Suchergebnisse

"This book provides main political problems about digital information technology in world politics, relating them to the processes of transformation of the current historical system"--Provided by publisher

AbstractNew technologies provide new channels of access to political information and participation in decision‐making processes. This assumption is clearly important in the action plans and policies of International Organizations (World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, United Nations), which have assumed a leadership role in the reform of political institutions. Starting from an analysis of the reasons that have brought the state and processes of institution building back into focus, this paper will reconstruct the International Organizations' vision of the transformative potential of new information technologies and their activity in this field. Particular attention will be devoted to e‐democracy and e‐government as policies to build democracy in developing countries.

"No sovereignty, no elected government, no authority, no borders". It was exactly twenty years ago, John Perry Barlow proclaimed his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. And those were his keywords. Today, we can say that the development of Internet governance as a global policy arena is the answer to the questions that Barlow believed irrelevant to the proper development of cyberspace. If founding myths about an ungovernable, borderless, and intangible Internet have been demolished, what power relations have emerged in the Internet governance arena? What are the ideas –or the normative values– that sustain and legitimize the political role of governmental and nongovernmental actors? And, finally, is the multi-stakeholder model capable of grasping the real conflicts over political power, or is it part of those conflicts, a narrative supporting specific interests and coalitions? The main aim of this article is to consider these issues by analysing the developments of political conflicts over Internet governance, from the IAHC to WSIS, until recent processes such as the WCIT and NetMundial. ; "Ninguna soberanía, ningún gobierno electivo, ninguna autoridad, ningún confín". Hace veinte años, John Perry Barlow proclamó su Declaración de Independencia del Ciberespacio. Y estas eran las palabras clave. Hoy día, podemos afirmar que el desarrollo del Internet Governance como ámbito de policy global responde a las preguntas que Barlow consideraba irrelevantes precisamente por lo que al desarrollo del ciberespacio se refería. Una vez que los mitos fundadores de un Internet sin confines, inmaterial y falto de estructuras de gobierno han sido derrotados, ¿cuáles son las relaciones de poder que han emergido en el campo del dominio del Internet? ¿Cuáles son las ideas –o los valores normativos– que sostienen y legitiman el papel político de los actores gubernamentales y no gubernamentales? Además, ¿el modelo multi-stakeholder sabe distinguir los conflictos de poder reales, o él mismo parte de esos conflictos, como un discurso de apoyo de los intereses y de las coaliciones en juego? El objetivo principal del artículo es analizar esos cuestionamientos a través del análisis del desarrollo de los conflictos políticos respecto de la gobernanza de la red: del IAHC al WSIS, hasta llegar a los procesos más recientes, como el WCIT y el NetMundial.

"No sovereignty, no elected government, no authority, no borders". It was exactly twenty years ago, John Perry Barlow proclaimed his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. And those were his keywords. Today, we can say that the development of Internet governance as a global policy arena is the answer to the questions that Barlow believed irrelevant to the proper development of cyberspace. If founding myths about an ungovernable, borderless, and intangible Internet have been demolished, what power relations have emerged in the Internet governance arena? What are the ideas –or the normative values– that sustain and legitimize the political role of governmental and nongovernmental actors? And, finally, is the multi-stakeholder model capable of grasping the real conflicts over political power, or is it part of those conflicts, a narrative supporting specific interests and coalitions? The main aim of this article is to consider these issues by analysing the developments of political conflicts over Internet governance, from the IAHC to WSIS, until recent processes such as the WCIT and NetMundial. ; "Ninguna soberanía, ningún gobierno electivo, ninguna autoridad, ningún confín". Hace veinte años, John Perry Barlow proclamó su Declaración de Independencia del Ciberespacio. Y estas eran las palabras clave. Hoy día, podemos afirmar que el desarrollo del Internet Governance como ámbito de policy global responde a las preguntas que Barlow consideraba irrelevantes precisamente por lo que al desarrollo del ciberespacio se refería. Una vez que los mitos fundadores de un Internet sin confines, inmaterial y falto de estructuras de gobierno han sido derrotados, ¿cuáles son las relaciones de poder que han emergido en el campo del dominio del Internet? ¿Cuáles son las ideas –o los valores normativos– que sostienen y legitiman el papel político de los actores gubernamentales y no gubernamentales? Además, ¿el modelo multi-stakeholder sabe distinguir los conflictos de poder reales, o él mismo parte de esos conflictos, como un discurso de apoyo de los intereses y de las coaliciones en juego? El objetivo principal del artículo es analizar esos cuestionamientos a través del análisis del desarrollo de los conflictos políticos respecto de la gobernanza de la red: del IAHC al WSIS, hasta llegar a los procesos más recientes, como el WCIT y el NetMundial.

In the past thirty years, the exponential rise in the number of Internet users around the word and the intensive use of the digital networks have brought to light crucial political issues. Internet is now the object of regulations. Namely, it is a policy domain. Yet, its own architecture represents a new regulative structure, one deeply affecting politics and everyday life. This article considers some of the main transformations of the Internet induced by privatization and militarization processes, as well as their consequences on societies and human beings. ; En los últimos treinta años ha crecido de manera exponencial el número de usuarios de Internet alrededor del mundo y el uso intensivo de conexiones digitales ha traído a la luz cuestiones políticas cruciales. Internet es ahora objeto de regulaciones. Es decir, es un ámbito de la política. Aún su propia arquitectura representa una nueva estructura reguladora, que afecta profundamente la política y la vida cotidiana. Este artículo considera algunas de las principales transformaciones de Internet inducida por procesos de privatización y militarización, como también sus consecuencias en las sociedades y en los seres humanos.

In the past thirty years, the exponential rise in the number of Internet users around the word and the intensive use of the digital networks have brought to light crucial political issues. Internet is now the object of regulations. Namely, it is a policy domain. Yet, its own architecture represents a new regulative structure, one deeply affecting politics and everyday life. This article considers some of the main transformations of the Internet induced by privatization and militarization processes, as well as their consequences on societies and human beings. ; En los últimos treinta años ha crecido de manera exponencial el número de usuarios de Internet alrededor del mundo y el uso intensivo de conexiones digitales ha traído a la luz cuestiones políticas cruciales. Internet es ahora objeto de regulaciones. Es decir, es un ámbito de la política. Aún su propia arquitectura representa una nueva estructura reguladora, que afecta profundamente la política y la vida cotidiana. Este artículo considera algunas de las principales transformaciones de Internet inducida por procesos de privatización y militarización, como también sus consecuencias en las sociedades y en los seres humanos.

AbstractFrom the second half of the 1980s onward, Western governments have been pursuing vigorously the implementation of digitalization policies. As a result, political institutions and administrative procedures have been progressively computerized. Even non‐Western countries like China, India, and Russia have started reform processes aiming at the creation of "virtual states." Concurrently, developments in the Internet and related technologies have affected international relations, either heightening conflict or strengthening cooperation. e‐Democracy and e‐government projects and policies have generated numerous case studies, leading to a solid research tradition investigating the extent to which politics has been transformed. However, theoretical development to understand the geopolitical strategies designed by states in order to control and regulate digital networks has lagged behind. This article analyzes the main trajectories followed by states in their digitalization processes, highlighting their constitutional and geopolitical relevance. It explores the relationships between the state and information and communication technologies and proposes a set of typologies of digital regimes.