著者

川口 貴久 土屋 大洋

出版者

日本公共政策学会

雑誌

公共政策研究 (ISSN:21865868)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.19, pp.40-48, 2019-12-10 (Released:2021-10-02)

参考文献数

19

---

公正な選挙の実現は民主主義の根幹である。しかし,2016年米大統領選挙に代表されるように,外国からの選挙介入・選挙干渉(election interference)によって,選挙の公正性・信頼性が疑われる事態が生じた。本稿は2016年米大統領選挙を事例に,デジタル時代の選挙介入がもたらす政治不信(political distrust)の構造を明らかにする。現時点で確認されたロシアによる2016年米大統領選挙への干渉の手法は,(1)サイバー攻撃による政党・候補者に関する機密情報の窃取と暴露,(2)政府系メディアやソーシャルネットワーク(SNS)等での偽情報流布や政治広告,(3)投開票等の選挙インフラに対するサイバー攻撃に大別される。2016年米大統領選挙への介入がもたらした不信について,次の点が指摘できる。第一に,外国政府による選挙介入は候補者や政策等の「特定対象」および選挙や民主主義そのものといった「政治制度」の双方に対して不信を拡大させるのであった。そして,「特定対象」への不信は「政治制度」への不信に転じる可能性があり,逆もまた然りである。第二に,選挙活動や投開票等の選挙プロセスがデジタルインフラに依存度を高めるにつれ,サイバー空間やSNSを通じた選挙介入は,(1)攻撃者の匿名性の問題,(2)介入の規模と有権者の曝露量,(3)個人データに基づくターゲティング等の観点で,介入の効果を向上させるものであった。

著者

土屋 大洋

出版者

国際安全保障学会

雑誌

国際安全保障 (ISSN:13467573)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.1, pp.1-11, 2013-06-30 (Released:2022-04-07)

著者

土屋 大洋

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, pp.51-68, 2012-03-25 (Released:2021-11-06)

---

A major factor accelerating globalization is the development of various networks. Maritime and aviation networks increase the transnational movement of people and things. At the same time, telecommunication networks send messages instantaneously to the other end of the globe and enable people to share information without travelling. Historically, powerful states in international politics developed and exploited global telecommunications networks. The British Empire had extensive telegraph networks in the 19th century; in 1892 it owned 66.3% of telegraph networks in the world. The United States has had an even larger influence over the Internet since the 1990s. The U.S. presence today in Internet traffic, technologies and services is bigger than any other country. Submarine cables, whether historically in telegraph networks or in today’s internet networks, are an essential infrastructure for connecting nodes across network. The first submarine cable was laid in 1850 at the bottom of the Straits of Dover. Today there are numerous undersea cables in every sea. However, while there was a shift from the copper cables of the telegraph network to the fiber-optics of today, it is not clear why and how Britain lost its dominance to the U.S. in the area of submarine cables. This paper analyzes historical documents and data to answer these questions. It argues three points. First, between the end of the old copper cables and the new fiber-optic cables satellite’s caused technological disruption in the Cold War era. Satellites enable wider coverage over vast areas and have more capacity to send messages than copper submarine cables. The U.S.-led Intelsat made it easier to communicate overseas by satellites; Britain could not catch up with the U.S. and Soviet Union in satellite development. Second, the increase of communication demands needed a technological innovation and made both copper cables and satellites obsolete. Optical fiber was a disruptive technology and replaced old telecommunication systems. Finally, the rise of sovereignty claims over communications channels by developing countries after World War II weakened state control over new telecommunication systems. Telecommunication providers were privatized and laid private cables instead of common carrier (or consortium) cables, which were easier for governments to control. Therefore, the foundations of U.S. control over the Internet is not based on legal arrangements, but on technological advantages and the geopolitical layout of submarine cables. The vast Atlantic and Pacific Oceans could be disadvantageous for the U.S. But it led innovations of satellites and optic submarine cables and put them in place earlier than other competitors. Britain failed to take advantage of its earlier expertise and it made the U.S. a key hub in the new information age.

