China Perspectives 2016/2 | 2016 What Kind of International Order Does China Want? Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature Rebalancing a Hegemonic World Order? Séverine Arsène Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6973 DOI: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.6973 ISSN: 1996-4617 Publisher Centre d'étude français sur la Chine contemporaine Printed version Date of publication: 1 June 2016 Number of pages: 25-35 ISSN: 2070-3449 Electronic reference Séverine Arsène, « Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature », China Perspectives [Online], 2016/2 | 2016, Online since 01 June 2017, connection on 14 November 2019. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6973 ; DOI : 10.4000/chinaperspectives.6973 © All rights reserved Special feature China perspectives Global Internet Governance in Chinese Academic Literature Rebalancing a Hegemonic World Order? SÉVERINE ARSÈNE ABSTRACT: This article explores the apparently ambivalent foundations of the notion of cybersovereignty as seen from China, through some of the most recent Chinese academic literature on global Internet governance. It shows that the sampled authors conceive of the current Internet order as an anarchic or disorderly space where global hegemons reproduce their domination over the world in the di - gital age. In the rather dichotomous world that this portrays, most of the authors concentrate their attention on the position and stra - tegy of the United States, with a view to underlining the contradictions in American discourse through the PRISM scandal or the status of ICANN. In this context, most scholars studied here see the current situation, where Internet governance is increasingly debated, as an opportunity to rebalance the global Internet order and advance the strategic interests of China through the establishment of an in - tergovernmental Internet governance framework in the long term, and through active participation in the current status quo in the short term. KEYWORDS: Internet governance, China, cybersovereignty, China-US relations, hegemony. s the Internet has grown to be used by almost half of humanity and The controversies around the proposed Internet governance frameworks to comprise so many aspects of our personal, professional, social, have raised profound theoretical issues and question basic assumptions and political lives, it has progressively ceased to be considered the about the very nature of the Internet. For example, should the Internet be A (1) purely open, virtual space that some of its pioneers envisioned. With the considered a global common good when it is composed of interconnected emergence of complex, real-life issues, from content regulation to privacy, cables, routers, and digital services that are, for the most part, privately copyright, and various forms of cybercrime (scams, fraud, identity theft, owned? (5) Is the Internet really a borderless space as is often assumed, and etc.), there has been growing demand for regulation. what are the implications for sovereign states? (6) How can institutional in - Existing sources of regulation or governance are extremely diverse and novations such as the much-debated multistakeholder model be charac - sometimes contradictory or overlapping. The laws of nation-states apply terised in terms of representing the interests of various actors and political to activities that take place on their territories. Internet service providers legitimacy? (7) Normative preferences on the ideal framework(s) for Internet set norms for online behaviour through contractual terms of use, which governance are highly dependent on the theoretical understanding one may apply globally. Economic and technical arrangements that are decided have of these issues. within the technical community (such as the little-known Internet Engi - Meanwhile, China has played an increasingly visible role in these debates neering Task Force) or amongst industry players (such as peer contracts through its government representatives, technical community, private sec - between Internet service providers) have critical effects on users’ oppor - tunities and in shaping the general online ecosystem (think of the digital 1. I would like to thank Anthony H. F. Li for his help on additional documentation. divide). (2) 2. For more examples of forms of regulation, see Éric Brousseau, Meryem Marzouki, and Cécile Méadel (eds), Governance, Regulations and Powers on the Internet , Cambridge and New York, As the political implications of Internet governance have progressively Cambridge University Press, 2012. come to light, the challenge of building a coherent, global, and legitimate 3. ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. IETF: Internet Engineering Task Internet governance framework has also come to appear an almost impos - Force. IGF: Internet Governance Forum. 4. Milton Mueller and Ben Wagner, “Finding a Formula for Brazil: Representation and Legitimacy in sible target. Despite many attempts to bring together the global community Internet Governance,” Internet Policy Observatory, January 2014, p. 11, www.internetgovernance in various kinds of institutions and fora, from issue-based institutions such .org/pdf/MiltonBenWPdraft_Final.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2015). as ICANN or the IETF to the more general UN-sponsored World Summit 5. Mark Raymond, “Puncturing the Myth of the Internet as a Commons,” Georgetown Journal of In - ternational Affairs , 2013, http://tinyurl.com/onty88c (accessed on 19 October 2015); Milton L. (3) on the Information Society, to the IGF and to Netmundial and to innu - Mueller, “Property and Commons in Internet Governance,” in Éric Brousseau, Meryem Marzouki, merable bilateral and multilateral dialogues, “We have been improvising col - and Cécile Méadel (eds), Governance, Regulations and Powers on the Internet , op. cit. , pp. 39-62. lective governance arrangements for 15 years, and these improvisations 6. Jack L. Goldsmith and Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World , Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2006. have so far failed to fully resolve the issues of legitimacy, adherence and 7. Mark Raymond and Laura DeNardis, “Multistakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Insti - scope on a global basis.” (4) tution,” International Theory , Vol. 7, No. 3, 2015, pp. 572-616. N o. 2016/2 • china perspectives peer-reviewed article 25 Special feature tor, and users. Its impact on the Internet’s infrastructure, standards, markets, in its own capacity to defend its interests within the existing global gover - and global governance has drawn more attention in recent years. (8) In par - nance framework. (11) ticular, the fact that China pioneered Internet censorship, notably through However, the notion of cybersovereignty has remained the bottom-line of content filtering tools known as the Great Firewall, as well as the insistence China’s cyber policy and diplomacy, and it has been consistently asserted in of Chinese officials on the notion of cybersovereignty, have raised debates various official documents and declarations, starting with the milestone on whether Chinese leaders intend to build a separate network similar to a White Paper on the Internet in China published by the State Council in Chinese “intranet.” However, China’s Internet infrastructures and services 2010. (12) This document notably emphasised that “the Internet of various are increasingly globalised and interconnected, while officials have com - countries belongs to different sovereignties, which makes it necessary to bined strong discourses on cybersovereignty with actual cooperation in a strengthen international exchanges and cooperation in this field. (…) China number of concrete domains, particularly by sending participants to nu - supports the establishment of an authoritative and just international Internet merous Internet governance fora and dialogues. administration organization under the UN system through democratic pro - In this article, I intend to explore the apparently ambivalent foundations cedures on a worldwide scale.” Similarly, a White Paper on Diplomacy (13) of the notion of cybersovereignty as seen from China, through some of the published in 2013 emphasised the concept of territorial sovereignty and most recent Chinese academic literature on global Internet governance. stressed that China “opposes the use of the Internet to interfere with other After a short summary of the positions taken by Chinese representatives countries’ domestic politics.” Article 1 of the draft Cybersecurity law, pub - on the topic in recent years, I will turn to a sampling of 13 academic arti - lished in July 2015 for public comment, states: “This law is formulated so as cles from the CNKI database for a deeper analysis of the theoretical as - to ensure network security, to preserve cyberspace sovereignty, national se - sumptions behind the Chinese positions and strategy in Internet curity, and societal public interest.” (14) Generally speaking, the notion of cy - governance (part 1). I will first show that the sampled articles conceive of bersovereignty that China advocates implies that each country should be the current Internet order as an anarchic or disorderly space where global able to police its own domestic Internet, without interference from other hegemons reproduce their domination over the world in the digital age countries (such as circumvention tools provided by foreign entities), let alone (part 2). In the rather dichotomous