2025 is a pivotal year for international cyber governance. Not only is it the tenth anniversary of the international community’s agreement to a global framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, but it is also the year that the UN Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies will conclude its mandate. This sets the stage for the establishment of a more permanent mechanism for global cyber discussions.
To discuss these developments and reflect on how states around the world have interpreted and operationalised responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, ASPI’s Gatra Priyandita speaks with two leading cyber experts, Farlina Said from the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia, and Louise Marie Hurel, from the Royal United Services Institute in London.
https://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/29231723/Stop-the-World-Banner.png4271280markohttp://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16232551/ASPI-CMYK_SVG.svgmarko2025-02-28 14:40:352025-03-03 14:44:33Status update: Responsible state behaviour in cyberspace
This report looks at measures that governments in various parts of the world have taken to defend their economic ‘crown jewels’ and other critical knowledge-intensive industries from cyber threats. It should serve as inspiration for other governments, including from those economies studied in State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: Assessing the preparedness of emerging economies to defend against cyber-enabled IP theft. Despite accounting for the bulk of GDP growth, innovation and future employment, such intellectual property (IP)-intensive industries aren’t held to the same levels of protection and security scrutiny as government agencies or providers of critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Various layers of cybersecurity protection regimes
Source: Developed by the authors.
Since 2022, an increasing number of governments have introduced new policies, legislation, regulations and standards to deal with the threat to their economies from cyber-enabled IP theft. Most prominently, in October 2023, the heads of the major security and intelligence agencies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US (also known as the ‘Five Eyes’) appeared together in public for the first time, in front of a Silicon Valley audience, and called out China as an ‘unprecedented threat’ to innovation across the world.1 That was followed up in October 2024 with a public campaign called ‘Secure Innovation’.
There is, however, variation in how governments frame their responses. Countries such as the UK and Australia take a national-security approach with policy instruments that seek to monitor the flow of knowledge and innovation to and from specific countries (primarily China). Other countries, such as Malaysia and Finland, take a due-diligence risk approach with a focus on awareness building and providing incentives to organisations to do their due-diligence checks before engaging with foreign entities. Countries such as Japan and Singapore, by contrast, take an economic-security approach in which they focus on engaging and empowering at-risk industries proactively.
This report is the third in a compendium of three. The first report, State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: tackling an invisible but persistent risk to prosperity, published in 2022, looked at the scale, scope and impact of state-sponsored cyber-espionage campaigns aimed at extracting trade secrets and sensitive business information. The second report, State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: Assessing the preparedness of emerging economies to respond to cyber-enabled IP theft, looks at the extent to which agreed norms effectively constrain states from conducting economic cyber-espionage and also examines the varying levels of vulnerability experienced by selected major emerging economies.
This third report complements those diagnoses by offering policymakers an action perspective based on good practices observed across the world. Various practices and examples have been selected, drawing from a multi-year capacity-building effort that included engagements in Southeast Asia, South Asia and Latin America and consultations with authorities in developed economies such as the US, Australia, Japan, Singapore and the Netherlands. Many of the practices covered in this report were presented at the Track 1 Dialogue on Good Governmental Practices that ASPI hosted during Singapore International Cyber Week 2023.
International guardrails
The issue of economic cyber-espionage2 is inherently international. It’s an issue caused by malicious or negligent behaviour of other states. Accordingly, international law and norms are as critical as domestic responses in countering the threat posed. This section offers a review of the most relevant international initiatives that touch on the governance of cyberspace and the protection of IP.
Through the UN First Committee process, states have introduced a set of voluntary and non-binding norms (Figure 2). That has included the following provisions:
States should not knowingly allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful acts; that is, activities that constitute (serious) breaches of international obligations, inflict serious harm on another state or jeopardise international peace and security.
States should not conduct or support cyber activities that damage critical infrastructure or impair the operation of critical infrastructure that provides services to the public.
States should offer assistance upon request and respond to requests to mitigate ongoing cyber incidents if those incidents affect the functioning of critical infrastructure.
Figure 2: UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace
The G20 norm complements the work of the UN First Committee, providing that:
States should not engage in cyber-espionage activities for the purpose of providing domestic industry with illegitimately obtained commercially valuable information.
The extent to which states accept that economic cyber-espionage without commercial intent is an acceptable tool of statecraft remains a live debate. In 2017, the authors of the Tallin Manual 2.0 asserted that although ‘peacetime cyber espionage by States does not per se violate international law, the method by which it is carried out might do so’.3 Other states, however, such as the members of MERCOSUR (the trade bloc comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela [currently suspended]) and China hold the view that ‘[n]o State shall engage in ICT-enabled espionage or damages against other States’.4 Austria recently (2024) added to this debate, arguing that ‘cyber espionage activities, including industrial cyber espionage against corporations, within a state’s territory may also violate that state’s sovereignty.’5
The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the new UN Cybercrime Convention don’t address the theft of IP or offer mechanisms to deal with state-sponsored cyber activities.6 Both frameworks merely offer mechanisms for the harmonisation of legal regimes to enable states to collaborate on investigations and prosecutions of cyber-related crimes.
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), sets minimum standards for IP protection. Article 39 provides perpetual trade-secret protection, provided that the secret is not ‘generally known or readily accessible’ to the general public, has ‘commercial value because it is a secret’, and the owner has taken reasonable precautions to protect the secret.77 However, TRIPS doesn’t take into account any cyber-related threats to IP protection; nor does it provide dispute-settlement mechanisms to address state-sponsored or state-supported acts of theft.
Finally, there are international agreements that regulate certain technology transfers. For instance, the Wassenaar Arrangement—a voluntary export-control regime established to promote responsible transfers of conventional arms and dual-use technologies and goods—offers a list of technologies that are considered sensitive and ought to be subject of additional layers of review before being approved for export. While it doesn’t address cyber-enabled IP theft, it does regulate the trade in technologies that could facilitate such theft, such as intrusion software and surveillance tools.
However, despite the serious impact of IP theft, there’s a clear gap in current international law and norms that would otherwise offer national governments guardrails for introducing measures that would help states to prevent, deter, detect and recover from economic cyber-espionage. Therefore, the onus for protection presently lies on national governments taking ownership and responsibility within their own borders.
References
Zeba Siddiqui, ‘Five Eyes intelligence chiefs warn on China’s “theft” of intellectual property’, Reuters, 19 October 2023, online. ↩︎
‘Economic cyber-espionage’ is the unauthorised collection of commercially valuable assets, through compromises of digital systems and communication channels, by one state against another or by one state against a private entity. ‘Industrial or commercial cyber-espionage’ is the unauthorised collection of commercially valuable assets, through compromises of digital systems and communication channels, by one private entity against another private entity. ↩︎
Michael N Schmitt, Tallinn manual 2.0 on the international law applicable to cyber operations, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2017. ↩︎
On China, see “China’s views on the application of the principle of sovereignty in cyberspace,” United Nations, online; on Mercosur, see “Decision rejecting the acts of espionage conducted by the United States in the countries of the region,” United Nations, 22 July 2013, online. ↩︎
Przemysław Roguski, “Austria’s Progressive Stance on Cyber Operations and International Law,” Just Security, 25 June 2024, online. ↩︎
See, for instance, Brenda I Rowe, ‘Transnational state-sponsored cyber economic espionage: a legal quagmire’, Security Journal, 13 September 2019, 33:63–82. ↩︎
‘Article 39 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’, World Trade Organization, online. ↩︎
About the authors
Dr Gatra Priyandita is a Senior Analyst with the Cyber, Technology and Security Program at ASPI.
Bart Hogeveen is Deputy Director, Cyber, Technology and Security Program at ASPI.
