinamik ve özgün bir alandır. Çalışma, siber uzayın tanımıyla başlamakta ve yüzey web’den derin ve karanlık ağa kadar olan katmanlı yapısını ortaya koyarak, devlet dışı aktörlerin rolünü ve gücün devletler dışına yayılmasını vurgulamaktadır. Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’nin siber uzayı nasıl kavramsallaştırdıkları karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmaktadır. AB, siber uzayı açıklık, ekonomik fırsatlar ve değer yayımı bağlamında değerlendirirken; Türkiye daha güvenlik odaklı ve realist bir yaklaşım benimsemektedir. Bu farklı yönelimlere rağmen, iki aktör siber güvenlik ve siber suçlarla mücadele konularında iş birliğini sürdürmektedir. Ancak Türkiye’nin Westphalyacı bir çizgiye yönelmesi ve güvenlik merkezli yasal düzenlemeleri, AB’nin daha özgürlükçü tutumuyla gerilim yaratabilir. Makale, ortak bir siber tahayyülün oluşturulmasının iş birliğini kolaylaştıracağını ve NATO bünyesindeki CCDCOE gibi çok paydaşlı platformların bu süreçte etkili rol oynayabileceğini savunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siber uzay
• siber güvenlik
• mekânsal tahayyül
• siber yönetişim
• Avrupa Birliği – Türkiye ilişkileri

SPATIAL IMAGINATION OF CYBERSPACE SECURITY CHALLENGES FOR EUROPE AND TURKEY

Öz

This article explores the spatial imagination of cyberspace and its implications for the relationship between the European Union and Turkey. While cyberspace is often perceived as an extension of the internet, it constitutes a distinct, dynamic realm that reshapes traditional concepts such as sovereignty, power, and territory. The study begins by defining cyberspace and examining its layered structure, from the surface web to the deep and dark web, highlighting the role of non-state actors and the diffusion of power beyond state control. It investigates how the EU and Turkey conceptualize cyberspace differently: the EU prioritizes openness, economic opportunity, and the global spread of its values, while Turkey adopts a more security-oriented and realist perspective. Despite these differing orientations, the two actors maintain cooperation on cybersecurity and combating cybercrime. However, Turkey’s increasingly Westphalian approach and security-focused legislation may create tensions with the EU’s liberal stance. This divergence can lead to asymmetric understandings and uses of cyberspace. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance of shared spatial imaginations and enhanced cooperation in cyber governance, proposing multilateral initiatives such as NATO's CCDCOE as effective platforms for future collaboration.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• cyberspace
• cybersecurity
• spatial imagination
• cyber governance
• EU-Turkey Relations

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, N. (2020). Brave new world: NATO, the EU and the new age of cyberspace [Master's thesis, University of Oslo].
2. Art, R.J. & Jervis, R. (2015). International politics: Enduring concepts and contemporary issues. Pearson.
3. Barrett, M., Bedford, D., Skinner, E. & Vergles, E. (2011). Assured access to the global commons. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
4. Benhaddi, M. (2017). Web of goals: A proposal for a new highly smart web. Proceedings of the 19th international conference on enterprise information systems, 26-29 April, 687-694.
5. Berners-Lee, T. (1998, July 5). The world wide web: A very short personal history. W3. https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ShortHistory.html.
6. Berton, B. (2015, May 12). The dark side of the web: ISIL’s one-stop shop?. European Union Institute for Security Studies. https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Alert_30_The_Dark_Web.pdf
7. Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu. (2020a). Ulusal siber güvenlik stratejisi ve eylem planı görüşüldü. https://www.btk.gov.tr/haberler/ulusal-siber-guvenlik-stratejisi-ve-eylem-plani-gorusuldu
8. Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu. (2020b). 2020-2023 Siber güvenlik stratejileri BTK’da belirlendi. https://www.btk.gov.tr/haberler/2020-2023-siber-guvenlik-stratejileri-btk-da-belirlendi

9. Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu. (2022). Güvenli internet hizmeti. https://internet.btk.gov.tr/guvenli-internet-hizmeti.
10. Bradford, A. (2021). The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press.
11. Cambridge Dictionary. (2022). Netizen. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/tr/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk/ingilizce/netizen
12. CCDCOE. (2022). Locked shields. https://ccdcoe.org/exercises/locked-shields/
13. Ceza İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü. (2022). Iproceeds-2 projesi kapsamında 11-13 Mayıs 2022 tarihlerinde Ankara'da "Darknet, sanal para ve mali araştırma" konusunda eğitim düzenlendi. https://cigm.adalet.gov.tr/Home/SayfaDetay/iPROCEEDS-2%20E%C4%9Fitimi
14. Chattopadhyay, S. (2014, January). Architectural history and spatial imagination. Perspectives On History. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2014/architectural-history-and-spatial-imagination#:~:text=Spatial%20imagination%20is%20the%20process,dimensions%20of%20iidea%20and%20ideals
15. Choucri, N. (2013, October 13-15). Co-Evolution of cyberspace and international relations: New challenges for the social sciences. The World Social Science Forum (WSSF) 2013, Montreal, Canada.
16. Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on cybercrime. No.185, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561
17. Crawford, J.R. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. 8th edn. Oxford University Press.
18. Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox. (2017). Draft council conclusions on a framework for a joint EU diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities ("Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox"). Council of the European Union. No: 9916/17.
19. Cybersecurity Act. (2019). Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing regulation (EU). No 526/2013. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2019.151.01.0015.01.ENG
20. Directorate of Communications. (2020, 26 December). We will defend our sovereign rights in every area from the blue homeland to cyberspace. https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/english/haberler/detay/we-will-defend-our-sovereign-rights-in-every-area-from-the-blue-homeland-to-cyberspace
21. Douzet, F. (2014). Understanding cyberspace with geopolitics. Hérodote. 152-153, 3-21.
22. Dülger, M.V & Özkan, O. (2021). Sosyal medya yasası meclis'ten geçti: Peki, şimdi? (Social media law passed by parliament: Now what?). SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3792394
23. ENISA. (2022). About ENISA – The European Union Agency for cybersecurity towards a trusted and cyber secure Europe. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/about-enisa
24. European Commission. (2013). EU cybersecurity plan to protect open internet and online freedom and opportunity (2013). https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_94
25. European Commission. (2020). Summary report on the open public consultation on the digital services act package. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/summary-report-open-public-consultation-digital-services-act-package
26. European Commission. (2022a). A Europe fit for the digital age. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age_en
27. European Commission. (2022b). Shaping Europe's digital future. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/shaping-europe-digital-future_en
28. European Commission. (2022c). European declaration on digital rights and principles. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/european-declaration-digital-rights-and-principles.
29. European Commission. (2022d). Joint cyber unit. https://digital strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/joint-cyber-unit.
30. Friedman, T.L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of twenty-first century. Picador/ Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
31. Gibson, W. (1989). Neuromancer. Berkley Publishing Group.
32. Görgülü, E. (2022, June 18). Binlerce kişi yargılanma ile karşı karşıya kalacak. DW. https://www.dw.com/tr/yaman-akdeniz-dezenformasyon-yasas%C4%B1-ile-binlerce-ki%C5%9Fi-yarg%C4%B1lanma-ile-kar%C5%9F%C4%B1-kar%C5%9F%C4%B1ya-kalacak/a-62176388
33. Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Blackwell Publishing.
34. Herrle, J. & Hirsh, J. (2019). The peril and potential of the GDPR, Centre for International Governance Innovatio. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/peril-and-potential gdpr/?utm_source=google_ads&utm_medium=grant&gclid=Cj0KCQiAmKiQBhClARIsAKtSj-lOhlnLZcMOHqzBcc7KDULTrbu7h47IIxawSr1Z3k9ByjLmcZmFPdAaAmjcEALw_wcB
35. Howland, D. & White, L. (2008). Introduction: Sovereignty and the study of states. In D. Howland & L. White (Eds.), The state of sovereignty: Territories, laws, populations (pp. 1-18). Indiana University Press.
36. Iproceeds. (2019). Cooperation on cybercrime under the instrument of Pre-Accession (IPA): Project on Targeting Crime Proceeds on the internet in South-Eastern Europe and Turkiye. Joint Project of the European Union (IPA II Multi-Country Action Programme 2014) and Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/3156-iproceeds-summary-v5/
