Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
34
The Rise of Internet: Analysis of its Impact on States as International
Actors
Audrey Betyl
Through the emergence of new communication technologies, the Peace of Westphalia
and its legacy, the modern international system composed of sovereign states each with
exclusive authority within its own geographic boundaries, appear to be heading towards
an end. To understand how the Internet influences/modifies the role of states, perceived
in the realist and liberal traditions as the “main units of analysis in international
relations”, this article draws from neo-Marxist theories and Krasner’s four patterns of
sovereignty to shed light on the impact of the Internet on states as actors in world
politics.
INRODUCTION
The world has entered an “era of interdependence” in which economics,
communications and human ambitions are perceived to converge.2 The Modernist school’s
assumption of a “global village”, a world without boundaries and the demise of the
supremacy of the purely territorial state, seems to have become a reality of international
relations.3 Expressed differently, the Peace of Westphalia and its legacy, the modern
international system composed of “sovereign states each with exclusive authority within its
own geographic boundaries”, appear to be heading towards an end.4 For instance, on
September 30, 2007, approximately 1,244,449,601 users were connected to the Internet
worldwide, which means that nearly 18,9% of the world population had access to an
extraordinarily wide range of information. Taking into account that between 2000 and
2007 internet usage has grown by 244.7%, one can assume that online interconnectedness
is likely to intensify in the future.5 In this way, the Internet constitutes both as an indicator
and as a factor of globalisation.6 This phenomenon defined as “the process whereby social
transactions of all kinds increasingly take place without account for national or state
boundaries”.7 Amongst the common changes associated with this
1
Audrey Baty holds an undergraduate degree from Laval University and Passau University in International
Studies and Modern Languages, with a concentration in Politics. She also completed a MA in International
Conflict Analysis at the Brussels School of International Studies.
2
Keohane, R. O. & J. S. Nye; Power and Interdependence, New York: Harper Collins, 1989, p. 3.
3 Ibid., p. 3.
4
Krasner, S.D. “Rethinking the Sovereign State Model”, in M. Cox, T. Dunner & K, Booth (eds.), Empires,
Systems and States: Great Transformations in International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge Press
University, 2001, p. 17.
5
“Internet Usage Statistics: The Internet Big Picture”, Internet World Stats (December 2007), available:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
6
Engel, C. “The Internet and the Nation State”, in C. Engel & K.H. Keller (eds.), Understanding the Impact
of Global Networks on Local, Social and Cultural Values, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2000, p. 213.
7
Hobden, S. & R. W. Jones, “Marxists Theories of International Relations”, in J. Baylis, S. Smith & P.
Owens (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 245.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
35
globalisation are the increasing relations between national economies as well as the
communication revolution, which facilitates the emergence of a global consciousness.
Considering the above, one can ask to what extent the Internet influences or
modifies the role of states, perceived within the realist and liberal traditions as the “main
units of analysis in international relations”.8 In order to answer this question, this article
will argue that, contrary to widespread beliefs, the impact of the Internet on states as
international actors involves both positive and negative aspects. The argumentation will
be divided into two main sections. First, the article will analyse the repercussions of the
Internet on the sovereignty of the state. The analysis will be based on Krasner’s four
patterns of sovereignty: the international legal sovereignty, the Westphalian sovereignty,
the domestic sovereignty and the interdependence sovereignty. 9 This first section will
examine how the emergence of the Internet represents both a tool for the enforcement of
the sovereignty, as well as a threat to it. Secondly, the article will study, through a neoGramscian approach, how the Internet (a priori an instrument of the hegemon) can
decelop into an independent non-state actor in order to launch counter-hegemonic
movements within the areana of international politics.
INTERNET VS. STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY: SIMULTANEOUS EROSION AND
ENFORCEMENT
In his work Turbulence in World Politics James Rosenau stipulates that “the basic
nature of the international system is changing”.10 According to the author, “the scope of
activities over which states can effectively exercise control is declining”.11 Knowing that
sovereignty is considered to be the “distinguishing feature of the states”,12 this main
section will examine one of the effects of the Internet on the state as an international
actor; the simultaneous erosion and enforcement of their sovereignty. Considering the
length of this article, the analysis will focus on 2 of the 4 models of sovereignty detailed
by Krasner in his work Sovereignty Organized Hypocrisy: the international legal
sovereignty and the interdependence sovereignty.
Krasner’s Analytical Kinds of Sovereignty: Analysis of Internet’s Impact
This first sub-section will demonstrate, through the concepts of international legal
sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty, how the impact of the Internet on the
state’s sovereignty can be both positive and negative.