Acknowledgements
ASPI would like to thank all contributors for their analyses and insights as well as all officials from the countries we studied for this report for their feedback, insights and questions. We would also like to thank the US State Department and staff at US embassies for supporting this project.
About the report
This report is part of a capacity-building project titled ‘Strengthening national resilience against the risk of cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property’ funded by the Bureau of Digital and Cyberspace Policy, US State Department. This report is an independent assessment by ASPI, and the views contained in this report are those of the authors only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the US or any other government.
About ASPI
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was formed in 2001 as an independent, non‑partisan think tank. Its core aim is to provide the Australian Government with fresh ideas on Australia’s defence, security and strategic policy choices. ASPI is responsible for informing the public on a range of strategic issues, generating new thinking for government and harnessing strategic thinking internationally. ASPI’s sources of funding are identified in our annual report, online at www.aspi.org.au and in the acknowledgements section of individual publications. ASPI remains independent in the content of the research and in all editorial judgements. It is incorporated as a company, and is governed by a Council with broad membership. ASPI’s core values are collegiality, originality and innovation, quality and excellence, and independence.
ASPI’s publications—including this paper—are not intended in any way to express or reflect the views of the Australian Government. The opinions and recommendations in this paper are published by ASPI to promote public debate and understanding of strategic and defence issues. They reflect the personal views of the authors and should not be seen as representing the formal position of ASPI on any particular issue.
ASPI Cyber, Technology and Security
ASPI’s Cyber, Technology and Security (CTS) analysts inform policy debates in the Indo-Pacific through original, rigorous and data-driven research. CTS is a leading voice in global debates on cyber, emerging and critical technologies, foreign interference and issues related to information operations and disinformation. CTS has a growing mixture of expertise and skills with teams of researchers who concentrate on policy, technical analysis, information operations and disinformation, critical and emerging technologies, cyber capacity building and internet safety, satellite analysis, surveillance and China-related issues. To develop capability in Australia and across the Indo-Pacific region, CTS has a capacity-building team that conducts workshops, training programs and large-scale exercises for the public, private and civil-society sectors.
CTS enriches regional debate by collaborating with civil-society groups from around the world and by bringing leading global experts to Australia through our international fellowship program. We thank all of those who support and contribute to CTS with their time, intellect and passion for the topics we work on.
Strategic competition is deepening existing tensions and mistrust between states and prompts nations to develop capabilities that they consider central to sovereign national power. Technological capabilities sit at the centre of this. It’s therefore not surprising that governments around the world are seeking technological advantage over their competitors and potential adversaries. In this context, safeguarding intellectual property (IP) has become necessary not just because it’s an essential asset for any modern economy—developed or emerging—but because it’s also increasingly underwriting national and regional security.
Today, middle-income countries1 ‘World Bank country and lending groups’, World Bank, 2024, online. that are seeking to progress in the global value chain are home to vibrant knowledge-intensive sectors. Some of the world’s largest science and technology clusters are located in São Paulo and Bengaluru, for example.2 Other exemplars include the biochemical industry in India, information and communication technology (ICT) firms in Malaysia and petroleum processors in Brazil. In fact, countries such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico and Vietnam have emerged as increasingly major producers of knowledge and innovation.3
Perhaps reflecting that changing reality, it’s middle-income countries that are confronted by increasing attempts to deprive them of their economic crown jewels. In our report State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: tackling an invisible but persistent risk to prosperity, ASPI estimated that the number of state-sponsored cyber incidents affecting private entities in Southeast Asia, South Asia, Latin America and the Middle East increased from 40% in 2014 to nearly 60% in 2020.4 To be clear: economic espionage isn’t new. But it’s the growing scale and intensification of economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes—and as an integrated tool of statecraft—that is a cause for concern.
