The Level of Cybersecurity of the BRICS Member Countries in International Ratings: Prospects for Cooperation
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-1-7-34
Abstract
Creating a legal framework for cybersecurity is a key factor in the digitalization of an economy. The interaction between the BRICS member countries has undergone a digital transformation, which has improved their ability to work together economically and strengthened the growing influence of these countries in the international arena. The purpose of the present study is to determine the potential of the BRICS member nations to form a joint cybersecurity strategy. The authors put forward a hypothesis that the formation of an effective cybersecurity system is possible only with a sufficient level of development of information and communication technologies and a high degree of digitalization of interstate governance. The scientific novelty of this research lies in its complex approach to the scientific and theoretical analysis of the problems of ensuring cybersecurity in the BRICS member countries, on the basis of which it identifies the common areas for cooperation. The research methodology is based on establishing a correlation between the indicators of e-government development and the criteria for state cybersecurity, followed by a comparative analysis. As a quantitative indicator, the authors use the data of the E-Government Development Index for the BRICS member countries from 2010 to 2018. Additionally, the level of maturity of each country’s national cybersecurity system is reflected in the rating of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Based on the ITU rating, we assess the cybersecurity efficiency of the BRICS member countries versus other countries. The findings of the research lead the authors to the conclusion that state control over cyberspace and the availability of a national strategy are prerequisites for achieving a high level of cybersecurity.
About the Authors
O. Ovchinnikova
South Ural State University (National Research University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oksana Ovchinnikova (Chelyabinsk, Russia) − Associate Professor, Department of Judicial and Law Enforcement Activities, Institute of Law
47a Elektrostalskaya St., Chelyabinsk, 454038
N. K. Upadhyay
Symbiosis International (Deemed University)
India
India
Niteesh Kumar Upadhyay (Nodia, India) − Associate Professor, Symbiosis Law School, Noida Campus
Block A, 47/48, Sector-62, Noida, 201301
References
1. Bruijn H. & Janssen M. Building Cybersecurity Awareness: The Need for Evidence- Based Framing Strategies, 34(1) Government Information Quarterly 1 (2017). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.007
2. Burak A. & Barış D. Analysis of the Cyber Security Strategies of People’s Republic of China, 14(28) Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi (Journal of Security Strategies) 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.495748
3. Chandel S. et al. The Golden Shield Project of China: A Decade Later an In-depth Study of the Great Firewall, in 2019 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC) 111 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/CyberC.2019.00027
4. Khanna P. State Sovereignty and Self-Defence in Cyberspace, 5(4) BRICS Law Journal 139 (2018). https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2018-5-4-139-154
5. Kortjan N. A Conceptual Framework for Cyber Security Awareness and Education in South Africa, 52(1) South African Computer Journal 29 (2014). https://doi.org/10.18489/sacj.v52i0.201
6. Markopoulou D. et al. The New EU Cybersecurity Framework: The NIS Directive, ENISA’s Role and the General Data Protection Regulation, 35(6) Computer Law and Security Review 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.06.007
7. Mawela T. et al. Е-Government Implementation: A Reflection on South African Municipalities, 29(1) South African Computer Journal 147 (2017). https://dx.doi.org/10.18489/sacj.v29i1.444
8. Mohanty S.P. et al. On the Design of a Youth-Led, Issue-Based, Crowdsourced Global Monitoring Framework for the SDGs, 11(23) Sustainability (Article 68399) (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236839
9. Niekerk B.V. South Africa and the Cyber Security Dilemma, 18(2) Journal of Information Warfare 96 (2019). https://doi.org/10.23962/10539/23573
10. Nikitin E. & Marius M. Unified Digital Law Enforcement Environment – Necessity and Prospects for Creation in the “BRICS Countries”, 7(2) BRICS Law Journal 66 (2020). https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2020-7-2-66-93
11. Samion N.A. & Mohamed A. Innovation of National Digital Identity: A Review, 9(1.2 Special Issue) International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering 151 (2020). https://doi.org/10.30534/IJATCSE/2020/2391.22020
12. Song Z. et al. China’s Prefectural Digital Divide: Spatial Analysis and Multivariate Determinants of ICT Diffusion, 52 International Journal of Information Management (Article 102072) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102072
13. Stevens T. Global Cybersecurity: New Directions in Theory and Methods, 6(2) Politics and Governance 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i2.1569
14. Vakulyk O. et al. Cybersecurity as a Component of the National Security of the State, 9(3) Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 775 (2020). https://doi.org/10.9770/JSSI.2020.9.3(4)
15. Yuan L. et al. Evaluating the Readiness of Government Portal Websites in China to Adopt Contemporary Public Administration Principles, 29(3) Government Information Quarterly 403 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.12.009
Review
For citations:
Ovchinnikova O., Upadhyay N.K. The Level of Cybersecurity of the BRICS Member Countries in International Ratings: Prospects for Cooperation. BRICS Law Journal. 2023;10(1):7-34. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-1-7-34
Views: 1520
Email this article 