The literature that references personal data collection risks is growing amidst international scandals, notably the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook interference in the Brexit referendum and 2016 US presidential election as well as other elections in countries throughout our world. Questions of fundamental importance to the study and practice of international relations are being asked as concerns are expressed, including the most pressing that speak to accountability, the ethics of use in local areas and the impact on the vulnerable populations that information and communications technologies (ICTs) promise to serve. Yet, the editors observe that in key texts written to teach international relations, less mention is made of personal data collection risks in countries around the globe. As we address this significant omission in the literature, this introduction notes the observation made by Acharya and Buzan that ‘with the possible exception of the emerging ideology of environmental stewardship, no new ideologies of equivalent weight have come along to reshape international relations’ (p. 12).

As the call for the protection of personal data increases globally, other uses of data under the colour of state action continue to complicate the issue. The attack by Russia on Ukraine occurred simultaneously with Russia’s participation in the UN’s Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of ICTs for Criminal Purposes. Russia strongly advocated for a new global cybercrime treaty despite the existence of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime ratified by sixty-six countries, but Russia did not join, stating that the convention violated state sovereignty principles. Yet, alongside its urging that statements to the Secretariat should not include information about the war against Ukraine, Russia pushed the UN to adopt its proposal, which lessened humanitarian rights. All the while Russia has seemingly turned a blind eye to cybercriminals operating within its borders and has openly and actively supported these perpetrators.

These chapters provide a glimpse into the struggles of liberal internationalism and, yet, seem to suggest a way forward. First, there remain concerns about the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on liberal internationalist principles because the virus severely tested many governments’ resolve to support its premise.