Abstract
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.
Highlights
With its dramatic rise in importance, the analysis of internet governance increasingly moves from predominantly technical analyses to general conceptual lenses such as constitutionalisation (Celeste 2019; Fischer-Lescano 2016; Pernice 2018), the evolution of norms (Finnemore and Hollis 2016) or the role of state interests (Drezner 2007)
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 prevailing liberal sphere is strongly supported by Western states but increasingly challenged by an assertive sovereigntist sphere spearheaded by China, Russia and a number of authoritarian as well as developing countries
Summary
With its dramatic rise in importance, the analysis of internet governance increasingly moves from predominantly technical analyses to general conceptual lenses such as constitutionalisation (Celeste 2019; Fischer-Lescano 2016; Pernice 2018), the evolution of norms (Finnemore and Hollis 2016) or the role of state interests (Drezner 2007). We contribute to this mainstreaming by analysing conflicts between spheres of authority in internet governance over the last 20 years.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
