Suchergebnisse

In the early days of the internet, it was often assumed that the internet would develop into a free and open technology. However, governments have proven to be able to govern the internet, control its content, and develop international content control norms. This dissertation looks at content control from an international norms perspective and asks: How and why do international content control norms emerge and develop? I adopt an analytical eclecticist approach that combines elements from comparative politics and international relations. There are three aspects to this eclectic theory of content control. First, states subscribe to content control norms, which can range from liberal to illiberal norms. States cooperate in the area of content control and promote content control norms. Second, states support content control norms to a different extent because of the democratic or authoritarian values they subscribe to and their internal decision-making procedures, which can lead to conflict. Third, regional and international organizations affect the norm promotion strategies of states. I use both qualitative methods (case studies, content analysis) and quantitative methods (negative binomial hurdle model) to answer the research question. In order to answer the how part of the research question, I analyze two aspects of content control norm development. First, I assess the broader conflicts over norms and institutions in internet governance. I show that these conflicts are dependent on the identities of the actors involved. Second, I analyze the strategies that autocratic states use to push for specific content control norms. I show that institutional structures create opportunities and constraints to their norm promotion strategies. In order to answer the why part of the research question, I zoom in even further by comparing content control practices between democratic and authoritarian regimes. I show that democracies also control content, but mainly security-related content. Hence, content control practices are ...

This article contributes to the understanding of authoritarian states as norm entrepreneurs of content control norms. These emerging norms challenge the norm literature, which disregards illiberal norms and illiberal actors as norm entrepreneurs. This article focuses on two distinct but coexisting strategies that Russia and China apply for promoting and developing internet governance norms. It shows that these countries use a combination of socialization and persuasion strategies. They employ a sequencing strategy of regional coalition-building in order to create support, after which they expand a norm's range via international organizations. These norm entrepreneurs adapt their strategies to different target groups based on the degree of internalization of the norm. The article shows that a reassessment of norm theory in a broader context allows for extension to illiberal norms and illiberal actors, but also shows the limits since the applicability of strategies such as naming and shaming should be questioned.

AbstractWe analyse conflicts over norms and institutions in internet governance. In this emerging field, dispute settlement is less institutionalised and conflicts take place at a foundational level. Internet governance features two competing spheres of authority characterised by fundamentally diverging social purposes: A more consolidated liberal sphere emphasises a limited role of the state, private and multistakeholder governance and freedom of speech. A sovereigntist challenger sphere emphasises state control, intergovernmentalism and push against the preponderance of Western institutions and private actors. We trace the activation and evolution of conflict between these spheres with regard to norms and institutions in four instances: the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), the fifth session of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) and the Budapest Convention of the Council of Europe. We observe intense norm collisions, and strategic attempts at competitive regime creation and regime shifting towards intergovernmental structures by the sovereigntist sphere. Despite these aggressive attempts at creating new institutions and norms, the existing internet governance order is still in place. Hence, authority conflicts in global internet governance do not necessarily lead to fragmentation.