Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2020-12-24-39
Abstract
Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan are among the highly developed countries in the UN e-Government Development Index. With a high rate of digitalization of public administration, solving the problems of citizens' access to the Internet and developing the electronic services sector, these countries differ from each other in the design of a digitalization policy. The structure of digitalization projects in these countries includes all the necessary components — strategy, coordination, evaluation, intervention, but it is distinguished by a focus on digital change and a political infrastructure that ensures technology interference in the public sphere. Among the significant factors of digitalization policy in the described cases, the idea of sovereignty related to the Internet and digital technologies stands out. The general policy of the countries included in the Eurasian space of cooperation is expressed by the principle of “digital sovereignty”. The article analyses the general understanding of the principle of “digital sovereignty” and the various strategies for its implementation — “multilateral interaction”, “stakeholder
cooperation” and “centralized management”, as well as the institutions of management that provide them.
cooperation” and “centralized management”, as well as the institutions of management that provide them.
About the Author
L. V. Smorgunov
St. Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Professor of the Chair of the Political Governance, Doctor of Science (Philosophy)
St. Petersburg
References
1. Asadova Z. A. State and strategies for ensuring information security in the countries of Central Asia: on the example of the Republic of Kazakhstan // Bulletin of MGIMO-University [Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta]. 2016. N 6 (51). P. 92–96. (In rus)
2. Bukharin V. V. Components of digital sovereignty of the Russian Federation as a technical basis for information security // Bulletin of MGIMO-University [Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta]. 2016. N 6 (51). P. 76–91. (In rus)
3. Danilenkov A. V. State sovereignty of the Russian Federation in the information and telecommunications network of the Internet // Russian law [Russkii zakon]. 2017. N 7 (128). P. 154–165. (In rus)
4. Joyce E. A., Simakov A. A. Digital sovereignty and legal regulation of peer-to-peer payment systems // Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia [Nauchnyi Vestnik Omskoi akademii MVD Rossii]. 2018. N 3 (70). P. 54–60. (In rus)
5. Efremov A. A. Formation of the concept of information sovereignty of the state // Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics [Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki]. 2017. N 1. P. 201–215. (In rus)
6. Kucheryavyy M. M. State policy of information sovereignty of Russia in the modern global world // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie]. 2014. N 9 (69). P. 12–18. (In rus)
7. Sargsyan T. The digital transformation of the EAEU countries should be carried out together [Electronic resource] // Website of the Eurasian Economic Commission. URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/nae/news/Pages/31-01-2020-4.aspx (date of address: 10.06.2020). (In rus)
8. Formation and development of digital transformation and information society (IT- countries) in the Republic of Belarus / edited by V. G. Gusakova. Minsk: Belarusian Book, 2019. (In rus)
9. Terentyeva L. V. Principles of establishing the territorial jurisdiction of the state in cyberspace // Russian law [Russkii zakon]. 2019. N 7 (152). P. 119–129. (In rus)
10. Chernyak L.Yu. On the question of the concept of information sovereignty: theoretical and comparative legal analysis // Siberian Legal Bulletin [Sibirskii yuridicheskii Vestnik]. 2012. N 3 (58). P. 117–122. (In rus)
11. Adee S. The global internet is disintegrating. What comes next? BBC: Future Now. 2019, 15 May [Electronic resource]. URL http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190514-the-global-internet-isdisintegrating-what-comes-nex (date of address: 12.06.2020).
12. Brokeš F. Russia’s sovereign internet. Central European Financial Observer. 2018, 24 September [Electronic resource]. URL https://financialobserver.eu/cse-and-cis/russias-sovereign-internet/ (date of address: 15.05.2020).
13. Budnitsky S., Jia L. Branding Internet sovereignty: Digital media and the Chinese–Russian cyberalliance // European Journal of Cultural Studies 2018. Vol. 21. N 5. P. 594–613.
14. Carr M. Power Plays in Global Internet Governance // Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 2015. Vol. 43. N 2. P. 640–659.
15. Christou G., Simpson S. The European Union, multilateralism and the global governance of the Internet // Journal of European Public Policy. 2011. Vol. 18. N 2. P. 241–257.
16. Clement A. Canadian Network Sovereignty: A Strategy for Twenty-First-Century National Infrastructure Building. 2018, 26 March. URL https://www.cigionline.org/articles/canadian- networksovereignty (date of address: 11.09.2020).
17. DeNardis L. The Global War for Internet Governance. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press, 2015.
18. Hofmann J. Multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance: putting a fiction into practice // Journal of Cyber Policy. 2016. Vol. 1. N 1. P. 29–49.
19. Howlett M. Designing Public Policies. Principles and Institutions. New York : Routledge, 2015. 20. Morgus R. The Spread of Russia’s Digital Authoritarianism // Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order / ed. Wright N. D. Maxwell Air Force Base : Air University Press, 2019.
20. Shen Y. Cyber Sovereignty and the Governance of Global Cyberspace // Chinese Political Science Review. 2016. Vol. 1. N 1. P. 81–93.
21. Solum L. B. Models of Internet Governance (September 3, 2008). Illinois Public Law Research Paper N 07-25, U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper N LE08-027 [Electronic resource]. URL https://ssrn.com/abstract=1136825 (date of address: 11.09.2020).
22. United Nations E-Government Survey 2020. Digital Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable Development. New York : United Nations, 2020.
Review
For citations:
Smorgunov L.V. Public Internet Governance Institutes: Comparative Analysis of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Administrative Consulting. 2020;(12):24-39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2020-12-24-39
Views:
1570
Email this article 