The Issue of Cyber Sovereignty

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 40, 132 - 149, 29.11.2024

Mehmet Erkan Kıllıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.1532174

Öz

The concept of sovereignty, like the concept of power, has been one of the key concepts that politicians, statesmen and thinkers have thought about, tried to define, conceptualize and draw the general framework since the emergence of the state. The concept of sovereignty, which has developed in connection with the change and development process of the state over time, has become a more prominent and considered concept, especially after the new nation-state-centered system that emerged after the Westphalia international system. This concept, which preoccupies thinkers, politicians and statesmen, has become questionable and debatable in the modern age, especially as world politics has changed following developments in the field of communication and processes such as Globalization. In order to overcome this process, the concept of Sovereignty has also changed, and in order to meet the conditions of the new era, a new concept emerged, called Cyber Sovereignty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

State, Sovereignty, Cyber Sovereignty

Proje Numarası

-

Siber Egemenlik Konusu

Öz

Egemenlik kavramı, iktidar kavramı gibi devletin ortaya çıkışından bu yana gerek siyasetçileri, gerek devlet adamlarını gerekse de düşünürlerin üzerinde düşündüğü, yorum yaptığı, tanımlamaya ve kavramsallaştırmaya ve genel çerçevesini çizmeye çalıştığı kavramlardan birisi olmuştur. Zaman içerisinde devletin geçirdiği değişim ve gelişim süreci ile irtibatlı olarak gelişen egemenlik kavramı özellikle Westphalia uluslararası sistemi sonrasında ortaya çıkan ulus devlet merkezli yeni sistem sonrasında daha da ön plana çıkan ve üzerinde düşünülen bir kavram olmuştur. Düşünürleri, siyasetçileri ve devlet adamlarını meşgul eden bu kavram, modern çağda, özellikle iletişim alanında yaşanan gelişmeler ve Küreselleşme gibi süreçler sonrasında dünya siyasetinin değiştiği, dünyanın daha küçük ve ulaşılabilir hale geldiği günümüzde, sorgulanır ve tartışılır hale gelmiştir. Bu süreci aşmak adına Egemenlik kavramı da değişim geçirmiş, yeni dönemin şartlarına adapte olmak için, internet sayesinde sanal bir evrenin ortaya çıktığı ve hızla geliştiği bu dönemde karşısına çıkan meydan okumaları karşılamak adına Sanal-Siber Egemenlik olarak adlandırılan bir kavramla karşılık vermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Devlet, Egemenlik, Siber Egemenlik

Etik Beyan

-

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Kaynakça

• Agamben, G. (2011). Homo Sacer: Egemen güç ve çıplak hayat. Avrupa Yayınevi.
• Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial gap: The geographical assumptions of International Relations Theory. Review of International Political Economy,1(1), 53-80.
• Agnew, J. (2010). Still trapped in territory. Geopolitics, 15(4), 779-784.
• Ağaoğulları, M. A. (1991). Demokratik mitoslar: Halk-ulus egemenliği ve siyasal temsil. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(1), 21-30.
• Ağaoğulları, M. A., Akal, C. B. ve Köker, L. (1994). Kral Devlet ya da Ölümlü Tanrı. İmge Kitabevi.
• Akad M., Vural Dinçkol B. ve Bulut N. (2014). Genel Kamu Hukuku. Der Yayınları.
• Akın, F. İ. (1980). Kamu Hukuku (Devlet doktrinleri-Temel hak ve özgürlükler). İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları (Fakülteler Matbaası).
• Alatlı, A. (2010). Batıya yön veren metinler (Cilt II). Melisa Matbaacılık.
• Appleby, J. (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the historical imagination. Harvard University Press.
• Aybudak, U. (2017). Modern devlet bağlamında ortaya çıkan egemenlik kavramı ve egemenliğin dönüşümü, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 10(54), 226-237.
• Bartelson, J. (1995). A genealogy of sovereignty. Cambridge University Press.
• Bataille, G. (2006). Lanetli pay. Ladomir.
• Bellamy, A. J. (2008a). Conflict prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Global Governance, 14(2), 135- 156.
• Bellamy, A. J. (2008b). The Responsibility to Protect and the problem of military intervention. International Affairs, 84(4), 615-639.
• Benn, S. ve Peters, R. (2009). Social principles and the Democratic State. Routledge.
• Blandino, P. (2023). The influence of Dante’s thinking over the notions of Sovereignty, Imperialism, and its potential in the realm of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Blockchain Networks. Law and Humanities Quarterly Reviews, 2(4), 164-178.
• Blythe, J. M. (1992) Ideal government and the mixed constitution in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press.
• Boucher, D. (2001) Resurrecting Pufendorf and capturing the Westphalian moment. Review of International Studies 27(4), 557-577.
• Bosco, G. (2013). The Responsibility to Protect. Rivista di Studi Politici Internazionali, 80(1), 59-68.
• Brighenti, A. M. (2010). On territorology: Towards a general scheme of territory. Theory, Culture and Society, 27(1), 57-72.
• Carter, B. B. (1943). Dante’s political ideas. The Review of Politics, 5(3), 339-355.
• Chandler, D. (2009). Unravelling the paradox of ‘The Responsibility to Protect’. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 20, 27-39.
• Cohen, R. S. (2019). Cybercom chief: 133 cyber teams will be ınsufficent as adversaries ımprove. Air and Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/CYBERCOM-Chief-133-Cyber-Teams-Will-Be- Insufficient-as-Adversaries-Improve/
• Di Nicola, A. (2022). Towards digital organized crime and digital sociology of organized crime. Trends in Organized Crime. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12117-022-09457-y#citeas
• Durmaz, S. (2010). Yüksek Ortaçağ’da Papa-İmparator Çatışması: Kılıç ile Âsâ’nın Savaşı. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 93-120.
• Ebener, R. C. (1947). Dante’s and Machiavelli’s theories of government: A comparison. The Historian, 10(1), 63- 77.
• Ekiz, S. (2020). Jean Bodin’in siyaset felsefesinde devlet ve egemenlik. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 633-691.
• Engster, D. (1996). Jean Bodin, Scepticism and Absolute Sovereignty. History of Political Thought, 17(4), 469- 499.
• Erdal, S. (2010). Siyasal düşünürler ve modern egemenlik. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 83- 115.
• Erdoğan, M. (2005). Egemenliğin dünü-bugünü. Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi, 2 (6-7), 217-224.
• Eroğlu, A. H. (2000). Hıristiyanlığın bölünme sürecine genel bir bakış. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 309-325.
• Eurasia Review. (2019). Georgia: Facebook removes hundreds of government linked pages for ‘coordinated ınauthentic behavior’. https://www.eurasiareview.com/21122019-georgia-facebook-removes-hundreds-of- government-linked-pages-for-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior/
• Evans, G. ve Sahnoun, M. (2002). The responsibility to protect. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 99-110.
• Evans, G. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect: Rethinking humanitarian intervention, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 98, 78-89.
• Evans, G., Thakur, R, ve Pape, R. A. (2013). Humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. International Security, 37(4), 199-214.
• Fitzgibbon, G. F. (1940). De Bonald and De Maistre. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 1(3), 116-124.
• Franzese, P.W. (2009). Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Can it exist? Air Force Law Review, 64, 1-42.
• Frazin, R. (2019). CyberCom mulls aggressive tactics if Russia interferes in next election: report. The Hill. https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/475921-cybercom-mulls-aggressive-tactics-if-russia-interferes- in-next-election/
• Frischmann, B (2001). Privatization and commercialization of the Internet infrastructure: Rethinking market ıntervention into government and government ıntervention into the market. 2 Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 1(2), 1-70. https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/article/view/3537
• Gerard, Mairet. (2005). “Padovalı Marsilius’tan Louis XIV’e Laik Devletin Doğuşu”, Devlet Kuramı, (Ed. Cemal Bali Akal), Dost Yayınevi, 215-242.
• Gleicher, N. (2019). Removing coordinated inauthentic behavior from Georgia, Vietnam and the US. Meta. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/12/removing-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-from-georgia-vietnam- and-the-us/
• Gözler, K. (2011). Anayasa hukukunun genel esasları. Ekin Kitabevi.
• Greenemeier, L. (2009). Remembering the day the World Wide Web was born. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/day-the-web-was-born/
• Greenstein, S. (2001). The commercialization of Internet access, lessons from recent experience. Maryam P. Feldman ve Albert N. Link (Eds.) içinde, Innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy (213-229). Springer.
• Greenstein, S. (2015). How the Internet became commercial: Innovation, privatization, and the birth of a new network. Princeton University Press.
• Grier, P. (1997). In the beginning, there was Arpanet. Air & Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0197arpanet/
• Grovogui, S. N. (1996). Sovereigns, quasi sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law. University of Minnesota Press.
• Gülsoy, T. (2006). Milletin temsili. Kamu Hukuku Arşivi, 9(2), 71-86.
• Hinsley, F. H. (1986). Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press.
• Hobbes, T. (2001). Leviathan (çev. Semih Lim). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Hudson, W. (2008). Fables of sovereignty, re-envisioning sovereignty. Trudy Jacobsen, Charles Sampford, Ramesh Thakur (Eds.) içinde, Re-envisioning sovereignty: The end of Westphalia? (19-31). Routledge.
• Jackson, R. (1999). Introduction: Sovereignty at the Millennium. Robert Jackson (Eds.) içinde, Sovereignty at the Millennium (1-8). Blackwell Publishers.
• Jackson, J. H. (2002). Sovereignty, subsidiarity, and seperation of powers: The high-wire balancing act of Globalization. Daniel L. M. Kennedy ve James D. Southwick (Eds.) içinde, The political economy of international trade law, Essays in honor of Robert E. Hudec (13-31). Cambridge University Press.
• Jensen, E. T. (2011). Sovereignty and neutrality in Cyber Conflict. Fordham International Law Journal, 35(3), 815-841.
• Jensen, E.T. (2015). Cyber Sovereignty: The way ahead. Texas International Law Journal, 50(2), 276-304.
• Kapani, M. (1983). Politika bilimine giriş. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi.
• Kelsen, H. (1989). Pure theory of law. Peter Smith.
• Keohane, R. O. ve Krasner, S. (2013). Subversive Realist. Martha Finnemore ve Judith Goldstein (Eds.) içinde, Back to basics: State power in a contemporary world (23-52). Oxford University Press.
• Klimburg, A. (2018). The darkening web: The war for Cyberspace. Penguin.
• Koçak, M. (2006). Batı’da ve Türkiye’de egemenlik anlayışının değişimi; Devlet ve egemenlik (eski kavramlar- yeni anlamlar). Seçkin.
