Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- Preface
- 1 Non-state actors as standard setters: framing the issue in an interdisciplinary fashion
- PART I New actors and processes in contemporary standard setting
- 2 Local and regional non-state actors on the margins of public policy in Africa
- 3 Conceptualising the use of public–private partnerships as a regulatory arrangement in critical information infrastructure protection
- 4 Standard setting at the cutting edge: an evidence-based typology for multi-stakeholder initiatives
- 5 New standards for and by private military companies?
- 6 Governance matters VII: aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007
- 7 Contending with illicit power structures: a typology
- PART II The legitimacy and accountability of actors and standards
- PART III The authority and effectiveness of actors and standards
- Index
- References
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
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- Preface
- 1 Non-state actors as standard setters: framing the issue in an interdisciplinary fashion
- PART I New actors and processes in contemporary standard setting
- 2 Local and regional non-state actors on the margins of public policy in Africa
- 3 Conceptualising the use of public–private partnerships as a regulatory arrangement in critical information infrastructure protection
- 4 Standard setting at the cutting edge: an evidence-based typology for multi-stakeholder initiatives
- 5 New standards for and by private military companies?
- 6 Governance matters VII: aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007
- 7 Contending with illicit power structures: a typology
- PART II The legitimacy and accountability of actors and standards
- PART III The authority and effectiveness of actors and standards
- Index
- References
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.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Non-State Actors as Standard Setters , pp. 61 - 83Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
and 2006, ‘Public–Private Partnerships and the Challenge of Critical Infrastructure Protection’ in and (eds.), 139–68.
2007, ‘Government Intervention in Information Infrastructure Protection’ in and (eds.), Critical Infrastructure Protection, New York, Springer, 39–49.Google Scholar
et al. 2006, ‘Leadership: Who Will Act – Integrating Public and Private Interests to Make a Safer World’ in 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
2005, The Market for Force: the Consequences of Privatizing Security, New York, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2004, ‘Overcoming Impediments to Information Sharing’, Alabama Law Review, vol. 55, 231.Google Scholar
2006, ‘Benchmarking, Critical Infrastructure Security, and the Regulatory War on Terror’, Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 43, no. 1, 47–100.
and 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.
1982, ‘Enforced Self-Regulation: A New Theory for Corporate Crime Control’, Michigan Law Review, vol. 80, no. 7, 1466–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006, ‘Public–Private Collaboration on a National and International Scale’ in 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
2002, ‘Market-Based Governance and the Architecture of Accountability’ in and Jr. (eds.), Market-Based Governance: Supply Side, Demand Side, Upside and Downside, Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press, 1–25.Google Scholar
2006, ‘Public Accountability: Conceptual, Historical, and Epistemic Mappings’ in (ed.), Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, Cambridge University Press, 1–29.Google Scholar
and 2006, The International CIIP Handbook: An Inventory and Analysis of Protection Policies in Fourteen Countries, Zurich, Center for Security Studies, ETH.Google Scholar
and 2008, ‘Business and Public–Private Partnerships for Sustainability: Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility?’Global Society, vol. 22, no. 3, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
2000, ‘Coming to Terms with Public–Private Partnership: A Grammar of Multiple Meanings’ in (ed.), Public–Private Policy Partnership, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006, ‘Critical Infrastructure Protection in the United States Since 1993’ in 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
2003, ‘Public and Private Partnerships: Accounting for the New Religion’, Harvard Law Review, vol. 116, no. 5, 1229–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2007, An Introduction to Law and Regulation: Text and Materials, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002, ‘Regulatory Institutions and Structures’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, vol. 73, no. 4, 627–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Critical Foundations: Protecting America's Infrastructures. Available at http://fas.org/sgp/library/pccip.pdf.
(ed.) 2002, The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2000, Privatization and Public–Private Partnerships, New York, Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
2000, ‘Accountability in the Regulatory State’, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 27, no. 1, 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
and 2003, ‘Privatization and Accountability’, Harvard Law Review, vol. 116, no. 5, 1422–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002, National Strategy on Homeland Security. Available at www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/nat_strat_hls.pdf.
2003, The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets. Available at www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibraryhysical_Strategy.pdf.
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 2
- Cited by