Essay: Constructivism Explaining Why Cyber-warfare Occurs

James Adams (realist) rightly considers “the internet as an anarchic system” (Inquiries Journal, Constantine J. Petallides 2012, pg 1/1). The internet has no governing body and no police force, this clearly underlines the realistic concepts. In cyber warfare, every state has a selfish thought and focuses only on their national interests because of the impossibility of joining forces against a cyber attack. For example, if Russia steals American military plans, it is difficult to recover them or defend their flight in the first place. Unlike conventional wars, cyber warfare can happen at any time with a very discreet planning. “It is almost impossible to see or anticipate an imminent attack, and given the global and fluid nature of the internet” (Inquiries Journal, Constantine J. Petallides 2012, pg 1/1). Each state must have its own defenses in constant fear of war. There is never peace, only a truce. States that bring more and more technological improvements make the security of another state threatened. Constructivists analyze how society was built and how it can be modified. Constructivists regard anarchy as a social conception and not as a construction of the state. Cyberspace has become the new battlefield and, in turn, the new location of fear. The cyber attack becomes the new mode of fear. Dunn Cavelty argued that “the problem of cyber warfare is not the attack itself, but the fear of a potential attack” (Cavelty, MD 2013. Cyber ​​security: Contemporary Security Studies pg 361-378). It claims that very few attacks have the potential to cause total chaos, but the fear of a state’s loss of resources is a repetitive and likely threat. Like realism, liberalism views the state as the main actor of the international system. However, small units (eg organizations) are of paramount importance. Liberals see the war as different states that want to extend their power and defend their interests. They believe that government alone can not secure cyberspace. Ericksson and Guacomello say that “cyber threats undermine the sovereignty and security of the state. Non-state actors are becoming increasingly numerous and powerful because of the information revolution “(Eriksson, J., & Giacomello, G., 2006 The Information Revolution, Security, and International Relations, pp. 221-244) . The reasoning of Ericksson and Guacomello is mainly that cyberspace ruins the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, because in cyberspace there are no established boundaries and sovereignty loses its meaning. Liberals are strong believers that “there should be international state-enterprise cooperation to secure cyberspace” (Inquiries Journal, Constantine J. Petallides 2012, pg 1/1). Cyber ​​warfare is a central element of international relations. It explains sovereignty, interactions between states (power – realistic concepts), elements of the theory of international relations (realism – constructivism – liberalism). Each of the three theories explains cyberwar from a different angle by identifying and analyzing different structures, actors, and processes. Liberalism is a tradition that fosters cooperation within the international system; actors outside the state are of paramount importance. Thus, liberalism can explain solutions to solve the problems of cyber-attacks. Realism is a state-centric theory and security is the main constraint. Realism can explain the behavior of the state in the conduct of cyberwar. Constructivism considers international phenomena (eg, the state) to come from social construction and are not simply given. Thus, constructivism can explain why cyberwarfare occurs, its behavior and the actors involved.