The promise of 2015
In September 2015, a bilateral summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and then US President Barack Obama laid the foundation for an international norm against cyber-enabled theft of IP for commercial gain. The joint communique produced at the end of the summit highlighted that China and the US had reached an understanding not to ‘conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of IP, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors’. This—critically—recognised a distinction between hacking for commercial purposes and hacking for national-security purposes. Building on that apparent progress, the 2015 G20 Antalya leaders’ communique on ICT-enabled theft of IP established bounds for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace—what was described at the time as a landmark moment.
However, the promise of that seemingly historic moment has not been realised since. Rather than seeing this practice stop, cyber-enabled theft of IP quadrupled between 2015 and 2023. Higher barriers to market access across China, the US and Europe—the result of tit-for-tat behaviour seeking to bolster local technological capabilities, reduce dependence on high-risk vendors, achieve greater strategic autonomy and/or counter unfair advantage—have combined to incentivise irresponsible behaviour by malign states.
China’s and the US’s adherence was always going to be critical to the continued strength and legitimacy of any international norm against cyber-enabled economic espionage. However, bilateral relations between Beijing and Washington devolved in the period after 2015. During the first Trump administration, the US drew a clearer connection between economic and national security. That included explicitly calling out in 2020 China’s theft of American technology, IP and research as a threat to the safety, security and economy of the US. The Trump administration also established the China Initiative, which investigated and prosecuted perceived Chinese spies in American research and industry. While the Biden administration closed the China Initiative, it has continued efforts to protect American IP. That includes through the passing of the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022, which empowers the US President to sanction entities seen to benefit from or sponsor trade-secret theft.5
For its part, China may never have intended to uphold its commitment to the norm over the long term. China may have endorsed a commitment against economic cyber-espionage as a strategic move to accelerate domestic initiatives, such as rooting out corruption in the People’s Liberation Army and refining Chinese hacking methods to be more sophisticated and less conspicuous.66 Alternatively, the lack of a clearly articulated distinction between hacking for competitive advantage and hacking for national-security purposes under Obama and Xi’s agreement may have contributed to the current situation. In any case, the threat of economic cyber-espionage continues to spiral rapidly, increasingly affecting emerging economies as well.
Emerging economies in the Global South, including members of the G20, have been the most vulnerable to that backsliding. India, Vietnam and Brazil have become important and impactful IP-producers, but their means to protect that innovation have lagged—unfortunately creating an expanded attack surface without the commensurate resilience. Still coming to terms with the scope and nature of the threat, they and other similar governments have so far introduced higher-end requirements and support arrangements for their own systems, and for operators of critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure. However, most other industries—even when they’re substantial contributors to national GDP, high-value IP holders and the enablers for economic advancement—have been left out.
Building capacity to defend against cyber-enabled theft of IP
This report is a first-ever analytical exercise that examines the vulnerability of emerging economies in the face of economic cyber-espionage. It’s a culmination of two years of research and stakeholder engagement across the Indo-Pacific and Latin America. The focus has been on investigating perspectives on the threat of economic cyber-espionage and the degree to which major emerging economies are prepared to respond. The first of the three reports in the compendium—published in late 2022—examined state practices of cyber-enabled theft of IP. It found that, since 2015, the number of reported cases of economic cyber-espionage had tripled. Further, it found that the scale and severity of incidents had grown proportionally with the use of cyber technology as a tool of statecraft for securing economic and strategic objectives.
This specific report is the second in the compendium of three. It considers Chinese and US perspectives in the first instance—recognising their criticality to the effectiveness of any international norm. It goes on to assess the level of vulnerability across Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. This is because it’s those economies in South Asia, Southeast Asia and Latin America that are experiencing some of the world’s most rapid knowledge and innovation production. Each country has been assessed and given a risk label indicating its vulnerability based on a diagnostic tool developed by ASPI.
The third of the three reports in the compendium goes beyond analysing the problem. Through a mapping of responses, it identifies and presents a capture of best practice. The purpose is to support vulnerable states in defending their economic ‘crown jewels’—that is, critical knowledge-intensive industries. It offers a capacity-building checklist intended to help policymakers make sense of the cyber-threat landscape and respond to protect private entities from economic cyber-espionage.