37. İnternet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlenmesi ve Bu Yayınlar Yoluyla İşlenen Suçlarla Mücadele Edilmesi Hakkında Kanunda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun (2020). No. 7253 Resmî Gazete (No: 31202). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2020/07/20200731-1.htm
38. Kuehl, D.T. (2009). Cyberspace to cyberpower: Defining the problem. F.D. Kramer, S.S. Stuart & K. W. Larry (Ed.), Cyberpower and national security (pp. 24-42). National Defence University Press.
39. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Translated by Nicholson-Smith, D. Blackwell.
40. Lekhi, R. (2000). The politics of African America on-line. In P. Ferdinand (Ed.), The internet, democracy and democratization (pp. 76-101) Frank Cass.
41. Lessig, L. (2006). Code Version 2. Basic Books.
42. Manyika, J., Lund, S., Bughin, J., Woetzel, J., Stamenov & K., Dhingra, D. (2016). Digital globalization: The new era of global flows. Mckinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/mckinsey%20digital/ouo%20insights/digital%20globalization%20the%20new%20era%20of%20global%20flows/mgi-digital-globalization-full-report.ashx
43. Microsoft. (2022). A digital Geneva Convention to protect cyberspace. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cybersecurity/content-hub/a-digital-geneva-convention-to-protect-cyberspace
44. National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2021-2025. (2021, August), https://wp.oecd.ai/app/uploads/2021/12/Turkey_National_Artificial_Intelligence_Strategy_2021-2025.pdf#page=17.09
45. NATO. (2010). Lisbon summit declaration. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_68828.htm
46. NATO. (2011). Defending the networks the NATO policy on cyber defence. https://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_08/20110819_110819-policy-cyberdefence.pdf
47. NATO. (2018). Joint declaration on EU-NATO cooperation. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156626.htm
48. Nedeva, V. & Nideva, S. (2012). New learning innovations with Web 4.0. In M. Vlada, G. Albeanu, D. M. Popovici (Eds.), Virtual learning – Virtual reality, proceedings of the 7th international conference on virtual learning (ICVL) (pp. 316-321). Bucharest University Press.
49. Nunes, M. (1995). Jean Baudrillard in cyberspace: Internet, virtuality, and postmodernity, Style, 29(2), 314-327.
50. Nye, J.S. (2011). The future of power. Public Affairs.
51. Premier Ministre. (2015). The French national digital security strategy. https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2015/10/strategie_nationale_securite_numerique_en.pdf
52. Republic of Turkiye Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. (2020). National cyber security strategy 2020-2023. https://hgm.uab.gov.tr/uploads/pages/strateji-eylem-planlari/national-cyber-security-strategy-2020-2023.pdf
53. Rodgers, J. (2004). Spatializing international politics: Analysing activism on the internet. Routledge.
54. Schmidt, E. (1999). Oxford essential quotations. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00017947
55. Schmitt, M.N. (2013). Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge University Press.
56. Schroer, M. (2019). Spatial theories / Social construction of spaces. In A.M. Orum (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of urban and regional studies. vol.5, Wiley-Blackwell.
57. Spruyt, H. (1996). The sovereign state and its competitors: An analysis of systems change. Princeton University Press.
58. TBMM. (2022). Basın kanunu ile bazı kanunlarda değişiklik yapılmasına dair kanun teklifi. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/Yasama/Kanun-Teklifleri-Sonuc
59. The Federal Government. (2021). On the Application of International Law in Cyberspace. https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/2446304/32e7b2498e10b74fb17204c54665bdf0/on-the-application-of-international-law-in-cyberspace-data.pdf
60. The United States Army. (2010). Cyberspace operations concept capability plan 2016-2028. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/pam525-7-8.pdf
61. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Strateji & Arge (2021). Güneydoğu Avrupa ve Türkiye’de internet üzerinden elde edilen suç gelirlerinin önlenmesi devam projesi(Iproceeds-II). https://vizyon.taa.gov.tr/sayfa/iproceeds-2
62. Türkiye Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı (2024). Ulusal siber güvenlik stratejisi ve eylem planı 2024-2028. https://www.uab.gov.tr/uploads/pages/siber-guvenligin-yol-haritasi-yerli-ve-milli-tekno/ulusal-siber-guvenlik-stratejisi-2024-2028.pdf#page=17.44
63. Weaver, D. (2020, June 30). Spatiality and world politics. International Studies. https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-562#acrefore-9780190846626-e-562-bibliography-0002
64. Weimann, G. (2016). Going dark: Terrorism on the Dark Web. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 93(3), 195-206.
65. Weinert, M. (2017). Grounding world society: Spatiality, cultural heritage, and our world as shared geographies. Review of International Studies. 43(3), 409–429.
66. Zeng, J., Stevens, T. & Chan, Y. (2017). China's solution to global cyber governance: Unpacking the domestic discourse of “Internet sovereignty”. Politics & Policy. 45(3), 432-464.