Suchergebnisse

Abstract
How can we explain the varying participation of non-state actors in UN cybersecurity governance? While research often underlines the importance of non-state actors in governing cybersecurity, research on international non-state actors' activities also shows that shrinking spaces reduce opportunities for these actors. So far, we do not know how these two seemingly opposing developments impact UN cybersecurity governance. In this article, we analyze how state interests, ideas on representation, and institutional context affect non-state actor participation in three UN forums for cybersecurity, namely the IGF, OEWG, and AHC. Based on qualitative data and a quantitative participation analysis, we find that institutional mandates of forums remain open to non-state actors but to varying degrees. Conflicts among states affect non-state actors strongly, but often indirectly, because their participation becomes politicized, and states increasingly contest ideas on their participation. These effects concern all groups of non-state actors. All in all, our results suggest that UN cybersecurity governance is still open to non-state actors, but despite functional arguments, their participation is facing growing resistance over time. At the same time, reasons why non-state actors choose to participate or not require more consideration.

How can we explain the varying participation of non-state actors in UN cybersecurity governance? While research often underlines the importance of non-state actors in governing cybersecurity, research on international non-state actors' activities also shows that shrinking spaces reduce opportunities for these actors. So far, we do not know how these two seemingly opposing developments impact UN cybersecurity governance. In this article, we analyze how state interests, ideas on representation, and institutional context affect non-state actor participation in three UN forums for cybersecurity, namely the IGF, OEWG, and AHC. Based on qualitative data and a quantitative participation analysis, we find that institutional mandates of forums remain open to non-state actors but to varying degrees. Conflicts among states affect non-state actors strongly, but often indirectly, because their participation becomes politicized, and states increasingly contest ideas on their participation. These effects concern all groups of non-state actors. All in all, our results suggest that UN cybersecurity governance is still open to non-state actors, but despite functional arguments, their participation is facing growing resistance over time. At the same time, reasons why non-state actors choose to participate or not require more consideration.

In December 2024, UN members will vote on a worldwide Cybercrime Convention negotiated since 2019. While the convention is problematic, this Spotlight shows why a conditional acceptance nonetheless seems the best way forward. For this purpose, we first present the different meanings of cybercrime and outline the existing regulatory framework. We then examine the UN negotiations and the possible human rights implications of the convention, showing that it reflects the contestation of human rights norms and a growing division in the UN, yet supporting the convention at this point also enables long-term influence on its implementation.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common autosomal dominant disorder caused by heterozygotic inactivation of the NF1 tumor suppressor gene at 17q11.2. The associated phenotypes are highly variable, and modifying genes have been proposed to explain at least in part the intriguing expressivity. Given that haploinsufficiency of the NF1 gene product neurofibromin is responsible for some of the clinical manifestations, variations in expression of the wildtype NF1 allele might modify the phenotype. We therefore investigated epigenetic molecular modifications that could result in variable expression of the normal NF1 allele. To exclude confounding by DNA sequence variations, we analyzed monozygotic twin pairs with NF1 who presented with several discordant features. We fine-mapped the methylation pattern of a nearly 1 kb NF1 promoter region in lymphocytes of 8 twin pairs. All twin pairs showed significant intra-pair differences in methylation, especially of specific promoter subregions such as 5'UTR, exon 1 and intron 1 (+7 to +622), transcription factor binding sites and promoter elements like NF1HCS. Furthermore, we detected significant intra-pair differences in cytosine methylation for the region from -249 to -234 with regard to discordance for optic glioma with a higher grade of methylation in glioma cases. In conclusion, our findings of epigenetic differences of the NF1 promoter in leukocytes within mono zygotic twin pairs may serve as a proof of principle for other tissues. The results point towards a role of methylation patterns of the normal NF1 allele for expression differences and for modification of the NF1 phenotype.