Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 70
2021
Recibido el 05/05/2021 Aceptado el 20/08/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 70 (2021), 250-269
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
The stability of State information in
the face of terrorist threats
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3970.16
Yuriy M. Bidzilya *
Yevhen O. Solomin **
Halyna V. Shapovalova ***
Viktoriia V. Georgiievska ****
Nataliya M. Poplavska *****
Abstract
The objective of the study is to identify the key factors of the
stability of state information in the face of terrorist threats based
on the review of existing research in this area, and to identify the
main approaches to ensure the stability of state information in
the face of terrorist threats. Based on the analysis of scientic
works, the factors of the state’s resistance to cyberterrorism are
identied and the main approaches are organized to ensure the
stability of state information in the face of terrorist threats. The results of
the study provide an understanding of the key factors needed to achieve the
legal, technical, organizational, and operational areas of state resilience to
cyber threats. Further research may aim to perform empirical calculations
of indicators from around the world to determine certain dependencies in
the eld of cybersecurity. It is concluded that factors such as the growing
impact of information and communication technologies on public relations,
production activities, the operation of infrastructure facilities and the
activities of public authorities, indicate that the issue of security as a line of
scientic research is urgent.
Keywords: information stability; state; cyberterrorism; cybersecurity;
threats.
* Doctor of Social Communications, Associate Professor, Professor, Head of the Department of Journalism, Faculty
of Philology, Uzhhorod National University, Uzhhorod, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5134-
3239. Email: bidziljau@gmail.com
** PhD in Social Communications, Associate Professor of the Department of Journalism, Faculty of Philology,
Uzhhorod National University, Uzhhorod, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6770-5505. Email:
yevgensolomin@uzhnu.edu.ua
*** PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Journalism, Faculty of Philology, Uzhhorod National
University, Uzhhorod, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8935-5673. Email: shapovalova@
gmail.com
**** Doctor of Social Communications, Associate Professor, Professor of Department of Journalism and New Media,
Institute of Journalism, Borys Hrynchenko Kiev University, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-5848-957X. Email: wiolettawwwww@gmail.com
***** Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of Department of Journalism, Faculty of Philology and Journalism,
Volodymyr Hnatiuk Ternopil National Pedagogical University, Ternopil, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0003-1100-5002. Email: nataliazai50@gmail.com
251
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
La estabilidad de la información del Estado frente a las
amenazas terroristas
Resumen
El objetivo del estudio es identicar los factores clave de la estabilidad de
la información del estado frente a las amenazas terroristas basándose en la
revisión de la investigación existente en esta área, e identicar los principales
enfoques para garantizar la estabilidad de la información del estado frente
a las amenazas terroristas. Con base en el análisis de trabajos cientícos,
se identican los factores de la resistencia del estado al ciberterrorismo y
se organizan los principales enfoques para garantizar la estabilidad de la
información del estado ante amenazas terroristas. Los resultados del estudio
proporcionan una comprensión de los factores clave necesarios para lograr
las áreas: legales, técnica, organizacional y operativa de la resiliencia del
estado a las amenazas cibernéticas. La investigación adicional puede tener
como objetivo realizar cálculos empíricos de indicadores de todo el mundo
para determinar ciertas dependencias en el campo de la ciberseguridad. Se
concluye que factores como el creciente impacto de las tecnologías de la
información y la comunicación en las relaciones públicas, las actividades
de producción, el funcionamiento de las instalaciones de infraestructura y
las actividades de las autoridades públicas, indican que urge el tema de la
seguridad como línea de investigación cientíca.
Palabras claves: estabilidad de la información; estado; ciberterrorismo;
ciberseguridad; amenazas.
Introduction
The threats that pose both local and global dangers are growing with
the development of information and communication technologies (ICTs),
their spread and penetration into virtually all spheres of human activity.
Information and communication technologies allow access to information,
doing business, developing and maintaining professional and personal
communication, as well as involving public authorities and expanding
governance. Cyberspace and ICT provide huge growth potential at virtually
every level (United Nations, 2017), which requires the state to provide a clear
vision of threats and coordinated action to implement security functions
(Kruhlov et al., 2020). The growing number of users, the operation of
critical infrastructure systems based on digital software involves incidents
of external unauthorised interference with the aim of committing crimes,
attacks, fraud and terrorist acts. Today’s scale of negative impact on
security systems has reached the international level, when terrorist attacks
and hybrid information warfare are realised through interventions in the
information infrastructure.
252
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
Because the cyberspace environment is not limited by any regulatory
limits, clandestine cyber-attacks can be carried out by a person or group
of people at an incredible speed from a distance of thousands of miles
without signicant physical cost. The damage from such cyberattacks can
be as critical as from ordinary war. A terrorist organisation with limited
manpower and infrastructure can carry out cyber-attacks from anywhere,
causing signicant loss of infrastructure, nances or human life. In the
absence of a formal denition of a cyber-terrorist, countries use dierent
strategies to combat this phenomenon, but the very perception of the threat
of cyber-attack is fully understood by all countries in the world as regards
the possibility of causing signicant harm (Albahar, 2019).
The study (UNICRI, 2014) found that, although cyber threats consisted
mainly of viruses, Trojans, over time cybercriminals began to take advantage
of social engineering technologies, such as phishing, targeting employees
with direct access. to databases with condential information; credit card
fraud; special denial-of-service attacks; theft of public and private data.
