The Visegrad Group is the most dynamic transnational group in the Central and Eastern European region, connecting the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. Together these countries have established a useful framework for engaging with and coordinating policy at a regional level. At the same time, they are implementing EU programmes by creating cooperating networks with neighbouring countries based on their common security needs and strategic culture. This article focuses on the cybersecurity policies of the Visegrad Group countries. My analysis aims to reveal similarities and differences among these states that may be crucial for their future cooperation on a joint Central and Eastern European cybersecurity strategy. A cybersecurity strategy is a basic document created in a governmental context that reflects the interests and security rules at work in cyberspace. This document establishes the framework for future legislation, policies/standards, guidelines and other security- and cybersecurity‑related recommendations. This study is also an attempt to assess the development of cybersecurity policies; as such, it provides an opportunity to hypothesise about the future of cybertechnology in the Visegrad Group region.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Babinski A. (2015): State Activities in the Securing of Cyberspace. Internal Security 7 (2): 217-236.
Bossong R - Wagner. B. (2017): A typology of cybersecurity and public‑private partnerships in the context of the EU. Crime Law and Social Change 67 (3): 265-288.
Cyber attack temporarily shuts Hungarian government website „The Independent” 2 April 2018 available at https://www.independent.ie/world‑news/europe/cyber‑attack‑temporarily‑shuts‑hungarian‑government‑website-34593756.html (20 April 2018).
Czyz A (2007): What is the Future of the Visegrad Group as an Example of Regional Cooperation. Studia Universitatis Babes‑Bolyai. Studia Europaea 52 (2): 131-144.
e Silva K. K. (2018): Vigilantism and cooperative criminal justice: is there a place for cybersecurity vigilantes in cybercrime fighting? International Review of Law Computers & Technology 32 (1): 21-36.
Gerasymchuk S. (2014): Visegrad group’s solidarity in 2004-2014 tested by Ukrainian crisis. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs 23 (1-2): 42-54.
Gorka M. (2016): Freedom or Security? Contribution to the Discussion on the Example of the Law on Anti‑terrorist Operations of 10 June 2016. e‑Politikon 9 49-79.
Gryz J. (ed.) (2013). Strategia Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego Polski. Varšava: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Haataja S. (2017): The 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia and international law on the use of force: an informational approach. Law Innovation and Technology 9 (2): 159-189.
Jones S. (2014): Russian government behind cyber attacks says security group. The Financial Times 28. 10. 2014.
Kostyuk N. (2014): International and Domestic Challenges to Comprehensive National Cybersecurity: A Case Study of the Czech Republic. Journal of Strategic Security 7 (1): 68-82.
Kužel M. (2017): The Investment Development Path: Evidence from Poland and Other Countries of the Visegrad Group. Journal of East‑West Business 23 (1): 1-40.
Marušiak J. (2015): Russia and the Visegrad Group - more than a foreign policy issue. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs 24 (1-2): 28-46.
Novaky N. I. M. (2015): Why so Soft? The European Union in Ukraine. Contemporary Security Policy 36 (2): 244-266.
Roštekova M. - Rouet G. (2014): The Visegrad Group - a model to follow? Politeja 28 (11): 181-193.
Sarvas S. (1999): Professional soldiers and politics: A case of Central and Eastern Europe. Armed Forces and Society 26 (1): 99-118.
Sussex M. (2017): The triumph of Russian national security policy? Russia’s rapid rebound. Australian Journal of International Affairs 71 (5): 499-515.
Tait R. (2017): Czech cyber‑attack: Russia suspected of hacking diplomats’ emails. The Guardian 31. 1. 2017.
Torő C. - Butler E. - Gruber K. (2014): Visegrad: The Evolving Pattern of Coordination and Partnership After EU Enlargement. Europe‑Asia Studies 66 (3): 364-393.