The exponential rise in cyber threats has intensified the imperative for a coherent global cybersecurity governance architecture. Yet, attempts to harmonize international cyber laws face persistent challenges stemming from conflicting national interests, heterogeneous legal traditions, and disparate technological capabilities. This study critically investigates the barriers inhibiting the harmonization of cyber laws across jurisdictions and explores viable pathways toward a unified global cybersecurity governance framework. The research is anchored in Regime Theory, propounded by Stephen D. Krasner in 1982, and Global Governance Theory, advanced notably by James N. Rosenau and Ernst- Otto Czempiel in 1992, both of which provide theoretical scaffolding to analyze international cooperation among states and non-state actors in managing complex transnational issues. Employing a qualitative research design, the study utilizes document analysis of global cybersecurity treaties, national cyber legislation, and multilateral policy documents. The findings underscore three critical impediments to harmonization: legal fragmentation, normative divergences, and entrenched geopolitical rivalries. Despite these obstacles, the study identifies the emergent roles of regional alliances (e.g., the European Union, African Union) and multistakeholder forums (e.g., IGF, GFCE) as promising conduits for normative convergence and collaborative capacity-building. To navigate the current disjointed cyber legal landscape, the study recommends: strategic capacity development to address technological and institutional disparities; standardization of cybercrime definitions and enforcement protocols; and enhanced mandate and legitimacy for neutral global institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to serve as mediators of consensus..
Claudio Payá Santos· Journal of Intelligent Decis...· 0 citations
Just a decade ago, artificial intelligence (AI) was still a vague promise in the legal field; today it is an unavoidable actor. Their algorithms are involved—sometimes without us realizing it—in the way laws are written, precedents are interpreted, and administrative decisions are executed. Far from being a simple technical support, AI has become a new normative power link that alters the classic triangle formed by Law, State and citizenship (Hildebrandt, 2015). This phenomenon, which some authors call algorithmic governance, means that AI systems go from being "regulated objects" to "normative agents" capable of setting, de facto, standards of conduct with very real legal consequences (Yeung, 2017). The question is no longer whether or not to use algorithms, but how to ensure that their use respects the transparency, equality, and accountability demanded by contemporary democracies (Crawford, 2021). To understand the scope of this transformation, we took a mixed methodological approach. First, we conducted a systematic review of the literature covering the last decade of academic research. We then conduct a comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks – with a particular focus on the European Union's AI Regulation – and finally, we examine case studies that reveal both the benefits (efficiency, consistency) and risks (opacity, bias) of delegating legal functions to automated systems. With this three-pronged approach, we identify opportunities for innovation, but we also warn of the dangers of eroding basic principles such as legal certainty and equality before the law.
Víctor Rodríguez González, Rafael Canorea-García, Juan Carlos Fernández-Rodríguez et al.· Journal of Intelligent Decis...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.