Internet vs. Enforcement of International Legal Sovereignty
8
Walt, S. M. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998, No. 110
(1998), p. 38.
9
For more information, see Krasner, S. D.; Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton
University Press, 1999, p. 3-26.
10
Rosenau, J. N.; Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity, Princeton, N. J.:
Princeton University Press, 1990, p. 13.
11 Ibid., p. 13.
12
Brown, C. & K. Ainley; Understanding International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005,
p. 3.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
36
Sovereignty may initially refer to “international legal sovereignty”. This analytical
concept refers to the practices linked with “mutual recognition, usually between territorial
entities that have formal juridical independence”.13 While this type of sovereignty is
mainly concerned about matters of authority14 and legitimacy, issues of control are not
central.15 The following lines will argue that the Internet has a positive impact on states’
sovereignty, since the World Wide Web (WWW) may serve as an efficient tool for states
to receive and promote an international recognition and, thus, facilitating the process
toward their international legal sovereignty.
As examined in Brunn and Cottle’s article Small States and Cyberboosterism, the
creation and rapid expansion of the World Wide Web provides states with the
opportunity of introducing themselves to the entire world. 16 For instance, in addition to
reaching the “global club” of sovereign nations, the Internet extends the audience
beyond them and empowers the states in equally reaching individuals, world capitals,
global and regional organizations as well as multinational corporations. 17 Besides being
a useful tool for individual countries to increase and strengthen international recognition
through self-promotion on the international scene, it is convenient to add that the
Internet also provides States with the ability to decide how they want to be recognised.
Brunn and Cottle’s argue that sovereign states can for example manipulate the
information that is available on the web in order to “construct” their desired identities. In
fact, the web constitutes a space where states can decide who and what they would like
to present to the rest of the world. For instance, does a state with several cultures wish to
shed light on its multicultural character and its diversity, “(...) or [expose] only (...) a
small vested elite, recent colonizers, or (...) the dominant majority?”.18 Also, does a state
wish to present itself as a growing regional or global political power? Ultimately, the
Internet allows states to situate themselves “where” they want to be seen on the globe,
since they can use the information to the extent that they do not seem peripheral and
marginalized anymore.19
To conclude, regarding the international legal sovereignty, one can affirm that the
Internet has a positive impact on states’ sovereignty, given that it constitutes a strategic
tool to display their “constructed identities” to global audiences, a process which pertains
to the consolidation of their legitimacy as well as the achievement of international
recognition.
13
Krasner, S. D.; Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1999,
p. 3.
14
“Authority involves a mutually recognized right for an actor to engage in specific kinds of activities”.
Ibid., p. 10.
15
“Control can be achieved simply through the use of brute force with no mutual recognition of authority at
all.” Ibid., p. 4.
16
Brunn, S. D. & C. D. Cottle, “Small States and Cyberboosterism”, Geographical Review, Vol. 87, No. 2
(1997), p. 240.
17 Ibid., p. 240.
18 Ibid., p. 242.
19 Ibid., p. 242.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
37
Internet vs. Erosion ofInterdependence Sovereignty
An additional type of sovereignty, the interdependence sovereignty, refers to the
capacity of “public authorities to regulate the flow of information, ideas, goods, people,
pollutants, or capital across the borders of their state”.20 While this model of sovereignty is
not concerned with questions of authority, control constitutes a key element. The
following chapter will argue that the Internet challenges, contrary to the previous case, the
interdependence sovereignty. In order to make such an argument the analysis will focus on
three areas that are influenced by the emergence of the Internet: the flow of information,
ideas and capital across national borders.
In the past, even without the Internet, countries have never enjoyed absolute
control on their internal and external flow of information. Indeed, people have been
crossing bordelines through a variety of community tools: telephones, direct-transmission
satellites and even propaganda distribute in the shape of flyers by aircraft. 21 However, with
the emergence of the World Wide Web, the spread of information across borders has
become easier than ever. In fact, “the idea of a state’s sovereignty on information no
longer makes much sense”.22 Besides of its completely international infrastructure, which
transcends national frontiers, the impact of the Internet on the flow of information has
been further increased with the rise of satellite transmission. This new way of diffusion
constitutes firstly, a real challenge for the states struggling to control the flow of
information within their borders23 and secondly, provides users with information even in
countries that have completely isolated themselves from the global flow of information.24
Among all sovereign states, authoritarian regimes are especially aware that the Internet
can destabilize their internal order and act as an accelerator of the modernisation of their
society by challenging their capacity to control the information flow across their borders
and thus, eroding their interdependence sovereignty. 25
Secondly and as mentioned above, the Internet poses an obstacle in the
management of the flow of ideas, values and capital. For instance, if one takes into
consideration the “uncontrolled” diffusion of information that it provides, it is reasonable
to think that the web also constitutes a virtual space to spread values and maybe obtain a
global consent on principles26 and norms27. This observation has triggered among social
scientists one vital question that has not been answered so far. To what extent can the
United States manipulate and use the Internet as a vehicle to strengthen the “global
20
Krasner, S. D.; Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1999, p.
