Cyberspace security in Latin American countries

Kosevich E.Yu.,

HSE University, Moscow, Russia; Institute of Latin American Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia,

elibrary_id: 940271 | ORCID: 0000-0002-8056-8426 | RESEARCHER_ID: Y-3776-2019

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.03.09

For citation:

Kosevich E.Yu. Cyberspace security in Latin American countries. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 4. P. 108-123. (In Russ.).

Support from the Individual Research Program of the School of World economy and International Affairs at National Research University – Higher School of Economics is gratefully acknowledged.


The adoption of a national cybersecurity strategy testifies to a country’s awareness of the importance of protecting cyber infrastructure, the digital economy and the business environment, on which information and economic well-being are already highly dependent. However, only a few Latin American countries have developed and adopted their own national cybersecurity strategy. This article analyzes key aspects of the cybersecurity strategies of Colombia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Chile and Mexico. The author considers their guidelines and goals, as well as the bodies and institutions responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the results of these strategies. In addition, the author offers a description of the national cybersecurity policy developed in Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, which currently accounts for the largest number of cybercrimes in the region. Particular attention is paid to the state of the information technology industry in each of these Latin American countries. 

Latin America, national cybersecurity strategies, information space, information technology, cybersecurity, Internet, Colombia, Paraguay, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil.


Ablon, L., Libicki, M.C., & Golay, A.A. (2014). Markets for cybercrime toolsand stolen data: hackers’ bazaar. Santa Mónica: RAND.

Álvarez-Valenzuela, D. (2017). Los desafíos de la ciberseguridad en Chile. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 6(2), 1-2.

Barnard-Wills, D., & Ashenden, D. (2012). Securing virtual space: cyber war, cyber terror and risk. Space and Culture, 15(2), 110-123.

Betz, D.J., & Stevens, T. (2011). Cyberspace and the state: toward a strategy for cyber-power. Adelphi Series: Routledge.

Betz, D.J., & Stevens T. (2013). Analogical reasoning and cyber security. Security Dialogue, 44(2), 147-164.

Clarke, R.A., & Knake, R.K. (2010). Cyber war: the next threat to national. Security and what to do about it. New York, NY: Ecco.

Cruz Lobato, L. (2017). La política brasileña de ciberseguridad como estrategia de liderazgo regional. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios de Seguridad, 20, 16-30.

Day, R.E. (2001). The modern invention of information: discourse, history and power. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Deibert, R.J., & Rohozinski, R. (2010). Risking security: policies and paradoxes of cyberspace security. International Political Sociology, 4(1), 15-32.

DeNardis, L. (2009). Protocol politics: the globalization of internet governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

DeNardis, L., & Musiani, F. (2016). Governance by infrastructure. In F. Musiani, D.L. Cogburn, L. DeNardis, & N.S. Levinson (Ed.), The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance (pp. 3-21). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Dunn Cavelty, M. (2008). Cyber-security and threat politics: US efforts to secure the information age. London: Routledge.

Dunn Cavelty, M. (2015). The normalization of cyber-international relations. In O. Thränert, & M. Zapfe (Ed.), Strategic Trends 2015: Key Developments in Global Affairs (pp. 81-98). Zurich: CSS.

Dunn Cavelty, M., & Jaeger, M.D. (2015). (In)visible Ghosts in theMachine and the Powers that Bind: The Relational Securitization of Anonymous. International Political Sociology, 9(2), 176-194.

Dutton, W.H. (2015). Multistakeholder Internet governance? Background Paper: Digital Dividends.

Eriksson, J., & Giacomello G. (2009). Who Controls the Internet? Beyond the obstinacy or obsolescence of the state. International Studies Review, 11(1), 205-230.

Geers, K. (2009). Strategic cyber security. Santa Monica: NATO, RAND Corporation.

Hernández, J.C. (2018). Estrategias nacionales de ciberseguridad en América Latina. Universidad de Granada. Análisis GESI, 8.

Janczewski, L.J., & Colarik, A.M. (2008). Cyber warfare and cyber terrorism. New York, NY: New Press.

Kosévich, E.Y. (2017). México: estrategia de seguridad y de la lucha contra el crimen organizado. Iberoamérica, 1, 74-95.

