This analysis reveals the tension between sovereignty and security in cyberspace, highlighting extraterritorial actions.
This paper focuses on the debate between the sanctuarization of territories and the projection of power in cyberspace. It emphasizes the persistence of territorial logic in an environment where all notions of borders have been abolished in principle. It thus addresses this territorial revenge that will unfold on different levels, sometimes legitimately as sovereign claims, and sometimes encroaching on sovereignty and violating international law principles. The immediate impact of this confrontation is a veritable territorialization of cyberspace, which often results from states putting forward the argument that security is an imperative above all others. Compartmentalization is also motivated by the desire to protect national territories from surveillance by other states’ intelligence services and the risks posed by data capture. States such as the US tend to deploy their cyberpower without regard for state borders. The use of extraterritoriality and the projection of force in cyberspace are the main manifestations of this approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ахмет Хафдиди (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: