Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T19:31:32.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Conceptualising the use of public–private partnerships as a regulatory arrangement in critical information infrastructure protection

from PART I - New actors and processes in contemporary standard setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

By
Dan Assaf
Edited by
Anne Peters ,
Lucy Koechlin ,
Till Förster  and
Gretta Fenner Zinkernagel
Anne Peters
Affiliation:
Universität Basel, Switzerland
Lucy Koechlin
Affiliation:
Universität Basel, Switzerland
Till Förster
Affiliation:
Universität Basel, Switzerland
Gretta Fenner Zinkernagel
Affiliation:
Universität Basel, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Critical information infrastructure protection (or ‘CIIP’) is a concept ‘du jour’ in many developed countries. Faced with the inherent vulnerability of critical information infrastructures to cyber-attacks, governments around the world have become preoccupied with their state of security.

The term ‘Critical Information Infrastructures’ (or ‘CII’) incorporates two terms: ‘Critical Infrastructures’ (or ‘CI’) and ‘Information Infrastructures’. According to the USA Patriot Act, ‘critical infrastructures’ are:

those systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the US that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.

Considered to be critical infrastructures, for example, are telecommunications networks, power grids, water supply systems, banking and finance institutions, transportation systems, and oil and gas storage facilities and pipelines.

The term ‘Information Infrastructures’ usually describes the combination of computer and communications systems that serve as the underlying infrastructure for organisations, industries and the economy, including components such as telecommunications, computer hardware and software, the Internet and other computer networks, supervisory and control systems, telecommunication satellites, fibre optics and the like.

Altogether, critical information infrastructures are those parts of the information infrastructure that are essential for the continuity of critical infrastructure services. In other words, they are the communications and information networks, systems, software and facilities (including supervisory and controlling devices) underlying critical infrastructures.

Type
Chapter
Information
Non-State Actors as Standard Setters , pp. 61 - 83
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, J. J. and Malm, A. 2006, ‘Public–Private Partnerships and the Challenge of Critical Infrastructure Protection’ in Dunn, M. and Wigert, I. (eds.), 139–68.
Assaf, D. 2007, ‘Government Intervention in Information Infrastructure Protection’ in Goetz, E. and Shenoi, S. (eds.), Critical Infrastructure Protection, New York, Springer, 39–49.Google Scholar
Auerswald, P. E.et al. 2006, ‘Leadership: Who Will Act – Integrating Public and Private Interests to Make a Safer World’ in Auerswald, P. E.et al. (eds.), Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, New York, Cambridge University Press, 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avant, D. D. 2005, The Market for Force: the Consequences of Privatizing Security, New York, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aviram, A. and Tor, A. 2004, ‘Overcoming Impediments to Information Sharing’, Alabama Law Review, vol. 55, 231.Google Scholar
Bagley, N. 2006, ‘Benchmarking, Critical Infrastructure Security, and the Regulatory War on Terror’, Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 43, no. 1, 47–100.
Börzel, T. A. and Héritier, A. 2007, ‘Fostering Regulation? Corporate Social Responsibility in Countries with Weak Regulatory Capacity’, Non-state Actors as Standard Setters: the Erosion of the Public–Private Divide (conference), Basel Institute on Governance.
Braithwaite, J. 1982, ‘Enforced Self-Regulation: A New Theory for Corporate Crime Control’, Michigan Law Review, vol. 80, no. 7, 1466–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branscomb, L. M. and Michel-Kerjan, E. O. 2006, ‘Public–Private Collaboration on a National and International Scale’ in Auerswald, P. E.et al. (eds.), Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, New York, Cambridge University Press, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, J. D. 2002, ‘Market-Based Governance and the Architecture of Accountability’ in Donahue, J. D. and Nye, J. S. Jr. (eds.), Market-Based Governance: Supply Side, Demand Side, Upside and Downside, Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press, 1–25.Google Scholar
Dowdle, M. W. 2006, ‘Public Accountability: Conceptual, Historical, and Epistemic Mappings’ in Dowdle, M. W. (ed.), Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, Cambridge University Press, 1–29.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. and Wigert, I. 2006, The International CIIP Handbook: An Inventory and Analysis of Protection Policies in Fourteen Countries, Zurich, Center for Security Studies, ETH.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. and Almaric, F. 2008, ‘Business and Public–Private Partnerships for Sustainability: Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility?’Global Society, vol. 22, no. 3, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, B. 2007, ‘Estonia Incident Demonstrated Power of Russia-Based Cyber Networks’, Washington Post.com, 13 October 2007. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201700.html.
Linder, S. H. 2000, ‘Coming to Terms with Public–Private Partnership: A Grammar of Multiple Meanings’ in Vaillancourt-Rosenau, P. (ed.), Public–Private Policy Partnership, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lopez, B. 2006, ‘Critical Infrastructure Protection in the United States Since 1993’ in Auerswald, P. E.et al. (eds.), Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, New York, Cambridge University Press, 39–50.Google Scholar
Minow, M. 2002, Partners, Not Rivals: Privatization and the Public Good, Boston, Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Minow, M. 2003, ‘Public and Private Partnerships: Accounting for the New Religion’, Harvard Law Review, vol. 116, no. 5, 1229–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, B. and Yeung, K. 2007, An Introduction to Law and Regulation: Text and Materials, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogus, A. 2002, ‘Regulatory Institutions and Structures’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, vol. 73, no. 4, 627–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Critical Foundations: Protecting America's Infrastructures. Available at http://fas.org/sgp/library/pccip.pdf.
Salamon, L. E. (ed.) 2002, The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Savas, E. S. 2000, Privatization and Public–Private Partnerships, New York, Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Scott, C. 2000, ‘Accountability in the Regulatory State’, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 27, no. 1, 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traynor, I. 2007, ‘Russia Accused of Unleashing Cyberwar to Disable Estonia’, The Economist, 17 May 2007. Available at www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2081438,00.html.
Trebilcock, M. J. and Iacobucci, E. M. 2003, ‘Privatization and Accountability’, Harvard Law Review, vol. 116, no. 5, 1422–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, US President George W. 2002, National Strategy on Homeland Security. Available at www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/nat_strat_hls.pdf.
Bush, US President George W. 2003, The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets. Available at www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibraryhysical_Strategy.pdf.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×