2017•GovernanceRequires access

National cyber crisis management: Different European approaches

Sergei Boeke

Open publisher page 57 citations

Abstract

Cyber crises, as new forms of transboundary crises, pose serious risks to societies. This article investigates how different models of public–private partnerships shape cyber crisis management in four European countries: the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, and the Czech Republic. Using Provan and Kenis's modes of network governance, an initial taxonomy of cyber governance structures is provided. The Netherlands have created a participant‐governed network, characterized by trust and equality. The Czech and Estonian models resemble a network administrative organization, with an enforcement role for their national cyber security centers. Denmark has adopted a lead‐agency model. The article concludes that countries face two binary choices when organizing cyber defense and crisis management. First, national computer emergency response teams/computer security incident response teams can be embedded inside or outside the intelligence community. Second, cyber capacity can be centralized in one unit or spread across different sectors. These decisions fundamentally shape information‐sharing arrangements and potential roles during cyber crises.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Cyber crises, as new forms of transboundary crises, pose serious risks to societies. This article investigates how different models of public–private partnerships shape cyber crisis management in four European countries: the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, and the Czech Republic. Using Provan and Kenis's modes of network governance, an initial taxonomy of cyber governance structures is provided. The Netherlands have created a participant‐governed network, characterized by trust and equality. The Czech and Estonian models resemble a network administrative organization, with an enforcement role for their national cyber security centers. Denmark has adopted a lead‐agency model. The article concludes that countries face two binary choices when organizing cyber defense and crisis management. First, national computer emergency response teams/computer security incident response teams can be embedded inside or outside the intelligence community. Second, cyber capacity can be centralized in one unit or spread across different sectors. These decisions fundamentally shape information‐sharing arrangements and potential roles during cyber crises.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 57 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Cyber crises, as new forms of transboundary crises, pose serious risks to societies. This article investigates how different models of public–private partnerships shape cyber crisis management in four European countries: the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, and the Czech Republic. Using Provan and Kenis's modes of network governance, an initial taxonomy of cyber governance structures is provided. The Netherlands have created a participant‐governed network, characterized by trust and equality. The Czech and Estonian models resemble a network administrative organization, with an enforcement role for their national cyber security centers. Denmark has adopted a lead‐agency model. The article concludes that countries face two binary choices when organizing cyber defense and crisis management. First, national computer emergency response teams/computer security incident response teams can be embedded inside or outside the intelligence community. Second, cyber capacity can be centralized in one unit or spread across different sectors. These decisions fundamentally shape information‐sharing arrangements and potential roles during cyber crises.

Key concepts: Czech, Crisis management, Corporate governance, Estonian, Agency (philosophy), Business, Computer security, Public administration

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
National cyber crisis management: Different European approaches — Research Paper | ScholarLens