The World Economic Forum estimates that cyber-attacks and cybersecurity
violations will be one of the most likely risks to humanity in the next ten
years (WEF, 2021).
The FBI said the nancial loss from cyberattacks in 2019 exceeded
$ 3.5 milliard, and the United States was not ready to defend itself
against cyberattacks. Following the 2020 coronavirus pandemic and the
implementation of large-scale remote operation plans, the threat of possible
attacks and crisis plans have become more dangerous. According to the
International Monetary Fund, the number of cyberattacks has increased
signicantly, with the largest number of victims being government agencies
and nancial services (IMF, 2020).
As cyberspace evolves rapidly, the cyber threats of the recent past have
also changed. Not only have they multiplied in terms of the means to
commit them, but they have also grown into cybercrime, cyberterrorism,
cyber espionage, and cyberwarfare (United Nations, 2017). At the same
time, the threat of terrorism is increasingly being considered as one of the
greatest threats to society, aecting the quality of life of people around the
world (Kumar et al., 2019). Terrorist acts can destabilise governments,
undermine civil society, threaten peace and security, threaten social and
economic development, and have a particularly negative impact on certain
groups (United Nations, 2008).
Cyberterrorism is dened as terrorism-related activities that can be
organised from anywhere in the world using a computer with a hidden
Internet Protocol address. Cyberterrorism involves the use of information
technology by terrorist groups or individuals to pursue their own goals, which
may include organising and carrying out attacks on networks, computer
systems and telecommunications infrastructures, as well as exchanging
253
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
information or creating threats electronically (Palasinski and Bowman-
Grieve, 2017). In the process of an act of cyberterrorism, a deliberate attack
or threat is made by private entities based on the use of cyberspace to
entail real consequences in order to cause fear, coercion to full social or
ideological goals. The consequences can be physical, psychosocial, political,
economic, environmental or other problems outside of cyberspace (Plotnek
and Slay, 2021).
Cyberterrorism actually uses modern technology to take advantage of
the strategic weaknesses of the system and use them to achieve their own
goals. Areas of illegal action may be: the use of the Internet for interaction
between terrorists; creating access to a variety of information stored on
the Internet, indicating possible purposes, as well as providing technical
details; use of the Internet to spread terrorist ideas and ideologies of a
terrorist organisation and to carry out terrorist attacks via the Internet.
Most terrorist groups use basic methods: electronic attack which blocks
computer systems; introduction of malware into computer systems and
information transmission channels; attack on computer networks using
malware and taking advantage of vulnerabilities in computer software in
order to steal some data or destroy them (Vilić, 2017).
Cyberterrorism usually involves illicit actions against computer systems,
computer networks, and the Internet using malware, viruses, and other
technologies to achieve their goals (United Nations, 2017; Backhaus et al.,
2020). Contemporary literature oers a conceptual explanation by placing
cyberterrorism in a typology of cybersecurity challenges (Veerasamy and
Grobler, 2015).
The risk of cyber-terrorist attacks on the country’s critical infrastructure
is extremely high. Due to their vulnerability and complexity, damage to the
country’s infrastructure can negatively aect the country’s development
(Dombe and Golandsky, 2016). A system of targeted cyber-terrorist attacks
can include a country’s critical infrastructure that creates problems in the
telecommunications system, transportation system, power grid system,
utility system, and other important systems needed to run the country. The
threat of cyber-terrorist attacks will continue to grow as people become
addicted to the Internet, increasing the potential for cyber-terrorist attacks.
The introduction of mechanisms of secure technologies, policies, actions of
law enforcement agencies allow the computer network and systems to be
less vulnerable and manage the risk of cyberterrorism, as each mechanism
has its own functions in this ght (Ponnusamy and Rubasundram, 2019).
Critical infrastructure refers to organisational and physical facilities
and structures that are vital to society and the economy, and failure or
degradation will lead to persistent service shortages, signicant public
safety breaches, or other negative consequences (Rass et al., 2020).
254
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
Considering cyberterrorism as illegal actions, causing harm, causing
damage and negative impact or violation of the integrity and eectiveness
(in some cases — destruction) of critical infrastructure, it can be determined
that the actions of the state and entities performing cybersecurity
functions should use a wider approach to issues of ensuring information
resilience to terrorist threats. The concept of cybersecurity should consider
cyberterrorism as one of the most dangerous crimes against individuals,
politicians, society, legal entities, information and physical objects and the
state. It follows that measures to ensure the information stability of the
state to the terrorist threat should include actions provided in the event of
the occurrence and detection of cyber fraud, cyber espionage, cybercrime,
cyber-attacks and other widespread cyber threats.
Cybersecurity is an important part of local governance based on reliable
information technology. Thus, well-dened key factors of information
stability of the state to terrorist threats should become an important
regulatory development, which can in some way adjust a separate vision
of cybersecurity policy and directions of both scientic and practical
developments in the eld of cybersecurity.
The aim of the study is to identify key factors of information stability of
the state to terrorist threats (resilience of the state to cyberterrorism) based
on the review of existing research in this area and identify key approaches
to ensuring information resilience of the state to terrorist threats. The main
research objectives are the following:
1. Develop methodological approaches to the search and identication
of modern research related to aspects of information stability of the
state to terrorist threats.
2. Identify key factors in the state’s resilience to cyberterrorism.
3. Arrange the identied factors and identify the main areas of
cybersecurity.
4. Compare the obtained results with the existing methodological
approaches of the world’s leading institutions on cybersecurity and
countering cyberterrorism to identify the reliability of the research
results.
5. Propose approaches that can ensure the information security of the
state from terrorist threats.
1. Methods
The methodological approach of the study is based on several stages.
From 2014 to 2021, the Scopus search was used to identify scientic
255
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
publications related to the information stability of the state to terrorist
threats. Applying the review method considered by previous researchers (Yi
and Chan, 2014; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2015; Darko and Chan, 2016; Yu et al.,
2018), scientic articles on the information stability of the state to terrorist
threats are reviewed in order to identify trends in the study of this topic and
consider key areas of research. The review method includes: selection of
journals (Social Sciences; Computer Science; Business, Management and
Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance); selection of relevant
articles; identication of factors that ensure the information stability of the
state to terrorist threats.
A visual examination of the titles, abstracts and keywords of the articles,
which explore the means of ensuring the information stability of the state
to cyberterrorist threats, helped to identify the necessary sources. The
selected articles identify the key factors of information stability of the state
to terrorist threats and provide the classications. When choosing the key
factors, the condition of their research was taken into account in at least
two articles for a certain period of time. Suggestions and conclusions are
drawn based on the obtained data.
The search in the Scopus database according to the established
restrictions found 389 articles. Visual examination of the titles, abstracts
and keywords of the articles, which explore the means of ensuring the
information stability of the state to cyberterrorist threats, identied 40
articles for further analysis. Although the sample size is small, it may be
sucient for further analysis and can be considered satisfactory for drawing
conclusions.
2. Results
As a result, selected 40 articles published in 26 scientic journals were
reviewed to identify key factors in the information resilience of the state
to terrorist threats. Table 1 summarises the results of the analysis of key
factors of information protection of the state, which are published in 26
scientic journals.
256
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
Table 1. The results of the analysis of identifying key factors of
information resilience of the state to terrorist threats
No
Factors
that ensure
information
stability
Publications
Number of
publications
1
Detection of
network intrusions
and attacks
(Quincozes et al., 2021), (Kannari et
al., 2021) (Binbusayyis and Vaiyapuri,
2021). (Moraboena et al., 2020), (Thapa
et al., 2020), (Tian et al., 2020), (Handa
et al., 2019), (Camacho et al., 2019),
(Bhamare et al., 2020), (Jamei et al.,
2016), (Taha et al., 2018), (Adhikari et
al., 2016), (Rehman et al., 2021).
14
2
Application of
international
law and legal
regulation
(Branch, 2020), (Kulesza and Weber,
2021), (Sturc et al., 2020), (Carvalho et
al., 2020), (Markopoulou et al., 2019),
(Park et al., 2018), (Kulesza and Weber,
2021).
7
3
Detection of
current threats,
data anomalies
and malware
(Cascavilla et al., 2021), (Sadik et al.,
2020), (Lee and Lim, 2016), (Gonzalez-
Granadillo et al., 2018), (Catak et al.,
2021), (Jagtap et al., 2021), (Ma et al.,
2021).
7
4
Cyber intelligence
and cyber
deterrence
(Yau, 2020), (Wilner, 2017), (Nespoli et
al. 2021), (Gourisetti et al., 2020).
5
5
Interstate
cooperation
(Lee and Lim, 2016), (Cho and Chung,
2017), (Górka, 2018).
3
6
Cybersecurity
certication
(Neisse et al., 2020), (Hernandez-
Ramos et al., 2021).
2
7 Cyber insurance (Herr, 2021), (Lau et al., 2020). 2
8
Standardisation of
countermeasures
and use of
cybersecurity
standards
(Nespoli et al., 2021), (Syafrizal et al.,
2020).
2
9
Threat simulation
and risk
assessment
(Välja et al., 2020), (Cascavilla et al.,
2021).
2
10 Digital forensics (Lee and Lim, 2016), (Alharbe, 2020). 2
Source: own elaboration.
257
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
The above 10 key factors of information stability of the state to terrorist
threats are further analysed and classied into dierent areas of approaches
to cybersecurity. Based on the analysis, the identied factors were arranged
and three key areas of approaches to cybersecurity were identied, taking
into account the tools studied above, which provide information stability
(Table 2). As cybersecurity has a wide scope, covering many industries
and dierent sectors, level of development or opportunities, it should
be noted that mainly approaches to ensuring information stability of the
state to terrorist threats are focused on legal, technical, organisational and
operational areas.
Table 2. Analysis of key areas of approaches to information
stability of the state to terrorist threats
Key areas of approaches to
cybersecurity
Factors that ensure information
stability
Legal area Application of international law
and legal regulation.
Interstate cooperation.
Cybersecurity certication.
Cyber insurance.
Technical area Detection of network intrusions
and attacks.
Detection of current threats, data
anomalies and malware.
Standardisation of countermeasures
and use of cybersecurity standards.
Organisational and operational
area
Cyber intelligence and cyber
deterrence (reduction of danger
and vulnerability).
Threat simulation and risk
assessment.
Digital forensics.
Source: own elaboration.
According to the analysis, it is necessary to dwell on individual provisions
that dene the established limitations in the study.
258
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
3. Discussion
Thus, after reviewing and analysing the factors of information resilience
of the state to terrorist threats, 40 articles were identied from 26 journals
that explored various issues related to cybersecurity and cyberterrorism.
The review identied 10 key factors in the state’s information resilience
to terrorist threats. The most widely studied factors were: “detection of
network intrusions and attacks”, “application of international law and legal
regulation” and “detection of current threats, data anomalies and malware”.
These 10 factors of information stability of the state to terrorist threats were
used to develop a generalised approach to determining the legal, technical,
organizational and operational areas used in ensuring the resilience of the
state to cyberterrorism.
As noted, the search for scientic sources established limits on the time
period of the sample. We believe that the found studies for 2014-2021 more
relevantly reect the approaches used to ensure the information stability of
the state to terrorist threats. However, a wider period of time would allow
identifying additional approaches that are not considered in this study.
The use of the Scopus search was substantiated as follows: most scientic
publications in the elds of management, accounting, engineering,
business and social sciences have been archived in this database (Hong and
Chan, 2014). However, the research does not take into account the articles
indexed in the Web of Science database, which probably reduces the
number of studies addressing the issue of state resilience to cyberterrorist
threats. Another feature is the limitation of the number of key factors by
the presence of two or more publications where certain factors have been
studied. In our opinion, this demonstrates more relevant and interesting
areas of research on the state’s resilience to cyberterrorist threats.
The current approaches reected in the study seek new levels of
countering cyberattacks, especially when related to government facilities
and critical infrastructure, namely power system security, industrial
management systems (Handa et al., 2019). Other areas of the ght
against cyberterrorism may be: risk, threat and vulnerability assessment;
emergency response plan; assessment of security procedures; intelligence
data collection; partnership with special rapid response services.
Information security issues are constantly on the agenda in the
EU, as member states need strong cybersecurity for their markets,
signicant progress in countries’ technological capabilities and a broader
understanding of everyone’s role in countering cyber threats. In response,
new initiatives are proposed in three key areas: strengthening resilience to
cyber-attacks and strengthening the EU’s cybersecurity capacity; creating
an eective criminal law response; strengthening global stability through
international cooperation (Carvalho et al., 2020).
259
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
From the point of view of the consequences of measures aimed at
ensuring the information stability of the state to terrorist threats, the issue
of determining the level of prevention of cyber threats in dierent countries
is methodologically considered by individual research institutions. The
E-Governance Academy (eGA), established as a joint initiative of the
Estonian government, the Open Society Institute (OSI) and the United
Nations Development Programmes, has developed its own methodology
for determining the National Cyber Security Index (NCSI). The National
Cyber Security Index is a global index that measures countries’ readiness to
prevent cyber threats and manage cyber incidents. NCSI is also a database
with publicly available evidence and tools to build national cybersecurity
capacity. NCSI focuses on measurable aspects of cybersecurity implemented
by the state: current legislation (legal acts, regulations, orders); provided
administrative structures (existing organisations, departments); formats of
cooperation (committees, working groups); results (policies, technologies,
websites, programmes) (EGA, 2021b).
Analysing the indicators of the National Cyber Security Index of 100
countries in 2018 and 2021, we can see that the vast majority of studied
countries have improved their Cyber Security Index (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Diagram of the progress of individual countries in the
world according to the National Cyber Security Index, 2018-
2021 (EGA, 2018; EGA, 2021a)
260
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
The readiness of the potential to ght cybercrime is assessed by the
following dimensions: political framework; legal framework; criminal law;
electronic evidence; jurisdiction; guarantees; international cooperation;
capacity building (United Nations, 2017). Another approach to determining
the level of cybersecurity in the country is the Global Cybersecurity Index
(GCI). International cooperation of many stakeholders in the eld of
cybersecurity at the initiative of the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) focuses on the following aspects: legal (legislation, regulation,
measures based on the legal institutions and entities in the eld of
cybersecurity and cybercrime); technical (technical mechanisms and
capabilities, measures based on the institutions and response entities in the
eld of cybersecurity); organisational (national cybersecurity development
strategies, cybersecurity indicators, policy coordination institutions and
cybersecurity development strategies); capacity building (standards of
certication and accreditation of cybersecurity specialists and public sector
institutions, public information, research and development, educational and
training programmes); cooperation (existence of partnerships, cooperation
frameworks and information exchange networks, multilateral agreements,
participation in international forums). These identied aspects form the
basis of the indicators for the Global Cyber Security Index, as they are an
integral part of the national cyber security culture (ITU, 2019).
Thus, in addition to traditional methods of action through policies,
laws and institutions, governments must also seek additional resources,
including consumer information and private sector involvement. The state
constantly faces with the problem of ensuring international compatibility.
Issues of jurisdiction and international cooperation pose signicant
diculties for the investigation and prosecution of multinational
cybercrime cases. Moreover, the challenges of some states operating within
an insuciently specic cybercrime legal framework often hinder the ght
against transnational acts (United Nations, 2017).
Strategic autonomy in the age of digital technologies allows the EU
countries to maintain their independence and authority. The Strategy Paper
of the European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC) denes three dimensions
of digital sovereignty: industrial, operational and political (EPSC, 2019).
Industrial dimension requires meeting digital needs (use of digital
technologies to ensure the resilience of infrastructure to cyberattacks).
The operational aspect is related to the sustainability of the European
communication infrastructure, as well as information and communication
technology (ICT) systems. The political dimension determines the impact
on norms and standards of information technology and the ability to dene
one’s actions and norms (Debar et al., 2021).
The institutional approach envisages the creation and eective
functioning of bodies that shape cybersecurity policy and are at the forefront
261
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
of the ght against cybercrime. One such institution is the European Union
Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), which is the most
important institution in the European Union in the eld of network and
information security, being part of the European cyber security strategy.
ENISA was set up to promote better cooperation between the authorities of
dierent Member States. ENISA’s role is to establish a high level of network
and data security in the European Union, to warn citizens about the risks
and to promote a safety culture on the Internet for the benet of citizens,
consumers, businesses and public authorities. ENISA’s responsibilities are
to support the development of European Union policies and regulations in
the eld of network and data security; supporting the development of new
solutions in the digital world; cooperation between competent authorities
and other interested institutions; support for research, development and
standardisation; cooperation with EU bodies and organisations, including
those responsible for protection against high-tech crimes, condentiality
and data protection; working with international organisations to promote
international cooperation in the eld of network and data security (Carvalho
et al., 2020). ENISA identies data security, robust software platforms,
cyber threat management and response, robust hardware platforms, user-
oriented cryptography and security tools, and digital communications
security as cybersecurity research priorities as (Debar et al., 2021).
As we can see, the approach used in identifying key factors of information
stability of the state to terrorist threats identied the main directions
in research on the state’s resilience to cyberterrorism: legal, technical,
organisational and operational areas. Emphasising the need to further
expand the time limits in the study and the use of various scientometric
databases, it should be noted that institutions that analyse and ensure
cybersecurity around the world mainly focus on legal aspects, technical
approaches, organisational and operational areas. This supports the
correctness of the methodological approach, as well as the generalisations
and conclusions made.
The results of the study allow determining the need to implement
approaches that can ensure the information security of the state from
terrorist threats. Information protection should be based on the constant
study of cyber threats, their evolution, the emergence of vulnerable
elements; study of modern changes and monitoring of cyberterrorism
technologies; dening goals and priorities of information stability; actions
to prevent and respond to unauthorised intrusions and attacks; outsourcing
of individual functions; checking the eectiveness of actions related to
ensuring information stability.
One of the eective ways to implement cybersecurity should be the use
of public-private partnerships, which will attract private businesses that
use elements of critical infrastructure; server equipment manufacturers,
262
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
software developers. The use of public-private partnership in approaches to
protection against cyberterrorism will strengthen the functions of control,
coordination and motivation to ensure the information stability of the state.
The studied range of issues should include strategic approaches to
the implementation of state programmes to strengthen cyber resilience,
establishment of the necessary sectoral institutions, the development of
procedures and processes, improving the management of intelligence
activities. Separate objectives of further development of the information
stability of the state to terrorist threats are the improvement of legislation in
the eld of cyber defence and cybercrime, protection of critical infrastructure;
ensuring standardisation and certication; regulation of technical safety
and data processing; expansion of international cooperation; increasing
technical support and attracting qualied specialists. The formation of the
state’s capabilities in the eld of cybersecurity involves the implementation
of priority projects, strategy development in the eld of critical infrastructure
protection, cooperation with partners.
Conclusion
The issue of factors of information stability of the state to terrorist
threats has become one of the most widely studied, given the penetration
of information and communication technologies in critical infrastructure,
public authorities, livelihoods, and signicant consequences of threats and
cyberattacks.
Given the wide scope of cybersecurity, the main approaches to ensuring
the information stability of the state to terrorist threats should identify
legal, technical, organisational and operational areas. The results allow
considering research and monitoring of cyberterrorism technologies;
outsourcing of individual functions; use of public-private partnership;
implementation of state programmes to strengthen cyber resilience;
expansion of international cooperation; technical support, etc. as
approaches to ensuring the information stability of the state to terrorist
threats.
The results of this study signicantly contribute to the existing approaches
to nding the state’s resilience to cyberterrorism and inform practitioners
about the key areas that need to be considered when developing national
cybersecurity policies. In addition, the results provide a deep understanding
of the key factors necessary to achieve the legal, technical, organisational
and operational areas of state resilience to cyber threats.
This study has some internal limitations that aect the generalisation of
the research results, namely: the approach to the number of works selected
263
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
for further analysis, which does not allow to cover individual research.
However, the results are useful for further research, as the aim was to
identify and summarise the existing key factors in current research that
are important in the cybersecurity system. Further research may accept a
certain list of factors of information stability of the state to terrorist threats
and make empirical calculations of indicators of dierent countries to
determine the existing dependencies in the eld of cybersecurity.
Bibliographic References
ADHIKARI, Uttam; MORRIS, Thomas; PAN, Shengyi. 2016. “Applying non-
nested generalized exemplars classication for cyber-power event and
intrusion detection” In: IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid. Vol. 9, No. 5,
pp. 3928-3941.
ALBAHAR, Marwan. 2019. “Cyber-attacks and terrorism: A twenty-rst century
conundrum” In: Science and engineering ethics. Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 993-
1006.
ALHARBE, Mahmood Abdulghani. 2020. “Cyber security, forensics and its
impact on future challenges in Saudi Arabia smart cities: Case study on
the modern, urban planning and design” In: International Journal of
Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering. Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp. 2464-2470.
BACKHAUS, Sophia; GROSS, Michael; WAISMEL-MANOR, Israel; COHEN,
Hagit; CANETTI, Daphna. 2020. “A cyberterrorism eect? Emotional
reactions to lethal attacks on critical infrastructure” In: Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking. Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 595-603.
BHAMARE, Deval; ZOLANVARI, Maede; ERBAD, Aiman; JAIN, Raj; KHAN,
Khaled; MESKIN, Nader. 2020. “Cybersecurity for industrial control
systems: A survey” In: Computers and Security. Vol. 89, Article 101677.
Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.101677. Date of
consultation: 14/09/2020.
BINBUSAYYIS, Adel; VAIYAPURI, Thavavel. 2021. “Unsupervised deep
learning approach for network intrusion detection combining
convolutional autoencoder and one-class SVM” In: Applied Intelligence.
Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 980-990.
BRANCH, Jordan. 2021. “What’s in a name? Metaphors and cybersecurity” In:
International Organization. Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 39-70.
264
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
CAMACHO, Jose; GARCÍA-GIMÉNEZ, Jose Manuel; FUENTES-GARCÍA,
Noemí Marta; MACIÁ-FERNÁNDEZ, Gabriel. 2019. “Multivariate big
data analysis for intrusion detection: 5 steps from the haystack to the
needle. In: Computers and Security. Vol. 87, Article 101603. Available
online. In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.101603. Date of
consultation: 14/09/2020.
CARVALHO, João Vidal; CARVALHO, Sandro; ROCHA, Álvaro. 2020.
“European strategy and legislation for cybersecurity: Implications for
Portugal” In: Cluster Computing. Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 1845-1854.
CASCAVILLA, Giuseppe; TAMBURRI, Damian; VAN DEN HEUVEL,
Willem. 2021. “Cybercrime threat intelligence: A systematic multi-vocal
literature review” In: Computers and Security. Vol. 105, Article 102258.
Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102258. Date
of consultation: 14/09/2020.
CATAK, Ferhat Ozgur; AHMED, Javed; SAHINBAS, Kevser; KHAND, Zahid
Hussain. 2021. “Data augmentation based malware detection using
convolutional neural networks” In: Peer J Computer Science. Vol. 7, pp.
1-26.
CHO, Yoonyoung; CHUNG, Jongpil. 2017. “Bring the state back in: Conict and
cooperation among states in cybersecurity” In: Pacic Focus. Vol. 32, No.
2, pp. 290-314.
DARKO, Amos; CHAN, Albert. 2016. “Critical analysis of green building
research trend in construction journals” In: Habitat International. Vol.
57, pp. 53-63.
DOMBE, Arur; GOLANDSKY, Youram. 2016. A Review and Analysis of the
World of Cyber Terrorism. Available online. In: https://cyberisk.biz/
cyber-terrorism-review-and-analysis/. Consultation date: 11/02/21.
EGA. 2018. National Cyber Security Index 2018. Tallinn: e-Governance Academy.
Available online. In: https://ega.ee/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/
ncsi_digital_smaller.pdf. Consultation date: 11/03/2021.
EGA. 2021a. NCSI: Compare. Tallinn: e-Governance Academy. Available
online. In: https://ncsi.ega.ee/compare/. Consultation date: 13/03/21.
EGA. 2021b. NCSI: Methodology. Tallinn: e-Governance Academy. Available
online. In: https://ncsi.ega.ee/methodology/. Consultation date:
13/03/2021.
DEBAR, Herve; DI FRANCO, Fabio; GRAMMATOPOULOS, Athanations;
MANTZOURANIS, Irene; MARKATOS, Evangelous. 2021. Cybersecurity
265
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
research directions for the EU’s digital strategic autonomy. ENISA.
Available online. In: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/
publication/30b09e02-a7cc-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
Consultation date: 11/03/2021.
EPSC. 2019. Rethinking strategic autonomy in the digital age. European Political
Strategy Centre, Strategic Notes, 30. Available online. In: https://
wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20191129072400/https://ec.europa.
eu/epsc/publications/strategic-notes/rethinking-strategic-autonomy-
digital-age_en. Consultation date: 11/03/2021.
GONZALEZ-GRANADILLO, Gustavo; DUBUS, Samuel; MOTZEK, Alexander;
GARCIA-ALFARO, Joaquin; ALVAREZ, Ender; MERIALDO, Matteo;
DEBAR, Herve. 2018. “Dynamic risk management response system to
handle cyber threats” In: Future Generation Computer Systems. Vol. 83,
pp. 535-552.
GÓRKA, Marek. 2018. “The Cybersecurity Strategy of the Visegrad Group
Countries” In: Politics in Central Europe. Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 75-98.
GOURISETTI, Sri Nikhil Gupta; MYLREA, Michael; PATANGIA, Hirak. 2020.
“Cybersecurity vulnerability mitigation framework through empirical
paradigm: Enhanced prioritized gap analysis” In: Future Generation
Computer Systems. Vol. 105, pp. 410-431.
HANDA, Anand; SHARMA, Ashu; SHUKLA, Sandeep. 2019. “Machine
learning in cybersecurity: A review” In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Vol. 9, No. 4. Available online.
In: https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1306. Consultation date: 11/03/2021.
HERNANDEZ-RAMOS, Jose; MATHEU, Sara; SKARMETA, Antonio. 2021.