著者

土屋 大洋

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2009, no.155, pp.155_109-125, 2009

---

This paper analyzes political connections using a method based on network theory. Recent developments in network theory, which have been accelerated by advances in computers and data collection, can be applied to various research areas including physics, information society studies, sociology and other social sciences.<br>This paper uses network theory to analyze networks among U.S. senators who submitted bills related to Japan in the 109th Congress, focusing on cosponsorship of bills. Senators sometimes submit bills with other senators to make them more prospective, to gain more attentions, or just to deal with political bargains. This paper assumes that senators who co-submit bills more often have tighter connections and organize wider networks. Although it is difficult for an outsider to know who has what kinds of connections with whom in politics, it is easier to track who acted with whom in co-sponsoring bills in Congress.<br>The results of the analysis show that Japan-related bills were led by influential leaders in the senate such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman, who played important roles in the 2008 Presidential election. They were active in submitting and co-sponsoring bills and had higher scores in network indexes such as degree, between centrality, and closeness centrality. This implies two possible hypotheses. First, those influential leaders themselves were interested in Japan-related issues. Second, no specific senators were interested in the issues and that is why the influential senators seemed to be leading. These hypotheses should be tested in combination with other analytical methods.<br>Network analysis has three advantages. First, it focuses more on relationships among actors instead of looking at the characters of individual actors. Most of conventional analysis methods look at who actors are and what they do. In contrast, network analysis focuses on who is connected to whom and how. Second, the development of network analysis and data collection could give us alternative perspectives and new results based on large amounts of data. Third, network analysis could be used not only for proving hypotheses, but also for finding new ones.<br>Network analysis can be applied both to case studies in international relations and to enriching the theories of international relations. Actors in international relations vary from nation states (or governments), multi-national or global corporations, non-profit or non-state organizations, and even to individuals. Network analysis tells how they are connected and how they are interacting. It should reveal more dynamic relations rather than stable structures.

著者

土屋 大洋

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2009, no.155, pp.155_109-125, 2009-03-20 (Released:2011-07-10)

参考文献数

30

---

This paper analyzes political connections using a method based on network theory. Recent developments in network theory, which have been accelerated by advances in computers and data collection, can be applied to various research areas including physics, information society studies, sociology and other social sciences.This paper uses network theory to analyze networks among U.S. senators who submitted bills related to Japan in the 109th Congress, focusing on cosponsorship of bills. Senators sometimes submit bills with other senators to make them more prospective, to gain more attentions, or just to deal with political bargains. This paper assumes that senators who co-submit bills more often have tighter connections and organize wider networks. Although it is difficult for an outsider to know who has what kinds of connections with whom in politics, it is easier to track who acted with whom in co-sponsoring bills in Congress.The results of the analysis show that Japan-related bills were led by influential leaders in the senate such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman, who played important roles in the 2008 Presidential election. They were active in submitting and co-sponsoring bills and had higher scores in network indexes such as degree, between centrality, and closeness centrality. This implies two possible hypotheses. First, those influential leaders themselves were interested in Japan-related issues. Second, no specific senators were interested in the issues and that is why the influential senators seemed to be leading. These hypotheses should be tested in combination with other analytical methods.Network analysis has three advantages. First, it focuses more on relationships among actors instead of looking at the characters of individual actors. Most of conventional analysis methods look at who actors are and what they do. In contrast, network analysis focuses on who is connected to whom and how. Second, the development of network analysis and data collection could give us alternative perspectives and new results based on large amounts of data. Third, network analysis could be used not only for proving hypotheses, but also for finding new ones.Network analysis can be applied both to case studies in international relations and to enriching the theories of international relations. Actors in international relations vary from nation states (or governments), multi-national or global corporations, non-profit or non-state organizations, and even to individuals. Network analysis tells how they are connected and how they are interacting. It should reveal more dynamic relations rather than stable structures.