4.
21
Engel, C. “The Internet and the Nation State”, in C. Engel & K.H. Keller (eds.), Understanding the
Impact of Global Networks on Local, Social and Cultural Values, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2000, p. 244.
22 Ibid., p. 244.
23
China and Singapore belong to this group of states. Ibid., p. 220.
24
This is the case, among others, of North Korea and Myanmar. Ibid., p. 219.
25 Ibid., p. 249.
26
According to Krasner, principles are defined as “beliefs of fact, causation and rectitude”. Krasner, S. D.
“Structural Causes and Regime Consequences. Regimes as Intervening Variables”, in S. D. Krasner (ed.),
International Regimes, London: Cornell University Press, 1983, p. 2.
27
Norms are defined as “standards of behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations”. Ibid., p. 2.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
38
monoculture of English” and spread values of the “American Way of Life”?28 In the same
way, as it does break down the state’s borders when one speaks of free flow of
information, the Internet challenges the state authority in monitoring the flow of ideas and
values and hence, violates again the interdependence sovereignty.
Thirdly, vis-à-vis the control on capital across the national borders, the World
Wide Web embodies a further challenge to this specific kind of sovereignty. For instance,
the Internet eases direct foreign investments. Indeed, people wishing to make an
international investment no longer have to deal with the state’s authorities and can avoid
the state’s control since they do not have to limit themselves to portfolio investments
anymore.29 In short, because of the facilities provided by the Internet, the states’ control
regarding the flow of capital across their border is directly undermined. Thus, its
interdependence sovereignty has been violated once more.
In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that the Internet is a strategic tool in
disseminating information, ideas and values, as well as capital without having to cope
with the national borders and state control. Within this previous chapter one could find
that the Internet poses a threat to the interdependence sovereignty of a country, since it
facilitates its erosion. This idea has been clearly expressed by Post who states that “events
in cyberspace [...] do not cross geographical borders [...], they ignore the existence of
borders altogether”.30
To conclude, this first sub-section has argued that the World Wide Web
simultaneously has positive and negative repercussions on fundamental features of the
state as an international actor; its sovereignty. While the Internet can be instrumentalised
by states willing to consolidate and promote their recognition on the international scene, it
involves also a serious breach to sovereignty. It makes it much more difficult for
countries to regulate and control the transactions across their borders and ultimately
within their sovereign territory. In other words, as the Internet is useful in achieving
international legal sovereignty, it entails at the same time concrete risks for the
interdependence sovereignty. The following section will take a deeper look into a second
impact of the Internet on states: their loss of power as the sole international actor.
INTERNET VS. STATE AS INTERNATIONAL ACTOR: NEO-GRAMSCIAN
ANALYSIS
The previous section has argued that the Internet can, both, cause the erosion of a
state’s sovereignty and at the same time strengthen a state’s sovereignty. The following
section will analyse a second area in which the role of the state has been modified since
the emergence of the Internet: the loss of status as sole international actor through the
creation of new elements such as civil society groups. In order to examine how the World
28
Engel, C. “The Internet and the Nation State”, in C. Engel & K.H. Keller (eds.), Understanding the
Impact of Global Networks on Local, Social and Cultural Values, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2000, p. 246.
29 Ibid., p. 240.
30
Post, D. G., “Governing Cyberspace”, Wayne Law Review, Vol. 43 (1996), p. 155.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
39
Wide Web invalidates a state-centric approach of international politics, 31 this analysis will
be based on Gramsci’s legacy of hegemony and counter-hegemony. This article will first
analyse how the Internet constitutes a tool for the hegemon, here referred to as the
dominant western capitalist state, in order to consolidate and protect cultural hegemony as
well as to increase power. Then, it will be examined how the Web can be used by nonstate actors in order to undermine the prevailing hegemony and launch a counterhegemonic struggle, thus the emergence of new influential actors within international
relations. Finally, critical theory’s concept of emancipation, based on communication and
dialogue, will be used to make a critique of the neo-Gramscian analysis, since the former
approach has equal explanatory power in terms of the Internet.
