Cyber Diplomacy: Crisis Management in Cyberspace

Dr. ASLI VAROL

Digital technologies are opening the doors of an unlimited environment called that cyberspace to states, organizations, societies. For this reason, it is not easy to protect corporate borders in the digital world and security policies for cyberspace need to be established. In this new environment, the concept of cyber diplomacy has emerged to counter the cyber problems and threats that cause the crisis, to develop cooperation in the cyber field and to negotiate the cyber agendas.

A New Operational Environment: Cyberspace

In order to express cyber diplomacy correctly, it is necessary to define cyberspace first. Because the complexity and limitlessness of the problems that cyber diplomacy tries to solve and the threats it fights can only be understood through the environment in which it emerges.

Ottis and Lorents offer this definition: “cyberspace is a time-dependent set of interconnected information systems and the human users that interact with these systems” (Ottis & Lorents, 2010). According to the NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, cyberspace is “The global domain consisting of all interconnected communication, information technology and other electronic systems, networks and their data, including those which are separated or independent, which process, store or transmit data” (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2020).

Cyber diplomacy is expressed as the application of diplomacy to cyberspace. When thinking about cyberspace, these different levels required for its functioning should be considered; the physical (cables, switching stations, etc.), the logical (the protocols that enable data to reach its destination), the data (content of webpages, e-mails, etc.) and the social (in which humans and devices interact).  And also all of these levels are political and geopolitical (Riordan, 2019: 9). Goldman makes the following important statement on cyberspace:

“Cyberspace has become a major battleground for great-power competition because of the nature of the operating environment: It is globally interconnected, distinguished by constant (rather than imminent, potential, or episodic) contact, influenced by difficulty of attribution, characterized by contested borders and informal thresholds that are limited in adherence, and lacks sanctuary and operational pause” (Goldman, 2020: 86).

On the other hand Vignati et al. (2021) state that the “cyber threats” “can be labelled as acts of destruction of computer networks or data contained therein through interference or interception”. The authors divide the cyber threats into three categories as cyber threats against individuals, against properties, and governments (Vignati et al., 2021: 7-8).

Cyber threats and cyberattacks that affect all these networks and all these systems on a large scale create crises for countries and institutions. Crisis in the cyberspace can take different forms. These crises can occur directly through cyberattacks or in the form of disinformation and cognitive hacking.

Disinformation and Cognitive Hacking

Jaiman states that cybersecurity and disinformation attacks show many similarities in terms of strategies, tactics and actions. Cyberattacks target computer infrastructure. In contrast, disinformation exploits cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Cybersecurity attacks are carried out using malware, viruses, trojans, botnets and social engineering. Disinformation attacks use manipulated, miscontextualized, misappropriated information, deep fakes, and cheap fakes. Malicious actors use both attacks together to increase the effect of destruction (Jaiman, 2021).

The purpose of cognitive hacking, which seeks to manipulate people’s perceptions by exploiting psychological vulnerabilities, is to create behavior change. This is why cognitive hacking is a form of social engineering (Wigmore, 2017).

Cognitive hacking is expressed as a threat originating from disinformation and computational propaganda. Cognitive hacking, a type of cyberattack, exploits psychological vulnerabilities, perpetuates bias, and ultimately compromises logical and critical thinking, causing cognitive dissonance. Jaiman states that the cognitive hacking attack tries to change the thoughts and actions of the target audience and disrupt harmony by using disinformation. Cognitive hacking uses cognitive biases to manipulate the way people perceive reality and shapes people by perpetuating the biases. An example of the effects of hacking is the raid of the US Capitol by right-wing groups on January 6, 2021 (Jaiman, 2021).

Emerging digital technologies such as sensors, information and communication technologies, artificial intelligence tools and quantum tools have become new focal points for strategic competition. This rivalry pits two competing visions of the digital space, democracy and authoritarianism, and two world order, and information freedom and information control. Goldman says that the diplomatic strategy for the future must adopt a competitive mindset. The vision of a free, open and flexible cyberspace faces a well-resourced competitor, techno-authoritarianism (Goldman, 2021).

