Postu­la­te Béglé (17.378): Switz­er­land should be able to beco­me the epi­cen­ter of inter­na­tio­nal digi­tizati­on governance

Postu­la­te Béglé (17.378): Switz­er­land should be able to beco­me the epi­cen­ter of inter­na­tio­nal digi­tizati­on governance

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to exami­ne how Switz­er­land could beco­me the world epi­cen­ter of inter­na­tio­nal gover­nan­ce in the area of cyber­space. The aim is to work towards the crea­ti­on of a Gen­e­va Con­ven­ti­on on Digi­ta­lizati­on; this should con­tain the prin­ci­ples that gua­ran­tee the peaceful use of cyber­space. In addi­ti­on, a neu­tral orga­nizati­on should be crea­ted, along the lines of the ICRC, to ensu­re that the­se prin­ci­ples are imple­men­ted. And final­ly, it is also a que­sti­on of working towards Gen­e­va beco­ming the head­quar­ters of this organization.
Such a pro­ject would be ful­ly in line with Switzerland’s com­mit­ment at the inter­na­tio­nal level. Switz­er­land must posi­ti­on its­elf quick­ly and cle­ar­ly in this sub­ject area.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Sin­ce 2010, the­re has been coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the Euro­pean Uni­on and NATO in the area of inter­na­tio­nal digi­tal gover­nan­ce. The deve­lo­p­ment of the Inter­net has crea­ted a new space: cyber­space. It is the are­na of cyber­at­tacks that can bring a coun­try to its kne­es. No coun­try can pre­tend that it alo­ne can pro­tect its­elf against such attacks.
That is why inter­na­tio­nal gover­nan­ce of cyber­space must be created.
The fol­lo­wing must be avoided:

  • that a cli­ma­te of mistrust is crea­ted; this would result in a spi­ral of arma­ment in cyber­space; sove­reig­n­ty refle­xes would lead to a frag­men­ta­ti­on of the Internet
  • that sta­tes attack other states
  • that sta­tes attack so-cal­led cri­ti­cal com­pa­nies, tech­no­lo­gy com­pa­nies, or cri­ti­cal public ser­vices such as health care.

Sta­tes must com­mit to the following:

  • Do not exploit secu­ri­ty vul­nerabi­li­ties, but draw atten­ti­on to them (avo­id a second “Wan­naCry”; the NSA was awa­re of the vul­nerabi­li­ty and used it for its own purposes).
  • pro­tect citi­zens in the vir­tu­al world (only sta­tes can pro­vi­de such protection).

The fol­lo­wing ide­as need to be propagated:

  • Dia­lo­gue and coor­di­na­ti­on are indispensable
  • each sta­te is respon­si­ble for all cyber acti­vi­ties ori­gi­na­ting from its ter­ri­to­ry; this neces­si­ta­tes the crea­ti­on of an inter­na­tio­nal arbi­tra­ti­on court to iden­ti­fy the per­pe­tra­tors of attacks
  • the military’s prio­ri­ty is defen­se, not escala­ti­on of conflict.

The UN Group of Govern­men­tal Experts (UN GGE) pro­mo­ted such a pro­ject in its 2015 report, and the EU and NATO rea­ched an agree­ment in Febru­ary 2016 to share best prac­ti­ces in the area of cyber attack pre­ven­ti­on, detec­tion, and response.
But wit­hout the invol­vement of sta­te aut­ho­ri­ties, the recom­men­da­ti­ons of the UN GGE remain dead let­ters. The Inter­net must remain a public good.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be