![]() ![]() Australia, Finland, Israel, Japan, Singapore, the UAE and the US all explicitly elaborate on the threats posed by malicious actors’ activities in cyberspace, as do the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), ESPAS, MSC, and World Economic Forum (WEF). Outside of the ESPAS and the MSC, virtually no actors share (or explicitly formulate) the Dutch view that IMC as a phenomenon is serving to erode the international legal order.Ĭonflict in cyberspace. This differs from the Dutch perspective, which places an emphasis on IMC’s broader negative effects on the rules-based international order. India, Israel, and Japan, view interstate competition through the lens of regional dynamics in their neighborhood and the regional insecurity it is likely to exacerbate. On the one hand, China, Japan, Russia, and the US place an emphasis on their competitors’ efforts at military modernization, pointing towards increasing defense budgets and the unveiling of cutting-edge (conventional) weapons systems as signs of aggression. ![]() Among these actors, the most held view – that is shared by the Netherlands – is that an increase in interstate competition increases the risk of military competition. The European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) and Munich Security Conference (MSC) additionally note that the threat of interstate armed conflict erupting is on the uptick. The threat of military confrontation is identified by China, Finland, India, Israel, Japan, Russia and the United States. Based on an analysis of a.) national security and defense strategies published by other actors, and b.) survey-based threat environment analyses published by world-renowned think tanks and/or institutions, this study sets out to address the following research questions: As part of the Dutch Strategic Monitor effort, HCSS was asked to take a closer look at how other actors perceive their threat environments and to what extent they might differ from their Dutch equivalents. The outcome of these efforts is typically one or more high-level documents in which the responsible national security bodies provide authoritative statements on threats facing the country. ![]() Nationaal Coordinator Terrorismebestrijding en VeiligheidĪll countries have procedures and – in some cases – methodologies to identify, analyze and (explicitly or implicitly) prioritize threats to their national security. Information Fusion Centre - Indian Ocean Region Geïntegreerde Buitenland -en Veiligheidsstrategie Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich Chemical, Biological, Radiological and NuclearĬluster regularly interspaced short palindromic repeatsĬenter for Strategic and International StudiesĮuropean Strategy and Policy Analysis System ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |