Martha Finnemore Addresses Challenges in Theorizing Cybersecurity

Prominent international relations theories have offered much insight into the dynamics of the international system and the behavior of states. However, according to Professor Martha Finnemore of George Washington University, these theories are unable to offer solutions to today’s pressing challenges such as cybersecurity.

“Twenty-first century challenges are not caused by states and will not be solved by states,” said Finnemore, who visited SIPA on September 29 to give the eighth annual Kenneth Waltz Lecture in International Relations.

Finnemore went on to argue that international relations scholars ignore cybersecurity because it does not fit with the state-centric theories that they taught. States do not dominate the cyberspace and, in fact, non-state actors tend to wield the most power in this space.

Therefore, Finnemore said, “for multi-stakeholder issues like cybersecurity, international relations scholars need to have a deeper theoretical understanding of the non-state actors involved and their interests.”

Another area in which international relations theory falls short is in offering practical solutions to building governance structures within cyberspace. States use treaties in order to codify shared understandings and rules of conduct within the international system. However, are treaties really the best way to establish rules within cyberspace?  Finnemore says no.

“Cyberspace actors do not want treaties, they want norms,” she said. “Norms are shared expectations but the sharing process is deeply political. Norms cannot simply be suggested, they have to be bought into.”

Compounding this problem is the fact that norms are not static and evolve in changing contexts. Finnemore pointed out that norms about “plunder” evolved over centuries, while cyber norms are fresh and ever-changing. As a result, she characterized cyber norms as “fundamentally instable” and urged international relations scholars to think more critically about the processes of norms dynamics.

“People will start abandoning the norms as context and interests change,” she argued. “We need better theoretical tools to confront this challenge.”

Finnemore ended the lecture by evoking its namesake. While Kenneth Waltz’s work “shaped the field of international relations and set the terms of the debate,” she said, the field’s current theoretical toolkit has to be expanded and transformed in order to offer any practical insights into present problems plaguing the international system.

— Serina Bellamy MIA ’17