AI, big data and cloud computing challenge traditional cyberspace governance models

The analysis reveals a structural divide: English-language research largely focuses on legal norms and security accountability, while Chinese-language research prioritizes policy frameworks and cooperative communication. According to the authors, this divide limits the ability of global scholarship to develop shared concepts and approaches to address emerging threats and opportunities in cyberspace.

A comparative study by researchers from the School of Media and Law at NingboTech University, China, has revealed significant differences in how Chinese- and English-speaking scholars approach the development of international rules for cyberspace governance. Published in Information, the study “Artificial Intelligence and International Rules in Cyberspace: A Comparative Knowledge-Mapping Analysis” highlights the growing importance of AI and other emerging technologies in shaping debates over sovereignty, security, and legal norms in cyberspace.

The research shows that while both academic communities recognize the transformative impact of technologies such as AI, big data, and cloud computing on global governance, their priorities, conceptual frameworks, and historical development differ sharply. These differences, the authors argue, highlight the need for stronger interdisciplinary collaboration and cross-cultural dialogue to ensure that international rules for cyberspace remain fair, inclusive, and effective.

Divergent research traditions in cyberspace governance

The study analyzed Chinese- and English-language research published between 1999 and 2020, using bibliometric tools CiteSpace and VOSviewer to map key authors, influential papers, and thematic clusters. The findings show that English-language scholarship, led by researchers from the United States and the United Kingdom, has long been grounded in international law and security studies. This tradition has focused on state responsibility in cyberspace, accountability for cyberattacks, and the applicability of existing legal frameworks to issues like cyber warfare, with key debates shaped by influential works such as the Tallinn Manual.

By contrast, Chinese-language research began to expand significantly after 2012, reflecting China’s growing engagement in global cyberspace governance. This body of scholarship emphasizes policy concerns, sovereignty, and communication studies, often aligning with the concept of a “cyber community of shared destiny” promoted in Chinese policy discourse. The authors note that while this research highlights the geopolitical and socio-economic dimensions of cyberspace governance, it tends to have weaker integration with foundational theories of international law and global governance.

The analysis reveals a structural divide: English-language research largely focuses on legal norms and security accountability, while Chinese-language research prioritizes policy frameworks and cooperative communication. According to the authors, this divide limits the ability of global scholarship to develop shared concepts and approaches to address emerging threats and opportunities in cyberspace.

Impact of emerging technologies on governance debates

The study highlights the disruptive influence of artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing, and other advanced technologies on the international rules governing cyberspace. These innovations have blurred traditional boundaries of jurisdiction, complicated the attribution of cyber incidents, and created new risks related to data privacy, cybersecurity, and digital sovereignty.

The research shows that English-language scholarship has responded to these challenges by advancing discussions on state accountability and international law, seeking to adapt existing frameworks to the digital age. Topics such as the responsibility of states for malicious cyber operations, the legal implications of autonomous AI-driven cyber tools, and the role of private actors in security governance have become central themes.

On the other hand, Chinese-language research often approaches the governance of emerging technologies through the lens of policy development, multilateral cooperation, and equitable participation in rule-making. It calls for ensuring that developing countries have a voice in setting international norms and that cyberspace governance reflects shared development goals rather than unilateral dominance by a few powerful states.

The authors argue that while these different priorities reflect distinct political and historical contexts, they also expose a lack of theoretical innovation and interdisciplinary engagement across both research traditions. Addressing complex, cross-border challenges like data flows, cyber terrorism, and AI-enabled threats will require combining the strengths of legal, technical, and policy-oriented scholarship.

Bridging research gaps for inclusive cyberspace governance

The global discourse on cyberspace governance stands at a critical crossroads. As AI and related technologies increasingly shape international security and economic competition, the authors stress that scholarly and policy communities must work to bridge conceptual and cultural divides.

The authors call for greater interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together experts in law, international relations, computer science, and communication studies to develop new frameworks that are better suited to the digital age. They also call for cross-lingual dialogue between Chinese and English-speaking scholars to foster mutual understanding and reduce the risk of fragmented or competing governance systems.

The research highlights that without a concerted effort to harmonize approaches, global cyberspace governance could become more polarized, with divergent norms and regulations undermining efforts to build a secure, open, and inclusive digital environment. The authors argue that international dialogue should focus not only on security and sovereignty but also on the equitable sharing of benefits and the responsible deployment of advanced technologies like AI.