Leiva, E. (2015). Estrategias Nacionales de Ciberseguridad: Estudio comparativo basado en Enfoque Top-Down desde una visión global a una visión local. Revista Latinoamericana de Ingeniería de Software, 3(4), 161-176.

Lewis, A.J. (2018). Economic impact of cybercrime. No slowing down. McAfee y Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Maciel, M.F., & Pereira de Souza, C.A. (2011). Multi-stakeholder participation on Internet governance: An analysis from a developing country, civil society perspective. Association for Progressive Communications.

Mueller, M. (2017). Is cybersecurity eating internet governance? causes and consequences of alternative framings. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 19(6), 415-428.

Mueller, M., & Klein, H. (2014). Sovereignty, national security, and internet governance: proceedings of a workshop. Syracuse University: Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy.

Torres, M. (2013). Ciberguerra. Manual de Estudios Estratégicos y Seguridad Internacional. Madrid: Plaza & Valdés.


Bulavin, A.V. (2014). Concerning approaches of the USA and China to cybersecurity. Society: Politics, Economics, Law, 1, 27-31. (In Russ.)

Chereshkin, D.S. (Ed.). (2006). Problemy kiberbezopasnosti sovremennogo obshchestva [The cybersecurity challenges of modern society]. Moscow: URSS.

de Bossey, Ch. (2005). Report of the working group on internet governance. (Russ. ed.: de Bossey, Ch. Doklad rabochei gruppy po upravleniyu Internetom).

Kasenova, M.B. (2012). Internet corporation for assigned names and numbers in Internet management. The Review of Economy, the Law and Sociology, 4, 164-169.

Kasenova, M.B., & Demidov, O.V. (Ed.). (2013). Kiberbezopasnost’ i upravlenie internetom: dokumenty i materialy dlya rossiiskikh regulyatorov i ekspertov [Cybersecurity and Internet governance: documents and materials for Russian regulators and experts]. Moscow: Statut.

Kazarin, O.V., & Tarasov, A.A. (2013). Modern concepts of cybersecurity of leading foreign countries. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Dokumentovedenie i arkhivovedenie. Informatika. Zashchita informatsii i informatsionnaya bezopasnost’, 14, 58-74. (In Russ.)

Komov, S.A. (Ed.). (2011). Mezhdunarodnaya informatsionnaya bezopasnost’: problemy i resheniya [International information security: problems and solutions]. Moscow.

Kosevich, E.Yu. (2019). The frontier’s barriers – security or threat for Mexican-American relations. Latinskaya Amerika, 6, 39-48. (In Russ.)

Markov, A.S., & Tsirlov, V.L. (2007). Risk management – regulatory vacuum of information security. Open Systems Journal, 8, 63-67. (In Russ.)

Krutskikh, A.V. (Ed.) (2019). Mezhdunarodnaya informatsionnaya bezopasnost’: teoriya i praktika. V 3-kh tt. T. 1 [International information security: theory and practice. In 3 vols. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Aspect Press.

Morozov, I.L. (2002). Informational security of a political system. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 134-145. (In Russ.).

Parshin, S.A., Gorbachev, Yu.E., & Kozhanov, Yu.A. (2011). Kibervoiny – real’naya ugroza natsional’noi bezopasnosti? [Cyber warfare – a real threat to national security?]. Moscow: KRASAND.

Rogovskii, E.A. (2014). Kiber-Vashington: global’nye ambitsii [Cyber Washington: global ambitions]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya.

Sharikov, P.A. (2015). Problemy informatsionnoi bezopasnosti v politsentrichnom mire [Problems of information security in a polycentric world]. Moscow: Ves’ Mir.

Zagorskii, A.V., & Romashkina, N.P. (Ed.). (2016). Problemy informatsionnoi bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodnykh voenno-politichekikh otnosheniyakh [Problems of information security in international politico-military relations]. Moscow: IMEMO RAN. 

Content No. 3, 2022

See also:

Ilyin A.N.,
Internet as an alternative to politically engaged mass media. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No4

Subdiscipline: Information technologies in politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No5

Kochetkov A.P.,
Authority and elites in a global information society. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No5

Bespalov S.V.,
Prospects of realization of Russia’s geopolitical interests on the post-soviet space. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No2

Shestopal A.V.,
The Path to Democracy: Brazilian Experience. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No4



   2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991