Editorial: Global perspectives on cyber statecraft: bridging theory and practice

Cyber statecraft is the strategic application of cyber instruments to achieve national objectives. It includes efforts to maintain the security of cyberspace, the regulation of digital devices in sensitive environments, and the use of artificial intelligence to thwart cyberespionage. It also encompasses the use of digital technologies to influence people and non-cyber resources, including the use of autonomous systems for policing or military purposes.

This Research Topic examines the development of cyber statecraft by analyzing its historical roots, current applications, and future trends. This Research Topic scrutinizes domestic regulatory measures, collaborative strategies across regional and global frameworks, and the interplay between cyber power and international competition, while also connecting theoretical paradigms to practical applications.

By including contributions from scholars across the so-called Global South, the Research Topic broadens contemporary debates while amplifying voices that have remained comparatively underrepresented in the literature. Rather than treating cyber statecraft as a phenomenon defined primarily by the experiences of major powers, the chapters demonstrate how diverse political, historical, and institutional contexts shape both the practice and understanding of cyber statecraft.

In the conceptual analysis “From totality to hybridity and beyond: the challenges of state security systems in the context of the info-communication revolutions,” Farkas and Vikmanchallenge the concept of hybridity, arguing that contemporary security is defined by totality, that is, the fusion of military, economic, social, and informational domains. Drawing on Schmitt's ideas, the authors propose a framework for understanding systemic vulnerabilities, the need for comprehensive responses, and for rethinking statehood itself.

The fusion of the aforementioned domains is also the main topic of Kelemen's “The Cyberfare State: divergent models of digital governance and control.” The author introduces a Cyberfare State framework, conceptualizes digital governance as the intersection of welfare and warfare functions, identifies authoritarian and democratic models, and argues that cybersecurity education, rights-based cooperation, and citizen resilience are essential to preserving democratic values amid digital transformation.

In “The service doctrine: how intelligence mandates shape national cybersecurity ecosystems?” Kelemen et al. provide a comparative analysis of how democratic and authoritarian regimes integrate cybersecurity into their national security architectures. The authors focus on two under-researched Central-Eastern European EU member states, contrasting the cybersecurity governance of Hungary and Slovakia with the models employed by China, Russia, Iran, and the United States.

Da Rocha and Goldoni employ the U.S. cyberspace security governance model in “Gray zone conflicts in cyberspace: challenges for security and defense governance.” The authors argue that the gray zone uncertainty is a result of gray governance, which is characterized by overlapping institutional responsibilities of security and defense agents. They explore how the institutional design of cyber statecraft by the world's leading cyber powers shapes the dynamics of cyberspace, and how those dynamics, in turn, shape apparatuses.

Another feature of U.S. cyber statecraft is explored in the article “Alliance bundling, relative technological capability, and semiconductor governance modes: explaining U.S. technology governance toward Japan and China.” Huangargues that U.S. semiconductor governance depends on alliance bundling and technological capability. By comparing the U.S. model with those of Japan and China, the article demonstrates how alliance structures shape network statecraft and influence industrial resilience.

In “Digital public service quality and results-oriented governance in Peru,” Corrales et al. employ survey data to show that a higher perceived quality of digital public services in Peru strengthens results-oriented governance through institutional legitimacy, effectiveness, and responsiveness. The article operationalizes barriers to access, emphasizing reliable, inclusive digital services as drivers of citizen trust.

In “Brazil's cyber defence apparatus: between strategic statecraft and structural challenges,” Goldoni et al. show the gradual institutional consolidation of Brazil's cyber defense apparatus through the expansion of bureaucratic and normative structures. The article explains how incremental cyber statecraft has shaped coordination between cyber defense and broader cybersecurity governance.

Brazil is also the focus of “Artificial intelligence, Cyber Statecraft, and Amazonian security: operational integration of AI–SAR in the Brazilian Air Force.” By exploring the application of AI to Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery analysis in the Brazilian Air Force, Borba Costa et al. show how AI-based automation transforms state capacity for territorial governance and the projection of sovereignty in the face of non-traditional threats.

Strategic cyber intelligence is the theme of “Strategic cyber intelligence with advanced analytics in Latin America: a perspective.” Briones-Lascano et al. propose a strategic analytical framework that will enable Latin America to move from reactive cybersecurity to strategic cyber intelligence by integrating advanced analytics, governance, and decision-making processes.

African cybersecurity governance is analyzed in the systematic review “Socio-cultural influences on cybersecurity policy in Africa.” Mosokotso and Nkongolo demonstrate that cybersecurity governance depends on socio-cultural and institutional contexts. The authors identify five patterns linking education, inequality, culture, and trust to policy effectiveness, proposing context-sensitive governance that goes beyond awareness campaigns alone.

In “South Africa's national security strategy and cyber statecraft,” Steenkamp-Fonseca shows that limited strategic coherence, cyber capabilities, and state capacity constrain South Africa's influence as a middle power. The author discusses how sovereignty is being redefined internally and externally by the need for states to develop cyber capacity to achieve national objectives.

Digital sovereignty and state cyber strategies are also explored in “Digital soil sovereignty: a comparative analysis of state cyber postures using the CISI framework.” Peter and Udenenwuapply the Critical-Infrastructure Sovereignty Index framework and a cyber behavior typology to identify diverse cyber statecraft patterns in 10 countries and to provide a diagnostic tool for vulnerability assessment and policy development.

Finally, in “Cyber coercion in the Indo-Pacific: a comparative analysis of India's and Australia's responses,” Biçakci et al. delve into the emergence of cyber coercion as a pivotal instrument in the Indo-Pacific region. They focus on the role of China's state-backed cyber operations in targeting critical infrastructure in India and Australia.

While inextricably intertwined with contemporary life, the emergence of cyberspace as a locus of state power remains a relatively recent phenomenon. With this Research Topic, we hope to contribute not only to a better understanding of cyber statecraft in its current configuration, but also to the development of future research agendas in this emerging and evolving field.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. ChatGPT and Gemini were used solely for language editing, and stylistic refinement. All intellectual content, arguments, interpretations, and conclusions were developed and verified by the author(s), who take full responsibility for the final manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: Leslie Paul Thiele, University of Florida, United States