Information Security Management in Diplomatic Protocols: The Challenges of Modern Diplomacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62907/Keywords:
Information security management, Diplomatic protocols, modern diplomacy management.Abstract
In the digital age, information security management has become a pivotal concern in international diplomacy, as cyber threats increasingly challenge the integrity of diplomatic communications. This paper explores the significance of integrating robust security measures within diplomatic protocols, with a particular focus on the Digitalization of Diplomacy Maturity Model (DD-MM). The study highlights the dual impact of Artificial Intelligence on diplomacy, where technological advancements provide both opportunities and risks in safeguarding sensitive information. Additionally, the role of diplomatic protocols is examined in maintaining trust, fostering cooperation, and ensuring the security of confidential exchanges. By analyzing contemporary challenges such as state-sponsored cyber threats and globalized crime, this research underscores the necessity of a strategic, technology-driven approach to information
security in modern diplomatic engagements. Ultimately, the findings emphasize the need for diplomatic institutions to adopt comprehensive cybersecurity frameworks that enhance digital resilience while upholding the principles of international diplomacy.
References
1.Aande, B., Egondu, I., Uloma, L., Grace, M., Nwankwo, E., et al. (2023). Diplomatic Practice and Russia-Ukraine Conflict: The Role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Academic Journals. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/603972786.pdf
2. Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign Policy in an Era of Digital Diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3, 1297175-1297175. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1297175
3. Alavi, S. (2023). The Evolution of Cyber Conflicts and Its Impact on International Security: A Comprehensive Analysis. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/596363383.pdf
4. Ashcraft, C. M., Brewer, J. F., Burakowski, E., Coffin, et al. (2018). Preparing for a Northwest Passage: A Workshop on the Role of New England in Navigating the New Arctic. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/215537367.pdf
5. Bano, M., Chaudhri, Z., & Zowghi, D. (2023). The Role of Generative AI in Global Diplomatic Practices: A Strategic Framework. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05415
6. Brittain-Hale, A. (2023). Public Diplomacy and Foreign Policy Analysis in the 21st Century: Navigating Uncertainty through Digital Power and Influence. ODU Digital Commons. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/553612484.pdf
7. Burchell, K., Gillespie, M., Nieto McAvoy, E., & O’Loughlin, et al. (2015). Soft Power and Its Audiences: Tweeting the Olympics from London 2012 to Sochi 2014. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/146487392.pdf
8. Gorlin, L. R. (2023). The Maritime Operational Threat Response Plan: A Model for Interagency Cooperation. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/565849558.pdf
9. Hofer, A. (2018). The ‘Curiouser and Curiouser’ Legal Nature of Non-UN Sanctions: The Case of the US Sanctions Against Russia. Oxford University Press (OUP). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/154408273.pdf
10. Kos-Stanišić, L. & Car, V. (2021). The Use of Soft Power in Digital Public Diplomacy: the Cases of Brazil and India in the EU. Politička misao, 58 (2), 113-140. https://doi.org/10.20901/pm.58.2.05
11. Levitt, J. (2001). Conflict Prevention, Management, and Resolution: Africa — Regional Strategies for the Prevention of Displacement and Protection of Displaced Persons: The Cases of the OAU, ECOWAS, SADC, and IGAD. Duke University School of Law. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/62566454.pdf
12. Martin, C., & Jagla, L. (2013). Integrating Diplomacy and Social Media: A Report of the First Annual Aspen Institute Dialogue on Diplomacy and Technology. Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/71361701.pdf
13. Mooney, C. W., Jr. (2014). The Cape Town Convention’s Improbable-but-Possible Progeny Part One: An International Secured Transactions Registry of General Application. Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/151694686.pdf
14. Park, S., Chung, D., & Park, H. W. (2019). Analytical framework for evaluating digital diplomacy using network analysis and topic modeling: Comparing South Korea and Japan. Information Processing and Management, 56(4), 1468–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.10.021
15. Rapantová, N., Younis, J. H., & Yousuf, M. A. (2018). Sustainable Water Management in Iraq (Kurdistan) as a Challenge for Governmental Responsibility. MDPI AG. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/163084554.pdf
16. Raymond, M., & DeNardis, L. (2015). Multistakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Institution. International Theory, 7, 572-616. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971915000081
17. Tüner, T. (2023). Evolution of ASEAN’s Policy on Cyber Security. Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/620614216.pdf
18. Webb, A. (2009). Public Diplomacy: Meeting New Challenges. Report of Wilton Park Conference 902. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/81971.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