References
‘World Bank country and lending groups’, World Bank, 2024, online. ↩︎
‘Science and technology cluster ranking 2023’, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), online. ↩︎
Gatra Priyandita, Bart Hogeveen, Ben Stevens, State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: tackling an invisible but persistent risk to prosperity, ASPI, Canberra, 2022, online. ↩︎
‘Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022’, US Congress, online. ↩︎
Jack Goldsmith, ‘US attribution of China’s cyber-theft aids Xi’s centralization and anti-corruption efforts’, Lawfare, 21 June 2016, online. ↩︎
About the authors
Dr Gatra Priyandita is a Senior Analyst with the Cyber, Technology and Security Program at ASPI.
Bart Hogeveen is Deputy Director, Cyber, Technology and Security Program at ASPI.
Contributors
Dr. Juan Manuel Aguilar, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, National Autonomous University, Mexico; Dr Jessada Burinsuchat, independent researcher; Johan Caldas, lawyer, Observatorio Legislativo Compás; Maria Angelica Castillo, Cyber Intelligence Consultant, Telefonica Tech; Urmika Deb, former researcher at ASPI; Janitra Heryanto, former research assistant at the Centre for Digital Society, University of Gadjah Mada; Mark Manantan, Director of Cybersecurity and Critical Technology at Pacific Forum; Nguyen The Phuong, PhD candidate at the Australian Defence Force Academy; Perdana Karim, researcher at the Centre for Digital Society, University of Gadjah Mada; Dr Maria Pilar Llorens, Lecturer in International Public Law, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba; Dr Danielle Jacon Ayres Pinto, Assistant Professor, Santa Catarina Federal University; Dr Teesta Prakash, former analyst at ASPI; Treviliana Putri, researcher at the Centre for Digital Society, University of Gadjah Mada; Farlina Said, Senior Analyst at ISIS Malaysia; Ben Stevens, former research intern at ASPI.
Acknowledgements
ASPI would like to thank all contributors for their analyses and insights as well as all officials from the countries we studied for this report for their feedback, insights and questions. We would also like to thank the US State Department and staff at US embassies for supporting this project.
About the report
This report is part of a capacity-building project titled ‘Strengthening national resilience against the risk of cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property’ funded by the Bureau of Digital and Cyberspace Policy, US State Department. This report is an independent assessment by ASPI, and the views contained in this report are those of the authors only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the US or any other government.
About ASPI
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was formed in 2001 as an independent, non‑partisan think tank. Its core aim is to provide the Australian Government with fresh ideas on Australia’s defence, security and strategic policy choices. ASPI is responsible for informing the public on a range of strategic issues, generating new thinking for government and harnessing strategic thinking internationally. ASPI’s sources of funding are identified in our annual report, online at www.aspi.org.au and in the acknowledgements section of individual publications. ASPI remains independent in the content of the research and in all editorial judgements. It is incorporated as a company, and is governed by a Council with broad membership. ASPI’s core values are collegiality, originality and innovation, quality and excellence, and independence.
ASPI’s publications—including this paper—are not intended in any way to express or reflect the views of the Australian Government. The opinions and recommendations in this paper are published by ASPI to promote public debate and understanding of strategic and defence issues. They reflect the personal views of the authors and should not be seen as representing the formal position of ASPI on any particular issue.
ASPI Cyber, Technology and Security
ASPI’s Cyber, Technology and Security (CTS) analysts inform policy debates in the Indo-Pacific through original, rigorous and data-driven research. CTS is a leading voice in global debates on cyber, emerging and critical technologies, foreign interference and issues related to information operations and disinformation. CTS has a growing mixture of expertise and skills with teams of researchers who concentrate on policy, technical analysis, information operations and disinformation, critical and emerging technologies, cyber capacity building and internet safety, satellite analysis, surveillance and China-related issues. To develop capability in Australia and across the Indo-Pacific region, CTS has a capacity-building team that conducts workshops, training programs and large-scale exercises for the public, private and civil-society sectors.
CTS enriches regional debate by collaborating with civil-society groups from around the world and by bringing leading global experts to Australia through our international fellowship program. We thank all of those who support and contribute to CTS with their time, intellect and passion for the topics we work on. If you would like to support the work of CTS, contact: ctspartnerships@aspi.org.au.
Funding
This report was produced with funding support from the US State Department.
https://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/03152958/State-sponsored-economic-cyber-espionage-for-commercial-purposes-Banner.png370791markohttp://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16232551/ASPI-CMYK_SVG.svgmarko2025-02-19 15:30:472025-03-07 14:02:08State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: Assessing the preparedness of emerging economies to defend against cyber-enabled IP theft
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has launched the world’s first capacity-building initiative dedicated to raising awareness about the threat of economic cyber-espionage in key emerging economies across the Indo-Pacific and Latin America.
Through a series of research reports, case studies, and learning materials, this initiative highlights how economic cyber-espionage is not just a concern for advanced economies—it is a growing risk for emerging economies like India, Brazil, and Indonesia, which are rapidly digitizing their industries.
Download report.Download report.Download report.
What is Economic Cyber-Espionage?
Economic cyber-espionage refers to the state-sponsored theft of intellectual property (IP) via cyber means for commercial gain. As nations undergo digital transformation, securing knowledge-based industries is critical for economic security. However, many countries—especially those with lower cybersecurity maturity—are increasingly vulnerable to cyber-enabled IP theft.
In the modern economy, local businesses that trade internationally, critical national industries, and start-ups as well as universities, research and development organisations and public services rely on secure data, digital communications and ICT-enabled systems and applications.
But trust and confidence in the digital economy is threatened by the practice of some states that deploy offensive cyber capabilities against industries, organisations and individuals in other states. Those who operate in environments with lower levels of cybersecurity maturity are particularly vulnerable to fall victim to cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property.
Project Activities and Findings
This project has included a series of workshops and engagements in India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, bringing together officials and experts to discuss cyber threats that endanger national economies and innovation sectors.
For this project, ASPI has also published three reports, which can be downloaded on the right.
State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: Tackling an invisible but persistent risk to prosperity (2022): Highlights how state-sponsored cyber-espionage has intensified, with more targeted industries and universities now based in emerging economies
State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: Assessing the preparedness of emerging economies to respond to cyber-enabled IP theft: Evaluates the readiness of 11 emerging economies—including Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam—to counteract cyber-enabled IP theft.
State-sponsored economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes: Governmental practices in protecting IP-Intensive industries: Reviews how governments around the world are responding to the threat of economic cyber-espionage and considers how states are employing, among others, legislative, defensive, and reactive measures.
On 15 November 2022, ASPI also issued a Briefing Note recommending that the G20 members recognise that state-sponsored ICT-enabled theft of IP remains a key concern for international cooperation and encouraging them to reaffirm their commitment made in 2015 to refrain from economic cyber-espionage for commercial purposes.
Videos and Podcasts
Explore the videos and podcasts we have produced to help you make sense of economic cyber-espionage.
Project Team
This team is led by CTS Deputy Director Bart Hogeveen and CTS senior analyst Dr. Gatra Priyandita. We thank the support and contributions of other serving and former ASPI staff, including Urmika Deb, Dr. Ben Stevens, Dr. Teesta Prakash, and Shivangi Seth. This project involved input from researchers from across the world, including those in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. We thank them for their contributions.
