Skip to main content

When Cybersecurity Meets the Regulatory State: Case-Study Analysis of the Israeli Cybersecurity Regulatory Regime

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Regulation in Israel

Abstract

The literature on risk and regulatory governance has barely heeded the institutionalization of cybersecurity regulatory practices by national policy regimes. As the role of the state in cybersecurity governance is gradually expanding, we still lack an empirical and theoretical understanding of how the regulatory state copes with the cybersecurity governance challenge. Therefore, we ask how the role of the state has expanded in leading cybersecurity governance efforts? What characteristics of cybersecurity governance challenge the regulatory state? And how the Israeli cybersecurity regulatory regime has been addressing those challenges? We trace the literature on the new roles of the state in cybersecurity governance and build an analytical framework based on the challenging characteristics of cybersecurity governance. We then conduct an in-depth case study analysis of the Israeli cybersecurity regulatory regime. In contrast to arguments about the inability of the state to cope with dynamic technological changes, we find that the state is ever more relevant, restructuring the government and creating new methods, institutional settings, and incentives to cope with the cybersecurity governance problem. The intersection of cybersecurity with the regulatory state creates new avenues of regulatory development, shedding light on new directions for regulatory governance in the digital age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott, K. W., Levi-Faur, D., & Snidal, D. (2017). Theorizing regulatory intermediaries. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 670(1), 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acre, I. (2003). The weakest link revisited. IEEE Security & Privacy, 1(2), 72–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeke, S. (2017). National cyber crisis management: Different European approaches. Governance, 31, 449–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bughin, J., LaBerge, L., & Mellbye, A. (2017). The case of digital reinvention. Mckinsey.com. Accessible here: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-case-for-digital-reinvention.

  • Carr, M. (2016). Public-private partnerships in national cyber-security strategies. International Affairs, 92(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, C., & Lazer, D. (2003). Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law & Society Review, 37(4), 691–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (2016). The regulatory state in the information age. Technical Inqueries in Law, 17(2), 369–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constable, S. (2018). Why we should not regulate the tech industry. Forbes.com. Accessible here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/03/26/no-we-really-dont-need-government-regulation-of-the-tech-industry/#1c1a771deb8d.

  • Dullien, T. (2017). Weird machines, exploitability, and provable non-exploitability. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn Cavelty, M., & Egloff, F. J. (2019). The politics of cybersecurity: Balancing different roles of the state. St Antony’s International Review, 15(1), 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn Cavelty, M., & Suter, M. (2009). Public-private partnerships are no silver bullet: An expanded governance model for critical infrastructure protection. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2(4), 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckert, S. (2005). Protection critical infrastructure—The role of the private sector. In P. Dombrowski (Ed.), Guns and butter: The political economy of international security. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichensehr, K. E. (2015). The cyber-law of nations. The Georgetown Law Journal, 103, 317–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichensehr, K. E. (2017). Public-private cybersecurity. Texas Law Review, 95, 466–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (2011). Cybersecurity in the private sector. Issues in Science and Technology, 28(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Hollis, D. (2016). Constructing norms for global cybersecurity. The American Journal of International Law, 110(3), 425–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal-Or, E., & Ghose, A. (2005). The economic incentives for sharing security information. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 186–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genschel, P., & Jachtenfuchs, M. (2013). Beyond the regulatory polity? The European integration of core state powers. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, I., & Mariathasan, M. (2014). The butterfly defect: How globalization creates systemic risks, and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harknett, R. J., & Stever, J. A. (2011, May/June). The new policy world of cybersecurity. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 455–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, J. S., & Russel, R. S. (2013). The challenge and imperative of private sector cybersecurity: An international comparison. Computer Law & Security Review, 29, 236–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, S. (2019). Digital 2019: Global digital overview. datareportal.com. Accessible here: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-global-digital-overview.

  • Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2011). Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, R. (2017). Warfare as regulation. Washington and Lee Law Review, 74(4), 1953–2043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuerbis, B., & Badiei, F. (2017). Mapping the cybersecurity institutional landscape. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 19(6), 466–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2011). Regulation and regulatory governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Handbook on the politics of regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liff, A. (2012). Cyberwar: A new ‘absolute weapon’? The proliferation of cy-berwarfare capabilities and interstate war. Journal of Strategic Studies, 35(3), 401–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G., Sylvester, D. J., & Abbott, K. W. (2008). Risk management principles for nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 2(1), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, M. (2017). Is cybersecurity eating internet governance? Causes and consequences of alternative framings. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 19(6), 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, M. (2019). Against Sovereignty in cyberspace. International Studies Review, viz044. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz044.

  • Quigley, K., & Roy, J. (2012). Cyber-security and risk management in an interoperable world: An examination of governmental action in North America. Social Science Computer Review, 30(1), 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Klinke, A., & van Asselt, M. (2011). Coping with complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity in risk governance: A synthesis. Ambio, 40(2), 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Lucas, K., Haas, A., & Jaeger, C. (2017). Things are different today: The challenge of global systemic risks. Journal of Risk Research, 22(4), 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rid, T. (2012). Cyber war will not take place. Journal of Strategic Studies, 35(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2011). Governance without a state: Policies and politics in areas of limited statehood. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without Government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siboni, G., & Sivan-Sevilla, I. (2018a). The role of the state in the private-sector cybersecurity challenge. The Blog of Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. Available here.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siboni, G., & Sivan-Sevilla, I. (2018b). Cybersecurity Regulations at the Private Sector: A Comparative Analysis of U.S., EU, UK, France, Germany, and Israel (Research Memorandum 180, INSS). Tel-Aviv, Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivan-Sevilla, I. (2018). Complementaries and contradictions: National security and privacy risks in U.S. federal policy, 1968–2018. Policy & Internet, 11(2), 172–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivan-Sevilla, I. (2019). Framing and governing cyber risks: Comparative analysis of US federal policies [1996–2018]. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1673797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slayton, R., & Clark-Ginsberg, A. (2017). Beyond regulatory capture: Coproducing expertise for critical infrastructure protection. Regulation & Governance, 12(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabansky, L., & Ben Israel, I. (2015). Cybersecurity in Israel. SpringerBriefs in Cybersecurity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaw, D. (2013). The Efficacy of cybersecurity regulation. Georgia State University Law Review, 30(2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaw, D. (2014). Enlightened regulatory capture. Washington Law Review, 89, 329–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2017). Cybersecurity: Actions Needed to Strengthen U.S. Capabilities. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valeriano, B., & Maness, R. C. (2014). The dynamics of cyber conflict between rival antagonists, 2001–11. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eeten, M. (2017). Patching security governance: An empirical view of emergent governance mechanisms for cybersecurity. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 19(6), 429–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. (2015). Cybersecurity: A pre-history. Intelligence and National Security, 27, 781–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ido Sivan-Sevilla .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sivan-Sevilla, I., Sharvit, S. (2021). When Cybersecurity Meets the Regulatory State: Case-Study Analysis of the Israeli Cybersecurity Regulatory Regime. In: Tevet, E., Shiffer, V., Galnoor, I. (eds) Regulation in Israel. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56247-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics