Over the past three years, I have become quite passionate in understanding how the global subsea data cable network works, and what security and governance challenges it raises. In close collaboration with Tobias Liebetrau, we’ve been exploring the network as the case of a critical infrastructure, that is a socio-material entanglement. A new theme page on the SafeSeas website documents that work which has involved a range of partners.
The subsea cable network is also one of our case studies in the new Ocean Infrastructures Research Group. This will provide the opportunity to conduct further and more in-depth research on the network from a theorizing angle.
This week I am attending the UN Ocean Conference. These type of conferences are increasingly important in ocean governance, and it will be an exciting opportunity to learn more about how such events unfold, and if and how they have an impact on global ocean governance. As part of the conference we are also hosting together with the Atlantic Center of the Portuguese Ministry of Defense and the Institute for Security Studies (Pretoria) an expert workshop on subsea data cable protection. The workshop is part of our DACANE project and will reflect on the insights gained in our recent study on data cables for the European Parliament.
We are also co-hosting a public panel, which is part of the UN Ocean Conference Programme. In the public event we will explore the relation between marine infrastructure protection and marine conservation. The panel is opened by the Portuguese Secretary of State for Defence, Marco Capitão Ferreira, as well as Peter Thomson, UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean. It is chaired by Martin Koehring, Head, World Ocean Initiative, Economist Impact and features Steve Dawe, Chairman European Subsea Cable Association, Kaitlin Meredith, UNODC Global Maritime Crime Programme, Philippe Dumont, CEO EllaLink, Leendert Bal, Head of Safety, Security and Surveillance Department, European Maritime Safety Agency and myself.
In my contribution to the workshop I argued that to often we presume that knowledge and knowledge production is seen as preceding action. Instead we have to understand them as an integral part of a practice. Drawing on insights from a text titled “theorizing capacity building co-authored with Simone Tholens, I emphasized the need for going beyond epistemic determinism, that is the assumption that the practices of intervenors is informed by pre-established knowledge. This is not to argue that such pre-knowledge does not matter, but it is to suggest that we should not overestimate its importance. Often knowledge is made up on the spot in a concrete intervention locale, and often it is experimental. I drew on a range of examples from maritime security to illustrate the argument.
The idea that international relations research is more productive if it starts out from objects, rather than subjects and their intentions, is increasingly gaining a foothold in the discipline. On June 16th and 17th the Global Governance Centre of the Graduate Institute hosted a workshop in Geneva that assembled some of the key advocates of the turn to objectual international relations. The discussion concerned in particular the relationship between expertise and object and for instance the question in what way epistemic practices are required for objects of global governance to emerge.
At the workshop I presented some ideas on the relationship between epistemic infrastructures and global governance objects. I argued that such infrastructures are vital in the production and maintenance of objects. I drew on empirical examples from the evolution of ‘piracy’ as an object of international governance and how contemporary maritime domain awareness approaches are increasingly rendering the object as multiple.
On the 15th of June, I had the pleasure to attend the workshop “Japan and Europe in a contested world”, held at the European University Institute, Florence, Italy. At the workshop I was introducing our research on the consequences of the Indo-Pacific narrative for the EU and Japan and the dangers of maritime militarization dynamics.
Our study for the European Parliament on the vulnerabilities of the EU’s subsea data cable infrastructures is now published. The report is available here. It analyses the state of the EU cable system, identifies threat scenarios, and lays out a series of recommendations of how the EU and its member states can enhance resilience. Here is the abstract:
The EU’s subsea data cable network is both vital for global connectivity and vulnerable. This study provides a systematic review of the current security threats, as well as the actors at the origin of these threats. Building on reports and expert input, the paper takes stock of current awareness, preparedness and response mechanisms, both at the EU and Member State level. A number of recommendations suggest how to improve the resilience of the cable network. Proposals build on the need to enhance EU-wide awareness, improve coordination and share information across EU institutions and Member States. In addition, surveillance capabilities must be advanced, response and repair mechanisms strengthened, and the topic mainstreamed across external action.
Following up on our work with the UK government on refreshing the maritime security strategy, SafeSeas is organizing a one day workshop discussing the challenges linked to implementing the strategy. The workshop is organized by Tim Edmunds and in collaboration with the Department of Transport. The event will bring together key representatives of the UK maritime security community.
On June 6th, I am attending the CyDiplo Workshop “Diversifying Cyber Diplomacy”, organized by the University of Bologna. At the workshop I will be giving a talk on the importance of including the material dimension in the agenda, and will investigate how subsea data cables matter for cyber diplomacy and cyber security. I draw on research conducted jointly with Tobias Liebetrau as part of our project on ocean infrastructures.
On the 16.5. I had the pleasure to give a talk at the Institute for Political Science, Technical University Darmstadt, Germany. In my talking I was introducing the key arguments of a work in progress article written with Scott Edwards (Bristol) and Maren Hofius (Hamburg). The article revisits the community of practice framework as an approach to global ordering. We argue that the interaction between communities of practice in global politics should receive more focus. The discussion revolved around the benefits of the communities of practice approach compared to other frameworks for studying ordering, but also how to actually theorize with and from practices.
In a new episode of Sea Control podcast, Alexia Bouallagui, Jan Stockbruegger and I discuss the current situation in the Western Indian Ocean. Drawing on our recent article published in African Security Review, we discuss what other threats than piracy now prevail in the region. We also investigate why the surge of naval activity and strategic competition in the region is a worrying yet underappreciated trend and confronts the Western Indian Ocean with a dilemma. The region relies on external military actors to protect vital shipping lanes, but the presence of these actors also risks importing geopolitical tensions that could undermine regional maritime stability.