Internet: Tool of the Western Hegemonic States & Source of Power
This section will examine how the Internet can be used as a strategic tool and
source of power for dominant global state powers hoping to strengthen their hegemony.
Recalling that this dissertation aims to consider the impact of the Internet on the state as
the main international actor, Cox’s (neo) version of Gramsci’s theory will be used since it
refers to the international level, instead of the domestic one.
Like in the realist and liberal traditions, the Gramscian paradigm affirms that states
are the basic entities of global political dynamics, the “main unit of analysis in
international relations”.32 For the Gramscian theorists however, world order is not seen as
imposed by a “predominantly influential single state”, but rather a “transnational alliance
of elites”.33 In the same way, today’s world hegemony, embodied by the “Western
collective hegemon”,34 approximates the notion of Gramsci’s “historic bloc”.35 According
to the Italian theorist, a historic bloc is formed by the “mutually reinforcing and reciprocal
relationships between the socio-economic relations (base) and the political and cultural
practices (super-structure)”.36 The interaction between these two elements is fundamental
because it underpins a given order. When shifts occur in world order or in international
power relations, this means therefore that a fundamental change has taken place within the
social relations.37 While the historic bloc is seen, at the national level, to produce and
reproduce the values of the ruling class, at the international level, it functions as a network,
composed of international institutions, supporting the interests of
31
State —centric view of the international relations focus on the states as the “primary units of
international-political systems”. Waltz, K. N; Theory of International Politics, London: Addison-Wesley
Pub., 1979, p. 93.
32
Cox, R. W. & T. J. Sinclair; Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996,
p. 134.
33
Puchala, D. J., “World Hegemony and the United Nations”, International Studies Review, Vol. 7 (2005),
p. 576.
34
Puchala argues that world hegemony is within the hands of the “West”, defined as a multinational entity
formed of seven main states: United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Germany, France and Canada.
Ibid., p. 578.
35 Ibid., p. 577.
36
Hobden, S. & R. W. Jones, “Marxists Theories of International Relations”, in J. Baylis, S. Smith & P.
Owens (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 236.
37
Cox, R. W. & T. J. Sinclair; Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996,
p. 133.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
40
the “liberal world economy”, hence the capitalist values of the Western hegemon, to the
extent that these become perceived as legitimate through the world. 38
Now, by applying these previous notions of the historic bloc and hegemony to
the case of the Internet, one can argue that the dominant capitalist states may use the
web to strengthen the impact of the historic bloc which supports and reproduces their
system of values. Firstly, an analysis of the statistics on the use of the Internet sheds
light on how the English and Western World remain dominant in the cyberspace. For
instance, in 2007, English was still the main language used with more than 377 millions
users. In addition, the United States of America was the country with the greatest
number of Internet users with its 211 million users, compared to 162 million in China,
closely followed by Japan and Germany. 39 Taking into account this data, it is legitimate
to state that the information shared on the World Wide Web mainly vehicles western
(neo-liberal) values. Combined with the fact that all UN speciali2ed agencies are
Northern or Western creations, as well as the international economic institutions ( IMF,
WTO and World Bank),40 one can argue that the Internet is a supplementary instrument
in consolidating the current prevailing neo-liberal system of values, hence a modern
tool of the capitalist states.
In addition to providing the Western states with a vehicle to widespread their
values and thus, strengthening their hegemony, the Internet has a second repercussion on
the state as international actor; since the WWW can be seen as a source of power, such as
defined in the Gramscian theory. Indeed, if one considers that, like Machiavelli, Gramsci
described power through the metaphor of a “centaur: half man, half beast, a necessary
combination of consent and coercion”,41 the Internet can be viewed as a platform on which
the dominant capitalist states strengthen their position by consolidating the consensual
aspect of their power. By globally spreading their neo-liberal ideology on the Internet,
there is a possibility that it becomes so “familiar” that most societies adopt capitalist
values as a commonsense and stop questioning their legitimacy.
As suggested by Owens and Nye, IT and the Internet serve what they see as
“America’s greatest power, its power over content, its “soft power,” and the leverage [...]
to get other groups to want what Americans want”.42 This Gramscian analysis provides
therefore the Internet with a significant role in international relations; since the theory
stipulates that if hegemony wants to prevail, consent must remain in the forefront, while
38
Ibid., p.138.
“Internet Usage Statistics: The Internet Big Picture”, Internet World Stats (December 2007), available:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
40
Puchala, D. J., “World Hegemony and the United Nations”, International Studies Review, Vol. 7 (2005),
p. 571.
41
Cox, R. W. & T. J. Sinclair; Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996,
p. 127.
42
Wilson III, E. J.; Globalization, Information, Technology, and Conflict in the Second and Third Worlds:
A Critical Review of the Literature, New York: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, 1998, p.27. For further
information see Owens, W. A. & J. S. Nye “American Information Edge”, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1996)
39
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
41
coercive power is to be used only in marginal or isolated cases. 43 Taking into account that
hegemony, which is based essentially on consent, is fundamental to maintaining stability
in international relations,44 one can thus affirm that in today’s world the Internet is
strategic for international stability.
As argued above, the web can be seen as a source of power for the states in
international relations because it influences the consent of the civil society, a pillar of
power in the Gramscian approach. It is however convenient to notice that for Gramsci and
Foucault, knowledge constitutes a second feature that influences directly the power. In
fact, for both theorists power and knowledge are perceived to be “inseparable”.45 Such an
interpretation of power has a further implication for the Internet and its impact on the
individual state and global politics, because by its primary nature the Internet can be
viewed as a modern and global instrument of knowledge. For instance, while electronic
surveillance and monitoring constitute as one of the major uses of the web, information
sharing occupies an important place in the activities that take place in the Internet. 46
Hence, the Internet provides the capitalist states with a second source of power: an
accessible and cheap source of knowledge.
Several non-capitalist countries are aware of this reality and fear the Net because
they understand the implications of this interconnectedness between power and
knowledge. They are fully aware of the Internet’s emancipatory capabilities and they
know the extent to which the Net promotes western values; since it is predominantly used
by the Occident.47 In respect to the Gramscian approach thus, the Internet represents a
strategic tool for the world dominant states because it is a source of power in two ways:
while it is useful in establishing and consolidating the consent of a society towards their
set of values, the Internet is also a global source of knowledge and therefore may lead to
greater emancipation the “western way”.
To conclude, this sub-section has argued that, according to a neo-Gramscian point
of view, the World Wide Web is used by the ruling “stratum” of international politics, the
dominant western states, in order to spread their ideology of neo-liberalism on a global
scale. Linked both to consent and knowledge, the Net constitutes also an instrument of
power for the states in international relations. While this sub-section has analysed how the
Internet is instrumentalised by the western states to endure their world hegemony, the upcoming sub-section will shed light on how non-state actors also use the Internet to launch
counterhegemonic movements at the international level.
Internet vs. Non-State International Actors: Tool of Counter-Hegemonic Struggles
43
Cox, R. W. & T. J. Sinclair; Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996,
p. 127.
44
Hobden, S. & R. W. Jones, “Marxists Theories of International Relations”, in J. Baylis, S. Smith & P.
Owens (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 237.
45
Warf, B. & J. Grimes , “Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet”, Geographical Review, Vol. 87,
No. 2 (1997), p. 262.
46 Ibid., p. 262.
47 Ibid., p. 262.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
42
As it has been examined in the previous sub-section, the Internet constitutes a
means for the dominant capitalist states in consolidating their hegemonic position and
thus promoting the international stability. Being one of the most modern manifestations
of Western power, Huntington defines the Internet and the Information Technologies (
IT) as “a major source of the resentment and hostility of non-Western peoples against the
West”.48 Until now, the argumentation has sustained that the states were still to be taken
as the main actors in international relations. Although the image of a collective hegemon
has been used, states still remain the constitutive elements of the collective and
transnational ruling elite. However, this sub-section will analyse how the Internet can also
provide non-state actors with the possibility to be heard in the arena of international
politics. To do so, Gramsci’s concepts of war of position and counterhegemony49 will be
used to explain the role of the Internet in the rise of new international actors.
In the Gramscian tradition, the military analogies of “war of position” and “war
of movement” characterise the type of counter hegemonic strategy used by a dominated
class or group willing to establish a new order. While a war of movement refers to an
armed revolution, a war of position consists in building up “the strength of the social
foundations of a new society” through propaganda and persuasion. 50 This latter type of
emancipation process can be useful in understanding the role that the Internet can display
in international relations in providing non-state actors with possibilities to create an
alternative state and society that will challenge the established hegemony of the
dominant capitalist states.
Indeed, contrary to the widespread belief that the cyberspace is the “uncontested
domain of rugged individualists”, the Internet is profoundly rooted in society and can be
instrumentalised by the powerless and “marginalized” in order to achieve specific “antiestablishment” goals.51 The virtual counterhegemonic movement, in the same way as the
Gramscian war of position, rises from groups or individuals that oppose the adoption of
the existing dominant ideologies. Among the progressive users of the Internet, subgroups
of national society and non-state actors like human and civil rights advocates, religious
movements, anarchists and supporters of ethnic or national identities (i.e. Irish
Republican Army and ETA) use the Internet to promote their own alternative agendas and
political interests.52 Thanks to a simple access to e-mail, chat rooms and forums, the
Internet gives them opportunity to communicate and exchange their views with “like-
48
Huntington, S. P.; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1996, p. 59.
49
Counterhegemony refers “to an alternate normative interpretation of the functioning of social, economic
and political institutions”. Hobden, S. & R. W. Jones, “Marxists Theories of International Relations”, in J.
Baylis, S. Smith & P. Owens (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 236.
50
Cox, R. W. & T. J. Sinclair; Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996,
p. 128.
51
Warf, B. & J. Grimes , “Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet”, Geographical Review, Vol. 87,
No. 2 (1997), p. 259.
52 Ibid., p. 263.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
43
minded or sympathetic audiences”, while publicizing struggles that are generally
overlooked again and again by the Media and thus the rest of the world. 53
A further example of non-state actors using the Internet to challenge the Western
hegemony is the jihadist movement. 54 Since 2000, the number of jihadist websites has
increased from less than 20 to approximately 4,000. 55 Looking for a sense of community,
the majority of jihadis feel marginalized and deprived. When these people meet on jihadi
websites they often become part of the propaganda to counter what they see as a “global
evil”,56 the “satanic westerners”.57 The emergence of this “decentralized global jihadi
community” willing to fight against the “international ruling evil” poses a new threat for
the international security and can be seen, 58 to some extent, as a Gramscian war of position
in order to destabilise what these groups perceive as the cultural predominance of the
“sweet, lethal poison of the Westoxication”.59 This jihadi counterhegemonic movement
attempts by using the Internet to persuade or make propaganda to increase the number of
people supporting their views on the “West hegemonic order”. From a neo-Gramscian
point of view, if these non-state actors, who develop inside the super-structure
characterised by the domination of the coercive capitalists and their neo-liberal ideology,
manage to achieve a point where this new alternative structure is strong enough, a
revolution will occur and a new historic bloc will develop. 60
To conclude, this second sub-section has analysed, through Gramsci’s concepts of
war of position and counter-hegemonic struggle, how the Internet provides non-state
actors with a possibility to be heard and influence world politics. The emergence of the
Internet modifies thus, according to this previous analysis, the role of states in
international relations since these cannot be seen as the only significant actors. In order to
avoid a narrow analysis of the Internet and its impact in international relations, the
following sub-section will make a critique of the use of Gramsci’s concept of
emancipation - through war of position - by analysing how the Critical Theory’s approach
of emancipation is equally appropriate in regarding the role of the Internet.
Internet vs. Emancipation: Critique through Critical Theory’s Concept of Radical
Democracy
53
Warf, B. & J. Grimes , “Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet”, Geographical Review, Vol. 87,
No. 2 (1997), p. 260.
54
Refers to “Islamic Holy War movement”. Appleby, R. S.; The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion,
Violence, and Reconciliation, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p. 92.
55
Atran, S. & J. Stern, “Small Groups find Fatal Purpose through the Web”, Nature, Vol. 437, No. 7059
(2005), p. 620.
56 Ibid., p. 620.
57
Appleby, R. S.; The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, Oxford:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p. 92.
58
Atran, S. & J. Stern, “Small Groups find Fatal Purpose through the Web”, Nature, Vol. 437, No. 7059
(2005), p. 620.
59
Appleby, R. S.; The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, Oxford:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p. 92.
60
Cox, R. W. & T. J. Sinclair; Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996,
p. 131.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
44
If Gramsci’s concept of emancipation is relevant in understanding the
repercussions of the Internet on a certain class or group of a civil society, Habermas’s
vision of emancipation, with communication in its central place, provides an alternative
approach to this analysis. A closer look will help one to see how the Internet can be a tool
of emancipation but from a Critical Theory point of view.
Having in mind that critical theorists’ “most important contributions [...] (are) their
explorations of the meaning of emancipation”, the following analysis will be based on
Habermas’ approach of emancipation, which stresses the importance of dialogue and
communication in the emancipation process. 61 Basically, this critical theorist argues that
the way to achieve emancipation is through radical democracy. This latter concept consists
of “a system in which the widest possible participation is encouraged (...)”.62 According to
Habermas, democracy has to be guaranteed and therefore, social, cultural and economic
barriers to participation have to be surmounted. Besides, participation must not be
confined within the borders of a specific sovereign state, because obligations and rights
are viewed as universal and expanding beyond the borders. 63
Taking into account this approach of emancipation, one can affirm that, through
the perspective of critical theory, the Internet constitutes a tool for emancipation since it
facilitates the emergence of radical democracy, such as defined previously. For instance,
if one takes the case of the developing countries, where corruption and the manipulation
of information are two known plagues of the society, some defend the idea that the
Information Revolution and the Internet are determining in opening the processes
occurring within the governmental apparatus to the citizenry and to some extent,
international politics. In other words, in these developing states, but also in developed
countries, the Internet facilitates the emergence of direct democratic processes because it
reduces the interference of the state and avoids its entire control on the information. 64 In
the same way, similar to the analysis of Habermas, “the development of capitalism
produced a new public engaged in political discussion through access to relevant
information”.65 The following quotation summarises the link between radical democracy
and the Internet, and the way the World Wide Web eases the emergence of a bottom-up
democratic expression:
Where our existing information systems seek to choke the flow of information through
[...] costs and restrictions, the new digital world celebrates the right of the individual
61
While classical Marxists “locate the potential of emancipation in [...] the realm of production”, Habermas
believes that a better society depends on “the realm of communication”. Hobden, S. & R. W. Jones,
“Marxists Theories of International Relations”, in J. Baylis, S. Smith & P. Owens (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005, p. 241.
62
Ibid., p. 241.
63
Ibid., p. 241.
64
Wilson III, E. J.; Globalization, Information, Technology, and Conflict in the Second and Third Worlds: A
Critical Review of the Literature, New York: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, 1998, p.27. For further information
see Owens, W. A. & J. S. Nye “American Information Edge”, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1996), p. 10.
65
Cox, G., “The Digital Crowd: Some Questions on Globalization and Agency”, Design Issues, Vol. 15,
No. 1 (1999), p.20 For further information see Habermas, J.; The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society [Strukturwandel der Offentlicheit], Cambridge:
Polity, 1989.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
45
to speak and be heard — one of the cornerstones behind... democracy. [...] this online
culture offers the means for individuals to have a genuine say in the decisions that
affect their lives.66
Nevertheless, one nuance must be made. In fact, even if the Internet is a perfect
vehicle for information sharing and democratic participation, the mere access to
information does not ensure a “good” participation.67 In fact, such as argued in the section
on the western hegemony, the Internet overwhelmingly remains controlled by the
capitalist states. Keeping this in mind, one can argue that the cyber space constitutes a
virtual world that is constructed and which still represents the interests of a specific group
of actors: the dominant capitalist ones. In other words, one can analyse that liberal states,
through manipulation of information, are able to influence discourses to the extent of
making them dominant or subjugated on a global scale. Indeed, as argued by Pickles, the
World Wide Web is “a cultural product pregnant with relationships and subjects to the
uses and misuses of power”.68 Therefore, if the so-called “third-world” wants to make
sure to be heard at an international level and avoid coping with a further source of
“cultural imperialism perpetuated by the corporate first world”, it will have to take part,
rapidly, in the development of the Internet. 69
From the point of view of the Critical theory, hence, the Internet can be seen as an
instrument that promotes radical democracy and emancipation since it facilitates
dialogue, communication and helps to overcome the obstacles to democratic participation
at a global level. Nonetheless, the democratic character of the Internet has to be nuanced
because neo-liberal states still control much of its content and, thus, its represents and
vehicles the interests of a small but powerful group.
To conclude, this second chapter has made a neo-Gramscian analysis of the
impact of the Internet on the state as an international actor. In order to do so, the
argumentation has been divided into three sub-sections. Firstly, the Internet has been
approached as a tool for supporting the hegemony of the Western capitalist states as
well as a source of power for them. However, in the second sub-section, it has been
argued that the Internet is also a strategic instrument for counter-hegemonic
movements, allowing non-state actors to rise and take part, next to states, in
international politics. Finally, an analysis of the Internet, but from a Critical Theory
angle, demonstrated that Habermas’ concept of emancipation through radical
democracy can be used to understand the role of the Internet for some class or group of
states in international relations.
66
Wilson III, E. J.; Globalization, Information, Technology, and Conflict in the Second and Third Worlds:
A Critical Review of the Literature, New York: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, 1998, p. 10.