“The challenges of software cybersecurity certication [Building Security
In]” In: IEEE Security & Privacy. Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 99-102.
HERR, Tobias. 2021. “Cyber insurance and private governance: The
enforcement power of markets” In: Regulation and Governance. Vol. 15,
No. 1, pp. 98-114.
HONG, Yuming; CHAN, Daniel. 2014. “Research trend of joint ventures in
construction: A two-decade taxonomic review” In: Journal of facilities
management. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 118-141.
IMF. 2020. Cyber Risk is the New Threat to Financial Stability. Available online.
In: https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/07/cyber-risk-is-the-new-threat-to-
nancial-stability/. Consultation date: 11/02/2021.
266
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
ITU. 2019. Global Cybersecurity Index 2018. Available online. In: https://
www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/str/D-STR-GCI.01-2018-PDF-E.pdf.
Consultation date: 11/03/2021.
JAGTAP, Sagar; SHANKAR, Sriram; SUBRAMANIYASWAMY, Vim. 2021. “A
hypergraph based Kohonen map for detecting intrusions over cyber-
physical systems trac” In: Future Generation Computer Systems. Vol.
119, pp. 84-109.
JAMEI, Mahdi; STEWART, Emma; PEISERT, Sean; SCAGLIONE, Anna;
MCPARLAND, Chuck; ROBERTS, Ciaran; MCEACHERN, Alex.
2016. “Micro synchrophasor-based intrusion detection in automated
distribution systems: Toward critical infrastructure security” In: IEEE
Internet Computing. Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 18-27.
KANNARI, Phanindra Reddy; SHARIFF, Noorullah; BIRADAR, Rajkumar.
2021. “Network intrusion detection using sparse autoencoder with
swish-PReLU activation model” In: Journal of Ambient Intelligence and
Humanized Computing. Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 3209 - 3212.
KRUHLOV, Vitalii; LATYNIN, Mykola; HORBAN, Alina; PETROV, Anton.
2020. “Public-private partnership in cybersecurity” In: CEUR Workshop
Proceedings. Vol. 2654, pp. 619-628.
KULESZA, Joanna; WEBER, Rolf. 2021. “Protecting the internet with
international law” In: Computer Law and Security Review. Vol. 40.
Available online. In: DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105531. Consultation date:
11/03/2021.
KUMAR, Vivek; MAZZARA, Manuel; MESSINA, Angelo; LEE, Joo. 2019. A
conjoint application of data mining techniques for analysis of global
terrorist attacks-prevention and prediction for combating terrorism.
Springer. Berlin, Germany.
LAU, Pikkin; WEI, Wei; WANG, Lingfeng; LIU, Zhaoxi; TEN, Chee. 2020. “A
cybersecurity insurance model for power system reliability considering
optimal defense resource allocation”. In: IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid. Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 4403-4414.
LEE, Kyungbok; LIM, Jong. 2016. “The reality and response of cyber threats to
critical infrastructure: A case study of the cyberterror attack on the Korea
Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd” In: KSII Transactions on Internet and
Information Systems. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 857-880.
MA, Qian; SUN, Cong; CUI, Baojiang; JIN, Xiaohui. 2021. “A novel model
for anomaly detection in network trac based on kernel support
vector machine” In: Computers and Security. Vol. 104, Article 102215.
267
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
Available online. In: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102215.
Consultation date: 11/03/2021.
MARKOPOULOU, Dimitra; PAPAKONSTANTINOU, Vagelis; DE HERT, Paul.
2019. “The new EU cybersecurity framework: The NIS directive, ENISA’s
role and the general data protection regulation” In: Computer Law and
Security Review. Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 123-136.
MORABOENA, Srikanthyadav; KETEPALLI, Gayatri; RAGAM, Padmaja.
2020. “A deep learning approach to network intrusion detection using
deep autoencoder” In: Revue d’Intelligence Articielle. Vol. 34, No. 4,
pp. 457-463.
NEISSE, Ricardo; HERNANDEZ-RAMOS, Jose Luis; MATHEU-GARCIA,
Sara Nieves; BALDINI, Gianmarco; SKARMETA, Antonio; SIRIS,
Vasilios; NIKANDER, Pekka. 2020. “An interledger blockchain platform
for cross-border management of cybersecurity information” In: IEEE
Internet Computing. Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 19-29.
NESPOLI, Pantaleone; GÓMEZ MÁRMOL, Felix; MAESTRE VIDAL, Jorge.
2021. “Battling against cyberattacks: Towards pre-standardization of
countermeasures” In: Cluster Computing. Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 57-81.
OSEI-KYEI, Robert; CHAN, Albert. 2015. “Review of studies on the critical
success factors for publiceprivate partnership (PPP) projects from 1990
to 2013” In: International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 33, No.
6, pp. 1335-1346.
PALASINSKI, Marek; BOWMAN-GRIEVE, Lorraine. 2017. “Tackling cyber-
terrorism: Balancing surveillance with counter-communication” In:
Security Journal. Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 556-568.
PARK, Sangdon; KIM, Il Hwan; KIM, Jaehyoun; LEE, Kyung Lyul. 2018. “The
diagnosis and prescription for cybersecurity in Korea: Focusing on policy
and system” In: KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems.
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 843-859.
PLOTNEK, Jordan; SLAY, Jill. 2021. “Cyber terrorism: A homogenized
taxonomy and denition” In: Computers & Security. Vol. 102,
Article 102145. Available online. In: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cose.2020.102145. Consultation date: 16/04/2021.
PONNUSAMY, Suhannia; RUBASUNDRAM, Geetha. 2019. “An international
study on the risk of cyber terrorism” In: International Journal of Recent
Technology and Engineering. Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 159-163.
268
Yuriy M. Bidzilya, Yevhen O. Solomin, Halyna V. Shapovalova, Viktoriia V. Georgiievska y
Nataliya M. Poplavska
The stability of State information in the face of terrorist threats
QUINCOZES, Silvio; ALBUQUERQUE, Celio; PASSOS, Diego; MOSSÉ, Daniel.
2021. “A survey on intrusion detection and prevention systems in digital
substations” In: Computer Networks. Vol. 184, Article 107679. Available
online. In: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107679.
Consultation date: 16/04/2021.
RASS, Stefan; SCHAUER, Stefan; KÖNIG, Sandra; ZHU, Quanyan. 2020.
Cyber-Security in Critical Infrastructures. Springer. Berlin, Germany.
REHMAN, Shaq; KHALIQ, Muhammad; IMTIAZ, Mulla; RASOOL, Asif;
SHAFIQ, Muhammad; JAVED, Zahira; BASHIR, Khalid. 2021.
“DIDDOS: An approach for detection and identication of distributed
denial of service (DDoS) cyberattacks using gated recurrent units (GRU)”
In: Future Generation Computer Systems. Vol. 118, pp. 453-466.
SADIK, Shahrin; AHMED, Mohiuddin; SIKOS, Leslie; NAJMUL, Islam. 2020.
“Toward a sustainable cybersecurity ecosystem” In: Computers. Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 1-17.
STURC, Boris; GUROVA, Tatyana; CHERNOV, Sergei. 2020. “The specics
and patterns of cybercrime in the eld of payment processing” In:
International Journal of Criminology and Sociology. Vol. 9, pp. 2021-
2030.
SYAFRIZAL, Melwin; SELAMAT, Rahayu; ZAKARIA, Nurul Azma. 2020.
“Analysis of cybersecurity standard and framework components” In:
International Journal of Communication Networks and Information
Security. Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 417-432.
TAHA, Ahmad; QI, Junjian; WANG, Jianhui; PANCHAL, Jitesh. 2018. “Risk
mitigation for dynamic state estimation against cyber-attacks and
unknown inputs” In: IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid. Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp. 886-899.
THAPA, Niraj; LIU, Zhipeng; GOKARAJU, Balakrishna; ROY, Kaushik. 2020.
“Comparison of machine learning and deep learning models for network
intrusion detection systems” In: Future Internet. Vol. 12, No. 10, pp. 1-16.
TIAN, Qiuting; HAN, Dezhi; LI, Kuan-Ching; LIU, Xingao; DUAN, Letian;
CASTIGLIONE, Arcangelo. 2020. “An intrusion detection approach
based on improved deep belief network” In: Applied Intelligence. Vol.
50, No. 10, pp. 3162-3178.
UNITED NATIONS. 2008. Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism.
Available online. In: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
Factsheet32EN.pdf. Consultation date: 14/02/2021.
269
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 250-269
UNITED NATIONS. 2017. Combatting Cybercrime: Tools and Capacity
Building for Emerging Economies. World Bank and United Nations.
Washington, DC, USA.
UNICRI. 2014. Cybercrime: Risks for the Economy and Enterprises at the EU
and Italian Level, Turin. Available online. In: http://www.unicri.it/
in_focus/les/Criminalita_informatica_inglese.pdf. Consultation date:
14/02/2021.
VÄLJA, Margus; HEIDING, Fredrik; FRANKE, Ulrik; LAGERSTRÖM, Robert.
2020. “Automating threat modelling using an ontology framework:
Validated with data from critical infrastructures” In: Cybersecurity. Vol.
3, No. 19, pp. 412-420.
VEERASAMY, Namosha; GROBLER, Marthie. 2015. “Logic tester for the
classication of cyberterrorism attacks” In: International Journal of
Cyber Warfare and Terrorism. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 30-46.
VILIĆ, Vida. 2017. “Dark web, cyber terrorism and cyber warfare: Dark side of
the cyberspace” In: Balkan Social Science Review. Vol. 10, No. 10, pp.
7-25.
WEF (World Economic Forum). 2021. The Global Risks Report 2021. Available
online. In: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-
report-2021. Consultation date: 11/02/2021.
WILNER, Alex. 2017. “Cyber deterrence and critical-infrastructure protection:
Expectation, application, and limitation” In: Comparative Strategy. Vol.
36, No. 4, pp. 309-318.
YAU, Hon-Min. 2020. “Evolving toward a balanced cyber strategy in East Asia:
Cyber deterrence or cooperation?” In: Issues & Studies. Vol. 56, No. 03,
pp. 23-39.
YI, Wen; CHAN, Albert. 2014. “Critical review of labor productivity research in
construction journals” In: Journal of Management in Engineering. Vol.
30, No. 2, pp. 214-225.
YU, Yao; OSEI-KYEI, Robert; CHAN, Albert; PING Chuen; CHEN, Chuan;
MARTEK, Igor. 2018. “Review of social responsibility factors for
sustainable development in public-private partnerships” In: Sustainable
development. Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 515-524.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en octubre de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº Especial