Cyber Diplomacy for Crisis Management 

The birth of cyber diplomacy was caused by a wide-ranging cyberattack against Estonia in 2007. As it is known, Estonia is one of the most wired countries in Europe. With this cyberattack, many government and company sites were paralyzed by hackers. The increase in such attacks has revealed the need for governments to create national cyber strategies. This is the result of understanding that cyberspace, like the physical world, has military and strategic dimensions and requires countries to work together to defeat cyber rivals (Attatfa et al., 2020).

Riordan defines cyber diplomacy as the use of diplomatic tools and diplomatic mindset, to resolve issues that arise in cyberspace. Cyber diplomacy can be carried out by states and non-state actors, including companies, NGOs. Riordan also makes clear the distinction between cyber diplomacy and digital diplomacy. Digital diplomacy is using digital tools to promote broader diplomatic agendas (Riordan, 2016). Goldman also defines cyber diplomacy as the use of diplomatic tools to deal with issues that arise in and through cyberspace. Those issues that arise in or through cyberspace include international cybersecurity standards, internet access, privacy, internet freedom, intellectual property, cybercrime, state-sponsored cyber conflict and competition, ethical use of digital technologies and commerce, security, economic and human rights (Goldman, 2021).

Cyberspace offers digital tools for more effective tracking of diplomatic strategies, as well as uncovering a range of governance and other issues that can benefit the diplomat’s techniques and mindset. In cyberspace, as with climate change, the skills and mindset needed to construct and sustain multilevel and heterogeneous types of coalitions are diplomatic. Building such coalitions is also important for cybersecurity. In this context, companies can strengthen technical cybersecurity by developing broader, more forward-focused diplomatic strategies, identifying and deterring potential hackers, encouraging cooperation between governments, companies and other key stakeholders, and persuading the public (Riordan, 2016).

Cyber diplomacy requires communication and dialogue between state and non-state actors. Cyber diplomacy addresses issues such as the prevention of a cyber arms race, the development of global norms, and the promotion of national interests in cyberspace through cybersecurity policies and participation strategies. However, it focuses on the changing role of diplomats and the reorganization of various foreign ministries and ministries in response to the growing importance of cybersecurity in foreign policy or the role of new technologies in diplomacy processes and structures. Manatan states that cyber diplomacy is informed by the multiple dimensions of soft power and is considered an effective solution in reducing the eruption of major political or economic uncertainties, risks and potential conflicts arising from cyberspace. The key elements in the cyber diplomacy kit are cyber capacity building, confidence building measures and the development of cyber norms (Manantan, 2021).

Crises are sudden challenges that states and organizations have to deal with. Crises endanger the management and functioning of countries and organizations. In order to minimize the damage of the crisis, it is necessary to eliminate the factors that may cause the crisis before the crisis occurs. Today, states and companies are faced with crises in cyberspace. Because strategic competition is increasing in cyberspace and various cyberattacks are organized in order to gain an advantage in this environment. For example, the possibility of a hacking attack at any moment is clearly evident. In this context, countries and organizations need to make effective crisis management for cyberspace.

Cyber crises endanger systems by growing rapidly on an international or global scale beyond the control of states and organizations. For this reason, the primary task of cyber diplomacy is actually crisis management. Cyber diplomacy should consider the crisis caused by cyberattacks as a whole and try to minimize the impact of the crisis. For this, cyber diplomacy must first work to eliminate the factors that led to the crisis. Eliminating these factors requires expertise, resources and infrastructure in the cyber field. For this reason, teams of experts on the subject should be formed in cyber diplomacy, necessary resources should be provided and infrastructure should be strengthened. Cyberspace-related security policies should be established and a multi-stakeholder cyber diplomacy process should be initiated. Thus, a way of dialogue should be opened and harmful behaviors should be prevented by adopting a value-based approach. In particular, it is important for crisis management to take joint measures against cyberattacks of countries against each other. In this context, alliances should be formed with the cooperation of international organizations against the parties or countries that show aggression in the cyber field.

Cyberspace capability can be expanded when security is backed by NATO, the EU, and a well-resourced diplomatic corps. The Estonian example has shown this. It is also noteworthy that NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCD COE) was built in 2008 in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. The CCD COE acts as a hub that produces lessons, hosts conferences and establishing an ecosystem for both NATO and non-NATO members such as Austria, Luxembourg and South Korea (White, 2019: 31).

It is very important to conduct diplomacy by considering the interests of a state in cyberspace. However, only some of the countries have placed cyber issues on their diplomatic agendas. Because, due to limited human and financial resources, the participation of developing countries and small states in cyber diplomacy is limited and at the same time renders these countries ineffective in the field of cyber diplomacy policy (Psaila, 2021: 5).

Due to the increasing number of countries acquiring offensive cyber capabilities, cyber diplomacy is needed to maintain dialogue between countries and to keep communication channels open even in times of crisis. It is also necessary to develop binding and non-binding norms for responsible government behavior in cyberspace and to address the most acute divergences between stakeholders in this field. This is possible through multilateral for a such as the GGE and OEWG, regional efforts and confidence-building measures such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and bilateral agreements such as the 2015 US-China Cyber Agreement (Barrinha & Renard, 2020). 

NATO and EU Cooperation

Cyberattacks by foreign actors (state and non-state) have increased, including state-sponsored attacks against both NATO and the EU Member States (Poptchev, 2020).

NATO-EU cooperation in cybersecurity and cyberdefense can be extremely beneficial to jointly address the common cyber issue in terms of both political and technological interests. Poptchev states that this would basically require two paths: “(1) tack-ling the cyber threat and related hybrid warfare effectively; and (2) engaging the rest of the world in regulating cyberspace, including related new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) and 5G”. Poptchev says that both "defensive" and "offensive" techniques and procedures are necessary to solve the first problem. These techniques and procedures are stated as ‘capabilities to monitor, detect, analyse and manage big data, including through cross-border ex-change, access to deep knowledge and a productive relationship with industry, academia and social media companies. In this context, an ally and partner format involving many countries is essential for exchange and cooperation. The second path requires multilateral communication and diplomacy in the face of ambitious competitors and adversaries operating in cyberspace, equally dependent on the exchange of science and technology and international trade. For this reason, cooperation between many countries is also appropriate for the second way. The Euro-Atlantic community of nations including partners around the world can be an influential force that can shape the outcome in any global forum tasked with advancing cyberspace rules (Poptchev, 2020: 36).

NATO leads important cooperations in the provision of cybersecurity. That’s because NATO and its Allies are developing strong and resilient cyber defenses to fulfill the Alliance’s core tasks of collective defence, crisis management and collaborative security. Cyber threats challenge state and organizational boundaries. For this reason, NATO engages with a number of partner countries and other international organizations to enhance international security. NATO works with the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). One of the strengthened areas of cooperation between NATO and the EU is cyber defense. Both organizations are making a coordinated effort against hybrid threats. NATO and the EU are sharing knowledge and exchanging best practices between cyber crisis response teams. In addition, cooperation is being developed between NATO and the EU on training, research and exercises that have tangible results in the fight against cyber threats (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2021).

Discussion and Conclusion

Cyber diplomacy must be continued uninterruptedly for crisis management in cyberspace. For this, states, companies, international organizations and NGOs must work together. Many activities that take place in the physical environment today will move to cyberspace in the near future. For this reason, regulation of cyber space, increasing the knowledge of experts on cybersecurity and strengthening the technical infrastructure are also necessary for strengthening cyber diplomacy. Cyber diplomacy is a team effort and requires combining specialized knowledge in the cyber field with diplomatic knowledge and practice.

  

References

 

Attatfa, Amel, Karen Renaud, Stefano De Paoli (2020): “Cyber Diplomacy: A Systematic Literature Review”, 24th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems, Procedia Computer Science, 176 (2020), 60-69.

Barrinha, Andre, Thomas Renard (2020): “The Emergence of Cyber Diplomacy in an Increasingly Post-Liberal Cyberspace”, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), June 10, 2020,  https://www.cfr.org/blog/emergence-cyber-diplomacy-increasingly-post-liberal-cyberspace.