67
Cox, G., “The Digital Crowd: Some Questions on Globalization and Agency”, Design Issues, Vol. 15,
No. 1 (1999), p. 16.
68
Warf, B. & J. Grimes, “Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet”, Geographical Review, Vol. 87,
No. 2 (1997), p.261. For further information see Pickles, J.; Ground Truth: The Social Implications of
Geographic Information Systems, London: Guilford Press, 1994
69
Warf, B. & J. Grimes, “Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet”, Geographical Review, Vol. 87,
No. 2 (1997), p. 264.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
46
CONCLUSION
This paper has argued that the emergence of the Internet modifies, in two main
ways, the “traditional” role of states in international relations. In the first section, it has
been argued that the Internet involves both advantages and disadvantages for a key feature
of the state, its sovereignty. Based on the classifications of Krasner, it has been
demonstrated that the web can be strategic in promoting the process towards international
legal sovereignty, while undermining the interdependence sovereignty. The second section
has argued that the Internet equally transforms another traditional aspect of the states, their
status as the only significant actors in international relations. In order to make the
argumentation, the analysis has been mainly based on Gramsci’s concept of hegemony,
power, counterhegemony and the historic bloc. Through a neo-Gramscian approach, this
section has first demonstrated how the Internet, a priori an instrument of the hegemonic
capitalist states, constitutes as a way for non-state actors to launch counter-hegemonic
struggles and thus, stands next to states in the arena of world politics. Finally, a brief
critique has been made to shed light on the pertinence of Habermas’ concept of radical
democracy and the relative potential of the Internet in the process towards emancipation
based on communication and dialogue. The word relative has been stressed because, even
if the Internet appears to bring promises of global democracy, until now, it remains almost
fully within the hands of the dominant capitalist states.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
47
Bibliography
Appleby, R. S. (2000). The Ambivalence of the Sacred : Religion, Violence, and
Reconciliation. Lanham, MD ; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Atran, S., & Stern, J. (2005). Small Groups find Fatal Purpose through the Web. Nature,
437(7059), 620.
Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding International Relations (3rd ed.).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brunn, S. D., & Cottle, C. D. (1997). Small States and Cyberboosterism. Geographical
Review, 87(2), 240-258.
Cox, G. (1999). The Digital Crowd: Some Questions on Globalization and Agency.
Design Issues, 15(1), 16-25.
Cox, R. W., & Sinclair, T. J. (1996). Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Engel, C. (2000). The Internet and the Nation State. In C. Engel, & K. H. Keller (Eds.),
Understanding the Impact of Global Networks on Local Social, Political and
Cultural Values (pp. 213-260). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry
into a Category of Bourgeois Society [Strukturwandel der Offfentlicheit.] .
Cambridge: Polity.
Hobden, S., & Jones, R. W. (2005). Marxists Theories of International Relations. In J.
Baylis, S. Smith & P. Owens (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An
Introduction to International Relations (3rd ed., pp. 226-249). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
nternet World Stats. (2007). Internet Usage Statistics: The Internet Big Picture. Retrieved
December 30, 2007, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1989). Power and Interdependence (2nd ed.). New York:
HarperCollins.
Krasner, S. D. (2001). Rethinking the Sovereign State Model. In M. Cox, T. Dunne & K.
Booth (Eds.), Empires, Systems and States: Great Transformations in
International Politics (pp. 17-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vol. 4 [2007]
Brussels Journal of International Studies
48
Krasner, S. D. (1983). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences. Regimes as
Intervening Variables. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International Regimes. Ithaca ;
London: Cornell University Press.
Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J.; Chichester:
Princeton University Press.
Owens, W. A., & Nye, J. S. (1996). American Information Edge. Foreign Affairs, 10(2),
20-36.
Pickles, J. (1994). Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information
Systems. New York ; London: Guilford Press.
Post, D. G. (1996). Governing Cyberspace. Wayne Law Review, 43, 155.
Puchala, D. J. (2005). World Hegemony and the United Nations. International Studies
Review, 7, 571-584.
Rosenau, J. N. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: One World, many Theories. Foreign Policy,
Spring 1998(110), 29-45.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.; London: AddisonWesley Pub. Co.
Warf, B., & Grimes, J. (1997). Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet.
Geographical Review, 87(2), 259-274.
Wilson III, E. J. (1998). Globalization, Information, Technology, and Conflict in the
Second and Third Worlds: A Critical Review of the Literature (Project on World
Security. New York: Rockefeller Brothers Fund.