Dynamics of the Territorialization of Cyberspace: Between the Sanctuarization of Territories and the Projection of Power
Abstract
This paper focuses on the debate between the sanctuarization of territories and the projection of power in cyberspace. It emphasizes the persistence of territorial logic in an environment where all notions of borders have been abolished in principle. It thus addresses this territorial revenge that will unfold on different levels, sometimes legitimately as sovereign claims, and sometimes encroaching on sovereignty and violating international law principles. The immediate impact of this confrontation is a veritable territorialization of cyberspace, which often results from states putting forward the argument that security is an imperative above all others. Compartmentalization is also motivated by the desire to protect national territories from surveillance by other states’ intelligence services and the risks posed by data capture. States such as the US tend to deploy their cyberpower without regard for state borders. The use of extraterritoriality and the projection of force in cyberspace are the main manifestations of this approach.
Downloads
References
Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2014). Net threats. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/07/03/net-threats/
Badaoui, S, & Najah, R. (2021). Intelligence artificielle et cyber-colonisation : implications sur Afrique [Artificial intelligence and cyber-colonization: implications for Africa], Policy paper, Policy Center for the New South.
https://www.policycenter.ma/sites/default/files/2022-08/PP_21-03_Badaoui-Najah.pdf
Bômont, C., & Cattaruzza, A. (2020). Le cloud computing : de l’objet technique à l’enjeu géopolitique. Le cas de la France [Cloud computing: from the technical object to the geopolitical issue. The case of France]. Hérodote, 177–178(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.3917/her.177.0149
Cattaruzza, A., Danet, D., Douzet, F., Desforges, A., Limonier, K., & Boulanger, P. (2014). La balkanisation du web : chance ou risque pour l’Europe ? Partie 2 [The Balkanization of the web: chance or risk for Europe? Part 2]. https://archives.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/326208/4482530/file/EPS2013-LaBalkanisationDuWeb-Part2.pdf
Cattaruzza, A., Danet, D., Douzet, F., Desforges, A., Limonier, K., & Boulanger, P. (2014). La balkanisation du web : chance ou risque pour l’Europe ? Partie 3 [The Balkanization of the web: chance or risk for Europe? Part 3].
Davis, F. T., & Gunka, C. (2021). Perquisitionner les nuages - CLOUD Act, souveraineté européenne et accès à la preuve dans l’espace pénal numérique [Searching the clouds - CLOUD Act, European sovereignty and access to evidence in the digital criminal space]. Revue Critique De Droit International, 1(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.3917/rcdip.211.0043
Escorne, C. (2020). Les enjeux de la neutralité du Net aux États-Unis [The stakes of Net Neutrality in the United States]. Hérodote, 177–178(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.3917/her.177.0215
Geist, M. (2018). Data Rules in Modern Trade Agreements: Toward Reconciling an Open Internet with Privacy and Security Safeguards. Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/data-rules-modern-trade-agreements-toward-reconciling-open-internet-privacy-and-security/
Kukkola, J., Ristolainen, M., & Nikkarila, J. (2017). Game changer: Structural Transformation of Cyberspace.
Leterme, C. (2019, November). Qui captera « l’or du XXIème siècle » ? Bataille autour des données numérique [Who will capture the "gold of the XXI century"? Battle over digital data], Monde diplomatique.
https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr//2019/11/LETERME/60937?id_article=60937
Lacoste, Y. (2003). De la géopolitique aux paysages: dictionnaire de la géographie [From geopolitics to landscapes: a dictionary of geography]. Armand Colin.
Lotrionte, C. (2012) State Sovereignty and Self-Defense in Cyberspace: A Normative Framework for Balancing Legal Rights, 26 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 825. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol26/iss2/12
MacGregor, I. (2018). Big data: The Canadian opportunity. Centre for International Governance Innovation.
https://www.cigionline.org/articles/big-data-canadian-opportunity/
Nye, J. S. J. (2011). The Future of Power. PublicAffairs.
Osula, A. (2015). Transborder access and territorial sovereignty. Computer Law & Security Review, 31(6), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2015.08.003
Rouxel, Q. (2024). L’extraterritorialité du droit comme instrument de puissance dans les relations internationales : comparaison Etats-Unis, Union européenne, Chine depuis la fin de la Guerre froide [The extraterritoriality of law as an instrument of power in international relations: comparison between the United States, the European Union, China since the end of the Cold War]. Histoire. Université Michel de Montaigne – Bordeaux III. https://theses.hal.science/tel-04631742v1
Salmon, J. (Ed.) (2001). Dictionnaire de droit international public [Dictionary of public international law]. Bruylant / Agence universitaire de la Francophonie.
Svantesson, D., & Gerry, F. (2015). Access to extraterritorial evidence: The Microsoft cloud case and beyond. Computer Law & Security Review, 31(4), 478–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2015.05.007
Thelisson, E. (2019). La portée du caractère extraterritorial du Règlement général sur la protection des données [The scope of the extraterritorial character of the General Data Protection Regulation]. Revue internationale de droit économique, XXXIII(4), 501–533. https://doi.org/10.3917/ride.334.0501
United Nations reports of international arbitral awards (2006). Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, USA), 4 April, 1928, 2, 829–871. https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_ii/829-871.pdf
Copyright (c) 2025 HSE University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