Goldman, Emily O. (2020): “From Reaction to Action: Adopting a Competitive Posture in Cyber Diplomacy”, Texas National Security Review, Volume 3, Issue 4 (Fall 2020), 84-101.

Goldman, Emily O. (2021): “Cyber Diplomacy for Strategic Competition”, The Foreign Service Journal, June 2021, American Foreign Service Association, https://afsa.org/cyber-diplomacy-strategic-competition.

Jaiman, Ashish (2021): “Disinformation is a cybersecurity threat”, The Hindu, Februrary 11, 2021, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/disinformation-is-a-cybersecurity-threat/article33804285.ece.

Manantan, Mark Bryan F. (2021) “Advancing cyber diplomacy in the Asia Pacific: Japan and Australia”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 75:4, 432-459, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2021.1926423.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (2020): NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (English and French) AAP-06 Edition 2020, NATO Standardization Office (NSO),  https://standard.di.mod.bg.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (2021): “Cyber Defense,” Updated 02 Jul. 2021, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm.

Ottis, Rain, Peeter Lorents (2010): “Cyberspace: Definition and Implications”, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Warfare and Security, Dayton, OH, US, 8-9 April, Reading: Academic Publishing Limited, 267-270.

Poptchev, Peter (2020): “NATO-EU Cooperation in Cybersecurity and Cyber Defence Offers Unrivalled Advantages”, Information & Security, Vol. 45 (2020), 35-55, https://doi.org/10.11610/isij.4503.

Psaila, Stephanie Borg (2021): “Improving the practice of cyber diplomacy: Training, tools, and other resources - Phase I”, DiploFoundation, September 2021,

https://www.diplomacy.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cyber-diplomacy-study-Diplo-Phase-I.pdf.

Riordan, Shaun (2016): “Cyber Diplomacy vs. Digital Diplomacy: A Terminological Distinction”, USC CPD Blog, May 12, 2016, https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/cyber-diplomacy-vs-digital-diplomacy-terminological-distinction.

Riordan, Shaun (2019): “Cyber-diplomacy: Why Diplomats Need to Get into Cyberspace”, Public Diplomacy Magazine: Cyber Diplomacy, Issue 22 Winter 2019, University of Southern California, 9-10, publicdiplomacymagazine.com.

Vignati, Luca, Euan Scott, Krastina Razheva, Jorida Vela (2021): Defending The EU Against Cyber Operations Mechanisms, Challenges And Cooperation With NATO, Finabel, European Army Interoperability Centre, 3 November 2021,   

https://finabel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/34.-Defending-The-Eu-Against-Cyber-Operations-Mechanisms-Challenges-And-Cooperation-With-Nato-1.pdf

White, Daniel E. (2019): “Estonian Leadership in the Cyber Realm”, Public Diplomacy Magazine: Cyber Diplomacy, Issue 22 Winter 2019, University of Southern California, 31-32, publicdiplomacymagazine.com.

Wigmore, Ivy (2017): “Cognitive Hacking”, TechTarget, WhatIs.com?, Updated in August 2017,    https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/cognitive-hacking.

 

 

Space Diplomacy: From Space Race to Space Cooperation

Dr. ASLI VAROL

During the Cold War Period, the space race between the USA and the Soviet Union was the most important indicator of the political and technological rivalry of these two countries. After the end of the Cold War era, a new era began in which private companies also took part as non-state actors in the space race. Space studies have become an area of reputation, trade and strategic power for countries and companies in the context of both military and civilian purposes. Therefore, space diplomacy is also rising as a growing field of science diplomacy.

Many countries, especially the USA, Russia and China, are working on space exploration. Especially recently, the planet Mars has become a popular area for space exploration. As it is known, the US reconnaissance vehicle Perseverance was launched from the US Cape Canaveral Space Station in Florida on June 30, 2020 and managed to land on the surface of Mars on February 20. The satellite, developed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and called “Hope”, was launched from Japan in July 2020 and reached Mars’ orbit on February 9. The United Arab Emirates has also announced that it has started to prepare a new space program for discoveries on Venus and 7 planets after Mars.

International Efforts in Space Diplomacy: United Nations and Europe

The UN’s decision to establish the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) in 1958 is considered the beginning of space diplomacy (Polkowska, 2020: 122). The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) was established in 1959 and became a standing committee in 1962. The Committee was established to oversee the exploration and use of space for the peace, security and development for the benefit of all humanity. The Committee is tasked with reviewing international cooperation in the peaceful uses of space, examining space-related activities that can be undertaken by the United Nations, promoting space exploration programs, and examining legal issues arising from space exploration. It has two subcommittees, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC) and the Legal Subcommittee (LSC), both of which were established in 1961 (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html).

The European Space Agency (ESA) was established in 1975 for the peaceful exploration and use of space for the benefit of all. European Space Agency, with its 22 Member States, supports Europe’s scientific and industrial interests in space. ESA operates in all aspects of the space industry and brings its benefits to both people and businesses in everyday life. Its Member States work together, sharing financial and scientific resources to achieve the best results. ESA also provides independent access to space for scientific and commercial missions through Europe’s Spaceport in Kourou (European Space Agency, 2021).

Consensus Building for the Peaceful Use of Space

Space diplomacy, as a new type of diplomacy, is responsible for the control of arms and the maintenance of “peaceful uses of space” (Polkowska, 2020). However, space diplomacy also should play a role in building global support for the promotion and dissemination of space studies. Space diplomacy should seek ways to cooperate in science and technology rather than aggressive space competition. By means of space diplomacy, space competition should be prevented from harming space and space should be protected. Space diplomacy should encourage the peaceful use of space and ensure consensus on this issue.

Space diplomacy is an important element of security and development for the international community. Space diplomacy is a type of diplomacy that can transform the various interests of countries in space into cooperation and implement practical initiatives for the benefit of all countries concerned (Polkowska, 2020: 123). Space is open to all countries. In other words, space does not belong to anyone. Everyone has the right to use space. Therefore, it is necessary to make laws that contain more concrete principles and sanctions regarding space. For this reason, lobbying and negotiations for space law within the scope of space diplomacy should be reinforced.

Space technologies play an important role in monitoring climate change on the earth. It is stated that the peaceful use of space contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The report, jointly prepared by the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and the European GNSS Agency (GSA), explains how European Union space technologies support the SDGs (United Nations, 2018).

As it is known, during the Cold War Period, space weapons were produced for military purposes. It is stated that the production of space weapons still continues today. Therefore, space diplomacy should emphasize the termination of production and testing of space weapons with the participation of military and civilian experts. In addition, the existence of spy satellites sent to space for military or intelligence purposes is another critical issue for countries.

In general terms, international cooperation in space has had an impact on disaster management as well as scientific research. Initiatives such as the International Charter Space and Major Disasters demonstrate the concrete effects of space-based technology on the ground across the world. Similarly, cooperation between China and other space agencies, such as the European Space Agency, has been successful in the field of earth observation (Gadd, 2021).

US-Russia Space Cooperation

Although the space relations between the two superpowers of the Cold War period, the USA and Russia, have been strained in recent years, continue on a cooperative basis. It has been known since the Cold War Era that Russia was working on weapons to protect military space stations. It is seen as a worrying situation that Russia not only produces space weapons, but also aims to send these weapons into space. In 2020, the United States and the UK claimed that Russia was conducting test studies of space weapons through satellite systems in space. In response, Russia has stated that these allegations are part of an information war aimed at discrediting Russia's peaceful attempts to prevent space activities and an arms race in space. In this process, it is also noteworthy in terms of space diplomacy that UK called on Russia to cooperate in the field of space technology. In addition, Russia invites the USA and the UK to negotiate in the field of space. Therefore, countries should participate in the space diplomacy process in order to eliminate the tension between them.

On the other hand, Russia is also expanding space cooperation with the United States. It is known that the space cooperation agreement signed between Russia and the USA in 1992 has been renewed four times so far. Finally, it is stated that Russia has extended this cooperation agreement in space with the USA until the end of December 2030. In addition, Russia announced in 2021 that it approved the proposal for expanded cooperation on the exploration and use of the universe for peaceful purposes.

When the US continuing cooperation with Russia, it is thought that the fear of losing the leadership position of the USA is behind the policy of excluding China. The United States is a leader in space spending and scientific research. In this sense, cooperation with Russia is also an important facilitating factor (Gadd, 2021). This is an important step in space diplomacy. Today, space diplomacy should be carried out on the activities promoting cooperation in space. The way to avoid conflicts in space and to prevent threatening world security is through the cooperation of states and non-state actors to benefit from space as stakeholders of our planet.

Space diplomacy shows that despite the tense bilateral relations between the USA and Russia, the two countries can cooperate in certain areas. In other words, after the space race between the USA and Russia, the era of cooperation has opened (Gadd, 2021).

China’s Space Diplomacy

In space competition, it is understood that China wants to increase its power with space diplomacy as well as its technological and military activities. China also has ambition to achieve global leadership in the space field.

Experts say that China is expanding its space program to other countries in a way that isolates its superpower rival, the United States, in the world. Shenzhou-13, which carries out Beijing's international space diplomacy plans, was launched on October 16, 2021 with a team of three people at the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center. Beijing-based news site China Daily said the space station would be a “platform for deeper international cooperation” and a “welcome” to foreign astronauts. According to experts, China’s outreach to space technologies to other countries has gone beyond country PR. China is building high-end satellites for developing countries and sharing satellite data to aid relief efforts after natural disasters. As of 2008, China has signed space-related cooperation agreements with Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine and the European Commission, NASA said. Last year, Chinese ally Pakistan became the first full military partner to qualify to use Beijing's BeiDou navigation satellite (Jennings, 2021).

Space diplomacy for Mars has been initiated between the USA and China. Because China has made contacts with NASA for the flight safety of the Tienvin-1 spacecraft sent to Mars. The China National Space Administration (CNSA) has confirmed that it has exchanged views with NASA on the flight safety of spacecraft. However, China’s space diplomacy is not limited to the USA, it is seen that space diplomacy was carried out between Latin American countries and China before the meetings with NASA. China established a satellite ground station in Patagonia, signed a satellite agreement with Bolivia, and developed close relations with Venezuela on space issues.

Conclusion

The militarization of space, telecommunications, the production and testing of space weapons, the protection of space, the security and defense purposes of countries in space, space exploration, the use of satellites, the commercialization of space are the leading issues in space diplomacy. Through space diplomacy, countries should strive to reach consensus on these issues. In this sense, cooperation and coordination between national and international space agencies should be ensured, states and private companies working on space technologies should use their expertise for the benefit of all humanity. States, governments, private companies and scientists and all other relevant stakeholders should participate in space diplomacy. In other words, space diplomacy should not be seen only as a field monopolized by states. In this context, multilateral relations should be preferred instead of bilateral relations in space diplomacy. Because solving the problems on space and reaching an agreement will only be possible with the participation of all actors.

 

 

References 

European Space Agency (ESA) (2021): “This is ESA”, An ESA Production, https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/corporate/This_is_ESA_EN_LR.pdf. 

Gadd, Adam (2021): “The US Cooperates With Russia in Space. Why Not China?”, The Diplomat, September 30, 2021, https://thediplomat.com/2021/09/the-us-cooperates-with-russia-in-space-why-not-china/. 

Jennings, Ralph (2021): “In China-US Space Race, Beijing Uses Space Diplomacy, Voice of America, October 25, 2021,

https://www.voanews.com/a/in-china-us-space-race-beijing-uses-space-diplomacy/6284826.html#:~:text=As%20of%202008%2C%20China%20has,use%20Beijing's%20BeiDou%20navigation%20satellite.

Polkowska, Małgorzata (2020): “Space Diplomacy – Future Perspective”, Humanities and Social Sciences, July-September, vol. XXV, 27 (3/2020), 121-128.

United Nations (2018): “European Global Navigation Satellite System and Copernicus: supporting the Sustainable Development Goals - building blocks towards the 2030 Agenda”, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, Vienna, ST/SPACE/71, https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2018/stspace/stspace71_0_html/st_space_71E.pdf.

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html [Access: 27.11.2021].