• Krasner, S. D. (1995-1996). Compromising Westphalia. International Security, 20(3), 115-151.
• Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
• Krasner, S. D. (2001). Problematic sovereignty. Problematic sovereignty, contested rules and political possibilities, Ed. Stephen D. Krasner, Columbia University Press, 1-23.
• Krasner, S. D. (2002). Realist Views of International Law. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 96, 265-268.
• Krasner, S. D. (2004). Sharing sovereignty: New institutions for collapsed and failing states. International Security, 29(2), 85-120.
• Krasner, S. D. (2005). Building Democracy after conflict: The case for shared sovereignty. Journal of Democracy, 16(1), 69-83.
• Kuehl, D. T. (2009). From Cyberspace to Cyberpower: Defining the Problem. Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr, and Larry K. Wentz (Eds.) içinde, Cyberpower and National Security (24-42). Potomac Books.
• Küçük, A. (2015). Egemenlik (Hâkimiyet), halk egemenliği ve milli egemenlik tartışmaları ve egemenlik anlayışında esaslı dönüşüm. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, 6, 311-361.
• Laski, H. J. (1921). The foundations of sovereignty, and other essays. Harcourt, Brace and Company.
• Leiner, B. M. vd. (1997). Brief history of the Internet. Internet Society. https://www.internetsociety.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/ISOC-History-of-the-Internet_1997.pdf
• Lewis, M., Sampford, C. ve Thakur, R. (2008). Introduction. Trudy Jacobsen, Charles Sampford, Ramesh Thakur, (Eds.) içinde, Re-envisioning sovereignty: The end of Westphalia? (1-15). Routledge.
• Lloyd, H. A. (1991). Sovereignty: Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau. Reveu Internationale de Philosophie, 45(179), 353- 379.
• Lotrionte, C. (2013). State sovereignty and self-defense in Cyberspace: A normative framework for balancing legal rights. Emory Internstional Law Review, 26(2), 825-919.
• March, A. F. (2013). Genealogies of sovereignty in Islamic Political Theology. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 80(1), 293-320.
• Mack, E. (2019). The Internet was born 50 years ago with a nonsense message. CNET. https://www.cnet.com/science/the-internet-was-born-50-years-ago-with-a-nonsense-message/
• Martynov, A.Ş. (1982). Orta ve Doğu Asya ülkelerinde Budizm ve toplum: Orta Çağ'da Orta ve Doğu Asya ülkelerinde Budizm, devlet ve toplum. Moskova.
• McDowall, M. (2015). How a simple ‘hello’ became the first message sent via the Internet. PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/internet-got-started-simple-hello
• Merriam, Jr., C. E. (1900). History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. Columbia University Press.
• Moore, T. (2009). Violations of sovereignty and regime engineering: A critique of the state theory of Stephen Krasner. Australian Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 497-511.
• Nagan, W. P. ve Haddad, A. M. (2012). Sovereignty in theory and practice. San Diego Internatioinal Law Journal, 13, 429-520.
• Nakashima, E. (2019). U.S. Cyber Command operation distrupted Internet access of Russian troll factory on day of 2018 midterms. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us- cyber-command-operation-disrupted-internet-access-of-russian-troll-factory-on-day-of-2018- midterms/2019/02/26/1827fc9e-36d6-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?noredirect=on
• Nicaso, A. ve Danesi, M. (2023). The dark mafia organized crime in the age of the Internet. Routledge.
• Okandan R. G. (1968). Umumi Amme Hukuku. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları (Fakülteler Matbaası).
• Onuf, N. G. (1991) Sovereignty: Outline of a conceptual history. Alternatives 16, 425-446.
• Özay, İ. H. (1980). XVI. yüzyıl ve sonrası Batı Avrupa ülkeleri kamu yönetimi tarihine ilişkin notlar-çağrışımlar. İdare Hukuku ve İlimleri Dergisi (İHİD), 1(2), 73-90.
• Özer, A. (2005). Anayasa Hukuku. Turhan Kitabevi.
• Qutb, S. (2006). Milestones: Ma’allim fi’l-tareeq. Islamic Book Service.
• Paris, R. (2020). The right to dominate: How old ideas about soverignty pose new challenges for world order. International Organization, 74(3), 453-489.
• Parker, D. (1981). Law, society and the state in the thought of Jean Bodin. History of Political Thought, 2(2), 253- 285.
• Pettit, H. (2019). Russia will disconnect itself from internet this week in world-first test to defend against US cyberattack. The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10228293/russia-disconnect-internet-us-cyberattack/
• Post, G. (1964) Studies in medieval legal thought: Public Law and the State 1100-1322. Princeton University Press.
• Pufendorf, Samuel Baron. (1703). Of the Law of Nature and Nations (Translated by Basil Kennett.). L. Lichfield.
• Rolbiecki, J. J. (1923). Dante’s views on the Sovereignty of the State. The Catholic Historical Review, 9(1), 91-102.
• Russett, B. M. (1995). Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton University Press.
• Salmon, J. H. M. (1996). The legacy of Jean Bodin: Absolutism, populism or Constitutionalism. History of Political Thought 17(4), 500-522.
• Sampford, C. ve Palmer, M. (2005). The theory of collective response. Morton H. Halperin and Mirna Galic (Eds.) içinde, Protecting Democracy: International Response (23-62). Lexington Books.
• Savin, L. (2019). Nomos, Siber Uzay ve egemen internet. Geopolitika. https://www.geopolitika.ru/article/nomos-kiberprostranstva-i-suverennyy-internet
• Savin, L. (2020). Egemenliklerin dönüşümü. Geopolitika. https://www.geopolitika.ru/article/transformaciya- suverenitetov
• Savin, L. (2021). Egemenliğin ortaya çıkışı ve yorumlanması. Geopolitika. https://www.geopolitika.ru/article/poyavlenie-suvereniteta-i-ego-interpretacii#sdfootnote1sym
• Shelley, L. I. (2003). Organized crime, terrorism and cybercrime. Alan Bryden ve Philipp Fluri (Eds.) içinde, Security Sector reform: Institutions, society and good governance (303-312). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
• Schmitt, K. (2000). Siyasi teoloji. Kanon Press.
• Schmitt, K. (2005). Diktatörlük: Modern egemenlik fikrinin kökenlerinden proleter sınıf mücadelesine kadar. Nauka.
• Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. M. Greenberger (Ed.) içinde, Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest (37-72). The Johns Hopkins Press.
• Shepard, M. A. (1930). Sovereignty at crossroads: A study of Bodin. Political Science Quarterly, 45(4), 1930, 580-603.
• Schindler, D. (1950). Verfassungsrecht und soziale strüktür. Huber.
• Stahn, C. (2007). Responsibility to Protect: Political rhetoric or emerging legal norm?. The American Journal of International Law, 101(1), 99-120.
• Şenel, A. (1982). Siyasal düşünceler tarihi. Sevinç Matbaası.
• Teziç, E. (2014). Anayasa Hukuku. Beta Yayınları.
• Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990. Basil Blackwell.
• Torun, Z. (2017). The evolution of the Responsibility to Protect. Avrasya Etüdleri, 51, 29-51.
• Tropina, T. (2010). Cyber Crimeand Organized Crime. Freedom from Fear Magazine, 7, 16-18.
• Tucker, P. (2019). Russia plans to cut off some ınternet access next week. Defense One. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/12/russia-plans-cut-some-internet-access-next- week/162028/
• Wang, B. (2017). Chinese visions of World Order: Tianxia, culture, and World Politics. Duke University Press.
• Williams, B. A. (2017). An introduction to Waliyic Islam: Sacred communities and their covenantal dispensations. Lion of Najaf Publishers.
• Wilks, M. (1963) The problem of sovereignty in the late Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press.
• Viroli, M. (1992). From politics to reason of state: The acquisition and transformation of the language of Politics 1250-1600. Cambridge University Press.
• Yılmaz, S. (2017). “İstisna Hali” üzerinden bir Egemenlik kavramı tartışması: Schmitt ve Agamben’ın teorileri hakkında bir çalışma, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 132, 383-410.
• Zeybekoğlu, A. E. (2009). Carl Schmitt’in 20. yüzyıl devlet ve siyaset kuramına katkısı [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi.
• Zhang, Y. (2008). Ambivalent sovereignty, China and re-imagining the Westphalian ideal. Trudy Jacobsen, Charles Sampford, Ramesh Thakur (Eds.) içinde, Re-envisioning sovereignty: The end of Westphalia? (101- 105). Routledge.
• Zhao, T. (2019). Redefining a philosophy for world governance, key concepts in Chinese thought and culture (çev. Liqing Tao). Palgrave Pivot.
• Zhao, T. (2021). All under heaven: The Tianxia system for a possible world order. University of California Press.