Search results

Advances in information and communication technologies – global Internet, social media, Internet of Things, and a range of related science-driven innovations and generative and emergent technologies – continue to shape a dynamic communication and information ecosystem for which there is no precedent. These advances are powerful in many ways. Foremost among these in terms of salience, ubiquity, pervasiveness, and expansion in scale and scope is the broad area of artificial intelligence. They have created a new global ecology; yet they remain opaque and must be better understood— an ecology of "knowns" that is evolving in ways that remain largely "unknown." Especially compelling is the acceleration of Artificial Intelligence – in all its forms – with far-ranging applications shaping a new global ecosystem for which there is no precedent. This chapter presents a brief view of the most pressing challenges, articulates the logic for worldwide agreement to retain the rule of law in the international system, and presents salient features of an emergent International Accord on Artificial Intelligence. The Framework for Artificial Intelligence International Accord (AIIA) is an initial response to this critical gap in the system of international rules and regulations. ; This material is based on work supported by the MIT Political Science Department & U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations therein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Version 1.2 ; In international relations, the traditional approaches to theory and research, practice, and policy were derived from experiences in the 19th and 20th centuries. But cyberspace, shaped by human ingenuity, is a venue for social interaction, an environment for social communication, and an enabler of new mechanisms for power and leverage. Cyberspace creates new condition — problems and opportunities — for which there are no clear precedents in human history. Already we recognize new patterns of conflict and contention, and concepts such as cyberwar, cybersecurity, and cyberattack are in circulation, buttressed by considerable evidence of cyber espionage and cybercrime. The research problem is this: distinct features of cyberspace — such as time, scope, space, permeation, ubiquity, participation and attribution — challenge traditional modes of inquiry in international relations and limit their utility. The interdisciplinary MIT-Harvard ECIR research project explores various facets of cyber international relations, including its implications for power and politics, conflict and war. Our primary mission and principal goal is to increase the capacity of the nation to address the policy challenges of the cyber domain. Our research is intended to influence today's policy makers with the best thinking about issues and opportunities, and to train tomorrow's policy makers to be effective in understanding choice and consequence in cyber matters. Accordingly, the ECIR vision is to create an integrated knowledge domain of international relations in the cyber age, that is (a) multidisciplinary, theory-driven, technically and empirically; (b) clarifies threats and opportunities in cyberspace for national security, welfare, and influence;(c) provides analytical tools for understanding and managing transformation and change; and (d) attracts and educates generations of researchers, scholars, and analysts for international relations in the new cyber age. ; This material is based upon work supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014-09-1-0597. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.

Proceedings of the ECIR Workshop on "Cyber Security & the Governance Gap: Complexity, Contention, Cooperation," January 6–7, 2014, MIT, Cambridge, MA. ; This workshop focuses on the dynamics shaping these dual features—cyber threats and cyber governance—while also taking into account operational, pragmatic, and normative aspects, as well as potential policy responses. At the core is "nature of the gap" between the two—all from different perspectives: people as users; business and industry; states and governments; and the international community, private and public—everywhere. The question is which trend will dominate: threats to cyber security or the expansion of cyber governance? Does that matter? If so how? If not, why not? ; This material is based upon work supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014-09-1-0597. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.

Created by human ingenuity, cyberspace is a fact of daily life. Until recently, this arena of virtual interaction was considered largely a matter of low politics— the routine, background, and relatively non-contentious. Today cyberspace and its uses have vaulted into the highest realm of high politics – the most salient and contentious forms of interaction. We now appreciate that cyber capabilities are also a source of vulnerability, posing potential threats to national security, and disturbing the familiar and traditional international order. The expansion of cyber access has already influenced the Westphalian-anchored international system in powerful ways. This paper argues that the construction of cyberspace is creating new challenges for the social sciences, the full nature of still remains to be fully understood -- perhaps even calling into question some of its most basic assumptions. We frame these challenges with reference to co- evolution of the new cyber domain and the traditional international system, and then focus more specifically on the emergent synergy between two independent features of the contemporary world order -- cyberspace (an arena of interaction) and sustainability (a policy imperative), and their convergence on the global policy agenda It is no surprise that sustainability is closely connected to security – or alternatively that security is contingent on sustainability. By extension, cyber security is derivative, in that is refers to security in the cyber domain. ; This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, Grant No. N00014-09-1-0597. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations therein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.

An examination of the ways the construction of the Internet, with cyberspace as the core, are changing the theory, policy, and practice of international relations. ; Cyberspace is widely acknowledged as a fundamental fact of daily life in today's world. Until recently, its political impact was thought to be a matter of low politics—background conditions and routine processes and decisions. Now, however, experts have begun to recognize its effect on high politics—national security, core institutions, and critical decision processes. In this book, Nazli Choucri investigates the implications of this new cyberpolitical reality for international relations theory, policy, and practice. The ubiquity, fluidity, and anonymity of cyberspace have already challenged such concepts as leverage and influence, national security and diplomacy, and borders and boundaries in the traditionally state-centric arena of international relations. Choucri grapples with fundamental questions of how we can take explicit account of cyberspace in the analysis of world politics and how we can integrate the traditional international system with its cyber venues. After establishing the theoretical and empirical terrain, Choucri examines modes of cyber conflict and cyber cooperation in international relations; the potential for the gradual convergence of cyberspace and sustainability, in both substantive and policy terms; and the emergent synergy of cyberspace and international efforts toward sustainable development. Choucri's discussion is theoretically driven and empirically grounded, drawing on recent data and analyzing the dynamics of cyberpolitics at individual, state, international, and global levels.

Proceedings of the ECIR Workshop on "Who Controls Cyberspace? A Puzzle for National Security and International Relations," November 6–7, 2012, MIT, Cambridge, MA. ; This Workshop proceeds from the assumption that we have as yet no overarching and complete accounting of who controls what, when, and how, nor do we fully understand what are the precise points of control, where they are currently located and where the future ones might be placed. Accordingly, the Workshop is based on first principles, namely, cyber-ecosystems, power in "real" and cyber contexts, and introduce control point analysis. Then it turns to specific control features from four different perspectives: (a) people as users; (b) business and industry; (c) states and governments; and (d) the international community, private and public – across different regions of the world. ; This material is based upon work supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014-09-1-0597. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.

Proceedings of the ECIR Workshop on "People, Power and CyberPolitics," December 7–8, 2011, MIT, Cambridge, MA. ; The People, Power, and CyberPolitics Conference is a joint project of MIT and Harvard University on Explorations in Cyber International Relations (ECIR). Co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, this workshop is the second in a series of sustained deliberations and explorations involving leading individuals in academia, government and business. The outcome of the workshop will be a new understanding of emergent dimensions of cyberpolitics with respect to (i) the evolving pressures on policy and theory, and (ii) the methods and techniques of exploring current conditions and understanding the contours of potential futures. ; This material is based upon work supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014-09-1-0597. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.

Proceedings of the ECIR Workshop on "Cyber International Relations: Emergent Realities of Conflict and Cooperation," October 13–14, 2010, MIT, Cambridge, MA. ; An event of the MIT-Harvard multidisciplinary Minerva Project on "Explorations in Cyber International Relations" (ECIR), this conference seeks to adjust traditional views to the cyber realities of the 21st century. Of the many questions shaping world politics today, few are as daunting as Who Controls Cyberspace? Clear as it might appear, this question is deceptively simple, even elusive. It obscures other hidden or implicit aspects, namely, who can control cyberspace, who will control, and who should control cyberspace. However framed, the issue of control is closely tied to matters of scale and scope as well as authority and legitimacy – and most certainly intent and capacity. Our vision is to create new understandings of these realities that help: Highlight alternative perspectives and policies as well as institutional requirements; Clarify threats and opportunities in cyberspace for national security, welfare, and influence; Provide analytical tools for understanding and managing transformation and change; and Attract and educate a new generation of researchers, scholars, and analysts. We hope to develop an integrated approach to international relations and help frame cyber theory and practice for the 21st century. Most important of all, we seek to provide foundations for an integrated view of international relations. ; This material is based upon work supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014-09-1-0597. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.