Author: Onur Şentürk
Publication date: 30.08.2024
In recent years, China's emphasis on digital sovereignty has emerged as a cornerstone of its domestic and international policy. This growing focus on digital sovereignty is reflected in the nation’s cybersecurity measures, which are designed to protect the state's control over digital space. As the global community increasingly relies on interconnected digital networks, the conflict between state sovereignty and international norms on the free flow of information has intensified. This article examines China's cybersecurity measures and their implications for international law and global internet governance.
Background
Historically, China has always prioritized sovereignty and territorial integrity, principles that have extended into the digital realm. With the rapid digitization of the economy and society, China has sought to establish digital sovereignty as a means of maintaining control over its cyberspace. The introduction of the Cybersecurity Law in 2017 marked a significant step towards this goal. The law enforces strict regulations on data localization, network security, and online content. However, these measures have sparked debates on the tension between state control and international norms, particularly the free flow of information.
China's cybersecurity measures
China's cybersecurity measures have sparked global debate, particularly regarding their impact on multinational corporations and international law. Central to China's strategy of digital sovereignty, the Cybersecurity Law mandates that companies operating in China store their data locally. As a result, concerns have arisen about the security of proprietary information and the potential for government surveillance. Moreover, the law requires companies to provide source code and other sensitive information to authorities, which has led to accusations of protectionism and fears of a fragmented internet, often referred to as the splinternet.
Furthermore, experts argue that the law forces Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei to share data with the government, regardless of the data's origin. To address these concerns, Huawei, in 2018, submitted a legal opinion asserting that its subsidiaries outside China are not subject to the National Intelligence Law (NIL). However, a Swedish law firm’s report countered this, concluding that NIL applies to all Chinese citizens and that even global Chinese companies' overseas subsidiaries could be affected.
In addition, China has implemented the Great Firewall, an extensive system of censorship and surveillance, to control online content. This system blocks access to foreign websites, social media, and news, while promoting state-approved alternatives. The Chinese government justifies these measures as necessary for national security and social stability. Nevertheless, critics argue that they stifle freedom of expression and limit access to global information.
In October 2023, China expanded its strict cybersecurity rules to include the oversight of generative AI. The government now requires that AI-generated content must not "incite subversion of state power or the overthrow of the Socialist system." Companies must obtain approval from the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) before releasing large language models (LLMs), ensuring these models reject questions about political ideology or criticism of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Additionally, the restrictions prevent responses on politically sensitive topics like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests or comparisons between President Xi Jinping and Winnie the Pooh.
Conflict between state sovereignty and international norms
The conflict between state sovereignty and international norms is most evident in the debate over the free flow of information. International law traditionally promotes the free exchange of ideas and information across borders, a principle enshrined in various human rights treaties and international agreements. However, China's cybersecurity measures challenge this norm by prioritizing state control over digital content and data flows. This approach is at odds with the open and interconnected nature of the internet, which many believe is essential for innovation, economic growth, and human rights.
In particular, China's implementation of the Internet real-name system requires users to register their identities with service providers, linking all online activity to real identities. This system, initially applied to microblogs and later expanded to all online platforms, is framed as a tool for enhancing cybersecurity and reducing online fraud. However, it also significantly increases the state's ability to monitor and censor online behavior, further curtailing freedom of expression. Combined with China's move to onshore IPv6 addresses and develop a New Internet Protocol (New IP), which allows for government-controlled internet access, these measures illustrate a growing trend of digital nationalism. Supported by nations like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, the New IP challenges the global internet governance model and raises concerns about the future of a free and open internet, potentially leading to the balkanization of the internet and a broader erosion of international norms promoting privacy and freedom of speech online.
Impact on international law and global internet governance
The rise of digital sovereignty challenges the traditional concepts of sovereignty under international law. China's approach raises important questions about the application of international legal norms in the digital realm. For instance, does a state have the right to restrict information flows within its borders, or does this violate international human rights obligations? The lack of a clear international consensus on these issues has created a legal grey area, leading to disputes in international forums and complicating efforts to develop a cohesive framework for global internet governance.
Additionally, China's cybersecurity measures have implications for the future of the global internet. As more countries adopt restrictive measures, the vision of a universal and open internet may become increasingly unattainable. This shift could lead to the creation of multiple, competing internet governance models, each reflecting the political and cultural values of different regions. Such fragmentation poses significant challenges for international cooperation, as it could hinder the development of common standards and norms for cyberspace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, China's emphasis on digital sovereignty represents a significant challenge to the existing international norms governing cyberspace. By prioritizing state control over the free flow of information, China is not only asserting its sovereignty in the digital realm but also setting a precedent that could be followed by other nations. These cybersecurity measures, while framed as necessary for national security, have profound implications for international law and the future of global internet governance. The conflict between state sovereignty and international norms highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to balancing national interests with the principles of a free and open internet. As the global community grapples with these issues, it is crucial to develop a framework that respects both the sovereignty of states and the universal rights of individuals in the digital age. Without such a balance, the risk of internet fragmentation and the erosion of international legal norms will continue to grow, potentially leading to a more divided and less cooperative global digital landscape.
You can also read about:
Comments