Wafa' Nimri is a highly skilled and experienced professional who works with international compani... more Wafa' Nimri is a highly skilled and experienced professional who works with international companies, the public and private sectors in Jordan as well as in civil society. She brings experience addressing strategic challenges ranging from cyber security and education to youth empowerment, gender mainstreaming and human rights. She is currently the founder and CEO of her own digital marketing company, the Jordan Country Director for PGI Cyber, and a Board Member for Chevening and Autism MENA. She is bi-lingual in English and Arabic and speaks good French.
Digital Diplomacy is one form of diplomacy that is being subjected to wide and narrow forms of in... more Digital Diplomacy is one form of diplomacy that is being subjected to wide and narrow forms of interpretation and definitions, some of which do not sufficiently elaborate on the scope and purpose of digital diplomacy. This article will attempt to clarify the disarray surrounding the definition by configuring digital diplomacy within the context of IR theory (Realism, Liberalism, International School and IPE) and subsequently come up with a conclusion. The intention is to derive meaning as to its political, economic, and social uses, the likelihood implications and benefits while simultaneously giving a Middle Eastern perspective to the rhetoric.
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of Network Neutrality (NN) has been the subject of much controversy. In a ... more ABSTRACT
The doctrine of Network Neutrality (NN) has been the subject of much controversy. In a statement issued by the Internet Society in its 2010 report: “Network Neutrality is a broad and ill-defined term encompassing a broad range of policy objectives including: Freedom of expression, user choice, and non-discrimination as well as business issues, including network traffic management, pricing and overall business models.” Hence, there is no precise definition of Network Neutrality, as it is generally understood “to mean different things to different people.” This, however, is slowly changing, as academic scholars in the field of law and Information and communications Technology set out to determine its normative, political and economic nuances. In view of modifications in code that have transformed the Internet’s architecture and functional capabilities from a user-centric approach to a State-centric approach, it is arguable that intelligence and power are shifting away from the end user and into the hands of government, where obligations lie. Hence, avoiding an absolute interpretation of the principle of Network Neutrality to a more rationalized and strategic approach of affecting social, political and economic order online. From a political perspective it treats the Internet as a regime of collective action problems between rational States in order to identify standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior in accordance with an institutionalist theory of international relations as well as the degree to which Internet regulation is permissible. Moreover, By analogizing the norm to standards of treatment protection under international investment law and international trade law, the results posit that the doctrine of Network Neutrality is evolving into an evidentiary and sanction-driven customary norm from which conformity hinges not on preexisting social practice, but on standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior. It is, therefore, arguable that NN may emerge as a treaty-based norm from which consensus is shared, iterated and agreed upon in accordance with global standards of justice and good governance principles. The fact that debates on NN coincide with recent developments to globalize Internet Governance for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in addition to the United States announcement of relinquishing its control of the organization imply that NN may be used by the U.S to advance geopolitical and economic interests in cyberspace not only to bring State responsibility to bear on State actions that violate the principle, but to protect US foreign investments online as has been earlier achieved with NAFTA.
Wafa' Nimri is a highly skilled and experienced professional who works with international compani... more Wafa' Nimri is a highly skilled and experienced professional who works with international companies, the public and private sectors in Jordan as well as in civil society. She brings experience addressing strategic challenges ranging from cyber security and education to youth empowerment, gender mainstreaming and human rights. She is currently the founder and CEO of her own digital marketing company, the Jordan Country Director for PGI Cyber, and a Board Member for Chevening and Autism MENA. She is bi-lingual in English and Arabic and speaks good French.
Digital Diplomacy is one form of diplomacy that is being subjected to wide and narrow forms of in... more Digital Diplomacy is one form of diplomacy that is being subjected to wide and narrow forms of interpretation and definitions, some of which do not sufficiently elaborate on the scope and purpose of digital diplomacy. This article will attempt to clarify the disarray surrounding the definition by configuring digital diplomacy within the context of IR theory (Realism, Liberalism, International School and IPE) and subsequently come up with a conclusion. The intention is to derive meaning as to its political, economic, and social uses, the likelihood implications and benefits while simultaneously giving a Middle Eastern perspective to the rhetoric.
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of Network Neutrality (NN) has been the subject of much controversy. In a ... more ABSTRACT
The doctrine of Network Neutrality (NN) has been the subject of much controversy. In a statement issued by the Internet Society in its 2010 report: “Network Neutrality is a broad and ill-defined term encompassing a broad range of policy objectives including: Freedom of expression, user choice, and non-discrimination as well as business issues, including network traffic management, pricing and overall business models.” Hence, there is no precise definition of Network Neutrality, as it is generally understood “to mean different things to different people.” This, however, is slowly changing, as academic scholars in the field of law and Information and communications Technology set out to determine its normative, political and economic nuances. In view of modifications in code that have transformed the Internet’s architecture and functional capabilities from a user-centric approach to a State-centric approach, it is arguable that intelligence and power are shifting away from the end user and into the hands of government, where obligations lie. Hence, avoiding an absolute interpretation of the principle of Network Neutrality to a more rationalized and strategic approach of affecting social, political and economic order online. From a political perspective it treats the Internet as a regime of collective action problems between rational States in order to identify standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior in accordance with an institutionalist theory of international relations as well as the degree to which Internet regulation is permissible. Moreover, By analogizing the norm to standards of treatment protection under international investment law and international trade law, the results posit that the doctrine of Network Neutrality is evolving into an evidentiary and sanction-driven customary norm from which conformity hinges not on preexisting social practice, but on standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior. It is, therefore, arguable that NN may emerge as a treaty-based norm from which consensus is shared, iterated and agreed upon in accordance with global standards of justice and good governance principles. The fact that debates on NN coincide with recent developments to globalize Internet Governance for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in addition to the United States announcement of relinquishing its control of the organization imply that NN may be used by the U.S to advance geopolitical and economic interests in cyberspace not only to bring State responsibility to bear on State actions that violate the principle, but to protect US foreign investments online as has been earlier achieved with NAFTA.
Uploads
Papers by Wafa' Nimri
The doctrine of Network Neutrality (NN) has been the subject of much controversy. In a statement issued by the Internet Society in its 2010 report: “Network Neutrality is a broad and ill-defined term encompassing a broad range of policy objectives including: Freedom of expression, user choice, and non-discrimination as well as business issues, including network traffic management, pricing and overall business models.” Hence, there is no precise definition of Network Neutrality, as it is generally understood “to mean different things to different people.” This, however, is slowly changing, as academic scholars in the field of law and Information and communications Technology set out to determine its normative, political and economic nuances. In view of modifications in code that have transformed the Internet’s architecture and functional capabilities from a user-centric approach to a State-centric approach, it is arguable that intelligence and power are shifting away from the end user and into the hands of government, where obligations lie. Hence, avoiding an absolute interpretation of the principle of Network Neutrality to a more rationalized and strategic approach of affecting social, political and economic order online. From a political perspective it treats the Internet as a regime of collective action problems between rational States in order to identify standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior in accordance with an institutionalist theory of international relations as well as the degree to which Internet regulation is permissible. Moreover, By analogizing the norm to standards of treatment protection under international investment law and international trade law, the results posit that the doctrine of Network Neutrality is evolving into an evidentiary and sanction-driven customary norm from which conformity hinges not on preexisting social practice, but on standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior. It is, therefore, arguable that NN may emerge as a treaty-based norm from which consensus is shared, iterated and agreed upon in accordance with global standards of justice and good governance principles. The fact that debates on NN coincide with recent developments to globalize Internet Governance for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in addition to the United States announcement of relinquishing its control of the organization imply that NN may be used by the U.S to advance geopolitical and economic interests in cyberspace not only to bring State responsibility to bear on State actions that violate the principle, but to protect US foreign investments online as has been earlier achieved with NAFTA.
The doctrine of Network Neutrality (NN) has been the subject of much controversy. In a statement issued by the Internet Society in its 2010 report: “Network Neutrality is a broad and ill-defined term encompassing a broad range of policy objectives including: Freedom of expression, user choice, and non-discrimination as well as business issues, including network traffic management, pricing and overall business models.” Hence, there is no precise definition of Network Neutrality, as it is generally understood “to mean different things to different people.” This, however, is slowly changing, as academic scholars in the field of law and Information and communications Technology set out to determine its normative, political and economic nuances. In view of modifications in code that have transformed the Internet’s architecture and functional capabilities from a user-centric approach to a State-centric approach, it is arguable that intelligence and power are shifting away from the end user and into the hands of government, where obligations lie. Hence, avoiding an absolute interpretation of the principle of Network Neutrality to a more rationalized and strategic approach of affecting social, political and economic order online. From a political perspective it treats the Internet as a regime of collective action problems between rational States in order to identify standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior in accordance with an institutionalist theory of international relations as well as the degree to which Internet regulation is permissible. Moreover, By analogizing the norm to standards of treatment protection under international investment law and international trade law, the results posit that the doctrine of Network Neutrality is evolving into an evidentiary and sanction-driven customary norm from which conformity hinges not on preexisting social practice, but on standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior. It is, therefore, arguable that NN may emerge as a treaty-based norm from which consensus is shared, iterated and agreed upon in accordance with global standards of justice and good governance principles. The fact that debates on NN coincide with recent developments to globalize Internet Governance for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in addition to the United States announcement of relinquishing its control of the organization imply that NN may be used by the U.S to advance geopolitical and economic interests in cyberspace not only to bring State responsibility to bear on State actions that violate the principle, but to protect US foreign investments online as has been earlier achieved with NAFTA.