https://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/07105208/State-sponsored-economic-cyberespionage_banner.png4501350markohttp://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16232551/ASPI-CMYK_SVG.svgmarko2025-02-19 10:34:532025-03-07 14:04:46State-Sponsored Economic Cyber-Espionage for Commercial Purposes
https://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/07180026/ASPI-tech-and-trust.png10801920nathanhttp://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16232551/ASPI-CMYK_SVG.svgnathan2025-02-13 17:15:002025-03-07 18:18:14Tech and Trust: Safeguarding AI for Economic and Security Progress
Cooperation between Australia and the Republic of Korea (hereafter South Korea or the ROK) in a range of critical technology areas has grown rapidly in recent years. Underpinned by the Australia – South Korea Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Cyber and Critical Technology Cooperation signed in 2021, collaboration is currently centred around emerging technologies, including next-generation telecommunications, artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. Such technologies are deemed to be critical due to their potential to enhance or threaten societies, economies and national security. Most are dual- or multi-use and have applications in a wide range of sectors.1
Intensifying geostrategic competition is threatening stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region. Particularly alarming is competition in the technological domain. ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker, a large data-driven project that now covers 64 critical technologies and focuses on high-impact research, reveals a stunning shift in research ‘technology leadership’ over the past two decades. Where the United States (US) led in 60 of the 64 technologies in the five years between 2003 and 2007, the US’s lead has decreased to seven technologies in the most recent five years (2019–2023). Instead, China now leads in 57 of those technologies.
Within the Indo-Pacific region, some countries have responded to those shifts in technology leadership through the introduction of policies aimed at building ‘technological sovereignty’. The restriction of high-risk vendors from critical infrastructure, the creation of sovereign industrial bases and supply-chain diversification are examples of this approach. But a sovereign approach doesn’t mean protectionism. Rather, many countries, including Australia and South Korea, are collaborating with like-minded regional partners to further their respective national interests and support regional resilience through a series of minilateral frameworks.
The Australia – South Korea technological relationship already benefits from strong foundations, but it’s increasingly important that both partners turn promise into reality. It would be beneficial for Australia and South Korea to leverage their respective strengths and ensure that collaboration evolves in a strategic manner. Both countries are leaders in research and development (R&D) related to science and technology (S&T) and are actively involved in international partnerships for standards-setting relating to AI and other technologies. Furthermore, both countries possess complementary industry sectors, as demonstrated through Australia’s critical-minerals development and existing space-launch capabilities on one hand, and South Korea’s domestic capacity for advanced manufacturing on the other.
This report examines four stages common to technological life cycles — (1) R&D and innovation; (2) building blocks for manufacturing; (3) testing and application; and (4) standards and norms. For each, we examine a specific critical technology of interest. Those four life-cycle areas and respective technologies—spanning biotechnologies-related R&D, manufacturing electric-battery materials, satellite launches and AI standards-setting—were chosen as each is a technology of focus for both countries. Furthermore, collaboration through these specific technological stages enables Australia and South Korea to leverage their existing strengths in a complementary manner (see Figure 1). Supporting the analysis of these four stages of the technological life cycle and selected critical technologies is data from ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker and the Composite Science and Technology Innovation Index (COSTII) jointly released by South Korea’s Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) and the Korea Institute of Science & Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP).
Informed by that examination, this report identifies a set of recommendations for strengthening cooperation that is relevant for different stakeholders, including government and industry.
Policy recommendations
Biotechnologies
Australia and South Korea can enhance knowledge-sharing in biotechnologies-related R&D through people-to-people exchanges. Links should be formalised through an MoU between relevant institutions—such as Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology. An MoU could be used to implement initiatives such as a virtual mentoring program and long-term in-person exchanges (preferably at least 12 months in duration). Such exchanges would support immersive in-country interaction, enabling the transfer of specialised R&D expertise. Australian researchers could share knowledge about advances in early-stage clinical trials processes, while South Korean researchers could contribute insights into synthetic biology and AI tools in drug-discovery clinical-trial methodologies. Financial support from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council could facilitate the exchanges.2 There remains a need to address visa constraints impeding the free flow of researchers between both countries. While this report focuses on R&D, we suggest that there’s equal value in considering cooperation in the manufacturing stages of the biotechnologies value chain.
