Protecting Digital Assets Overseas for U.S. Companies

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Analysis
Summary
References

Introduction

Modern businesses have been revolutionized by the emergence of the internet and other novel technologies. Digital assets, therefore, have become as critical as physical ones. The vulnerability of digital assets is relatively higher and small, medium, and large enterprises have a serious situation to deal with. Doing business internationally magnifies the threats to digital assets. Cybersecurity efforts by the government have proven inadequate leading to some scholars suggesting that private businesses need to find alternatives.

The relationship between China and the United States has also been shown to be the embodiment of cybersecurity threats with China’s continuous violations. Other scholars have explained the implications of data protection protocols in regions such as the European Union. The question of how U.S. companies can protect their digital assets can be answered by examining available protection frameworks and how to take advantage of them

Analysis

The U.S. government offers cybersecurity for its companies both domestically and internationally. However, these efforts have been deemed inadequate by Rosenzweig et al. (2017) who propose that active cyber defense offers a better solution. Active cyber defense involves implementing measures to deceive, identify, and retaliate against hackers. Some of the critical assets that need protection include intellectual property rights (IPR). The U.S. government may have refused to protect foreign IPR and countries such as China have been unwilling to meet the U.S. IPR demands as explained by Peng et al. (2017). Therefore, an active cyber defense becomes plausible as a self-help approach.

Even though the national government may have been insufficient, certain aspects can help businesses protect their digital assets overseas. Schackelford (2016) proposes the use of national cybersecurity strategies, including espionage mitigation and intellectual property protection. The concern, however, is whether other nations will be willing to adhere to the IPR demands of the U.S. considering the current relationship between China and the U.S. concerning these matters. As explained by Schackelford (2016), a cybersecurity strategy can be regarded as a political act, which creates expectations and establishes awareness among civil society and businesses. such an approach can work where there exist good political relationships between countries.

International laws can also be explored as mechanisms for helping businesses secure their digital assets overseas. The International Investment Law and Arbitration are recommended by Chaisse and Bauer (2019), who propose that there lacks an international mechanism for protecting foreign investors. The authors suggest the use of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) in what they refer to as a “‘polycentric’ approach to cyber peace” (Chaisse & Bauer, 2019, p. 549).

Additionally, European General Data Regulation (GDPR) discussed by Klar (2020) proves to be a more effective legal tool because it is much broader than that of the U.S. Therefore, the fact that the GDPR extends to foreign investors means that the U.S. companies can take advantage of the law to protect their digital assets in the European Union. It is important to insist, however, that self-help approaches are a necessity.

Summary

Protecting digital assets overseas will remain a challenge for U.S. companies because the government frameworks are inadequate. However, there are a few legal frameworks that remain useful and can offer businesses a certain degree of security. Self-help approaches for firms remain the best approach because each entity can examine its own security needs and implement measures targeting specific weaknesses. Even with the ability to take care of legal protocols, including IPR, BITs, and the GDPR, active cyber defense remains the most preferable option.

References

Chaisse, J., & Bauer, C. (2019). Cybersecurity and the protection of digital assets: Assessing the role of International Investment Law and Arbitration. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 21(3), 549-589.

Klar, M. (2020). Binding effects of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the U.S. companies. Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal, 11(2), 101-154. Web.

Peng, M., Ahlstrom, D., Carrager, S., & Shi, W. (2017). An institution-based view of global IPR history. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 893-907. Web.

Rosenzweig, P., Bucci, S., & Inserra, D. (2017). Next steps for U.S. cybersecurity in the Trump administration: Active cyber defense. The Heritage Foundation.

Schackelford, S. (2016). Protecting intellectual property and privacy in the digital age: The use of national cybersecurity strategies to mitigate cyber risk. Chaman Law Review, 19(2), 445-481. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Protecting Digital Assets Overseas for U.S. Companies

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)