Opening up or closing down? Non-state actors in UN cybersecurity governance

How can we explain the varying participation of non-state actors in UN cybersecurity governance? While research often underlines the importance of non-state actors in governing cybersecurity, research on international non-state actors’ activities also shows that shrinking spaces reduce opportunities for these actors. So far, we do not know how these two seemingly opposing developments impact UN cybersecurity governance. In this article, we analyze how state interests, ideas on representation, and institutional context affect non-state actor participation in three UN forums for cybersecurity, namely the IGF, OEWG, and AHC. Based on qualitative data and a quantitative participation analysis, we find that institutional mandates of forums remain open to non-state actors but to varying degrees. Conflicts among states affect non-state actors strongly, but often indirectly, because their participation becomes politicized, and states increasingly contest ideas on their participation. These effects concern all groups of non-state actors. All in all, our results suggest that UN cybersecurity governance is still open to non-state actors, but despite functional arguments, their participation is facing growing resistance over time. At the same time, reasons why non-state actors choose to participate or not require more consideration.