Recommendation 1: Formalise links between Australia’s and South Korea’s key biotechnologies R&D institutions by facilitating long-term people-to-people exchanges aimed at transferring specialised expertise. This includes in areas such as clinical trials, synthetic biology and AI integration in biotechnologies.
Electric batteries
Australian companies should consider the production of battery materials, including lithium hydroxide and precursor cathode active materials (pCAM), through joint ventures with South Korean battery manufacturers. Such ventures would benefit from jointly funded and owned facilities geographically close to requisite critical minerals. Since spodumene is needed for lithium hydroxide and nickel, cobalt and manganese are required for pCAM, Western Australia provides the ideal location for those facilities. Furthermore, BHP’s recent suspension of its Western Australian nickel operations provides an ideal opportunity for a South Korean battery company to purchase those operations— securing nickel sulphate supplies necessary for pCAM manufacturing.3 There’s also the potential for South Korea to invest in cathode active manufacturing (CAM) manufacturing in Australia by taking advantage of the co-location of mining and pCAM operations.
The provision of loans with relatively low interest rates from South Korean Government–owned banks,4 as well as tax credits and energy incentives provided by the Australian Government, would assist in offsetting the relatively high operational costs (including for labour and materials) associated with establishing joint battery-material plants in Australia instead of South Korea.5 Environmental regulations will need careful consideration in assessing such proposals, such as those covering the disposal of by-products. In the case of sodium sulphate, that by-product can be used in fertilisers and even recycled for future use in battery-material manufacturing.6
Recommendation 2: Consider the establishment of facilities in Australia under joint venture arrangements between Australian and South Korean companies to enable expanded production of battery materials (including lithium hydroxide and pCAM).
Space and satellite technologies
Australia and South Korea should establish a government-to-government agreement that would facilitate the launch of South Korean satellites from northern and southern locations in Australia. This would be similar to the Australia–US Technologies Safeguard Agreement. The agreement would increase the ease with which companies from both countries can pursue joint launches by streamlining launch permit application processes, export controls, taxation requirements and environmental regulations. The agreement can establish a robust framework for joint operations and continued R&D in space and satellite technologies while ensuring that both countries protect associated sensitive technologies. Any such agreement should prioritise consultations with community stakeholders to further inclusive decision-making focused on addressing the social and environmental impacts of space launches.7 Engaging with Indigenous landowners to ensure the protection of cultural heritage, sacred sites and traditional land stewardship is particularly key.8
Recommendation 3: Establish a government-to-government agreement similar to the Australia–US Technologies Safeguard Agreement to bolster the ease with which Australian and South Korean companies can conduct joint satellite launches on Australian soil.
Artificial intelligence technologies
Closer collaboration between Standards Australia and the Korea Standards Association in establishing international AI standards will be beneficial. The established positive record of Australian and South Korean stakeholders in relation to international norms and standards relating to critical technologies, and comparative regional strengths, provide a means to ensure that international AI standards continue to evolve in a way that fosters interoperability, innovation, transparency, diversity and security-by-design. One recommended body through which Australian and South Korean stakeholders could coordinate their respective approaches is the international, industry-led multistakeholder joint subcommittee (SC) created by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) known as the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 Subcommittee 42 on AI (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42).
Recommendation 4: Coordinate the approach of Standards Australia and the Korea Standards Association in establishing international AI standards in international technology standards bodies, for example, through ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42.
https://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/03130029/2024-12-05-15_40_13-Australia-and-South-Korea_-leveraging-the-strategic-potential-of-cooperation-in-banner-1-1.png210420nathanhttp://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16232551/ASPI-CMYK_SVG.svgnathan2024-12-11 06:00:342025-03-07 14:09:49Australia and South Korea: Leveraging the strategic potential of cooperation in critical technologies
http://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16232551/ASPI-CMYK_SVG.svg00markohttp://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16232551/ASPI-CMYK_SVG.svgmarko2024-10-15 21:51:162025-01-22 09:55:11Dr Jennifer Wong Leung
