Critical Infrastructure Security Course

Course Philosophy

Course Development Philosophy

The course is designed according to Martin Zubko’s teaching philosophy, expressed in the principle that:
“A supreme principle of teaching is to ignite curiosity that leads to purposeful research, resulting in discoveries that bring meaning.” 

This approach informs the course structure, where intellectual curiosity serves as the starting point for research-driven learning. Through engagement with theoretical debates and independent investigation, students are encouraged to develop original insights and contribute to deeper understanding of international politics. 

“With each course, my aim has been to develop a research-driven intellectual workshop in which teaching is built around two complementary dimensions: mentoring and coaching. I recognise the limitations of my own knowledge in comparison with the expanding capabilities of artificial intelligence systems; however, the central purpose of my work lies elsewhere — in cultivating individuals who can navigate a complex and often chaotic information environment shaped by truth, misinformation, and partial truths.

The essential task is to develop students’ capacity for independent judgement: the ability to critically evaluate information, formulate meaningful questions, and produce rigorous analysis. Their own intellectual curiosity and judgement remain the primary sources of inquiry, enabling them to discover new perspectives, identify emerging patterns, and contribute original insights to the understanding of complex phenomena.”
— Martin Zubko

Core Principles

Three core principles guide this entire curriculum:

1. Systemic Interdependence – Critical infrastructure must be understood as a set of interconnected socio-technical systems whose operation depends upon complex relationships among physical assets, digital networks, institutions, markets, and political authorities. In such systems, disruption is rarely confined to a single point of failure; vulnerabilities propagate through networks, producing cascading effects across jurisdictions, sectors, and strategic domains.

2. Analytical Pluralism – The study of critical infrastructure security requires engagement with competing analytical traditions. Realist approaches emphasise infrastructure as an instrument of strategic competition and geopolitical leverage; international political economy examines infrastructures as sites of dependency, ownership, and asymmetric power; and complex systems perspectives explain emergent vulnerabilities arising from interconnection and technological integration. Each framework provides analytical insight and is limited by its underlying assumptions.

3. Epistemological Reflexivity – Critical infrastructure security is a political and analytical construction, not a purely technical category. Definitions of what constitutes “critical” infrastructure reflect historical experiences, institutional priorities, economic interests, and geopolitical perspectives. The study of infrastructure security therefore requires examination of how threats are identified, risks are calculated, and security priorities are established.

Critical infrastructure has become a central domain of contemporary international politics. Energy systems, maritime networks, digital communications, financial infrastructures, and orbital systems function as integrated cyber-physical architectures rather than isolated technical arrangements; they constitute integrated cyber-physical architectures through which states exercise power, markets operate, and societies maintain essential functions.

This course examines critical infrastructure security as a field located at the intersection of international security, international political economy, and technological statecraft. It analyses infrastructures as foundations of global connectivity and, at the same time, as instruments of strategic competition. Control over networks, standards, technologies, and dependencies has become a significant source of geopolitical influence.

A central focus of the course is the role of cyber capabilities as instruments of interstate competition and strategic disruption. Cyber operations are examined as embedded within broader infrastructure contests, enabling actors to manipulate, degrade, or exploit the systems upon which contemporary political and economic order depends. The course therefore approaches critical infrastructure security as a problem of power, vulnerability, and governance within an increasingly interconnected international system.

Course Content Structure

This 12-week course is organised around a multi-level analytical framework examining critical infrastructure security from conceptual foundations to geopolitical, technological, and institutional dynamics. It progresses from theories of infrastructure power and systemic vulnerability to the analysis of key domains, including energy systems, digital networks, maritime corridors, and strategic technologies. The final modules integrate these perspectives by examining governance, resilience, and the role of critical infrastructure in contemporary geopolitical competition.

MODULE I: Infrastructure, Networks, and Power in IR

Week 1: Infrastructure as Structural Power in International Relations

Week 2: Network Power and Weaponised Interdependence

MODULE II: Deeply Cyber-Embedded Infrastructure Systems

Week 3: Industrial Control Systems and Cyber-Physical Vulnerability

Week 4: Cascading Failure and Systemic Interdependence

Week 5: Energy Infrastructure as Cyber-Physical Geopolitical Power

MODULE III: Indirectly Cyber-Mediated Systems and Material Flows

Week 6: Maritime Chokepoints and Geopolitical Geography

Week 7: Ports, Logistics, and Digital Infrastructure Governance

Week 8: Subsea Cables and the Physicality of Global Communications

MODULE IV: Governance, Cyber Power, and Institutional Fragility

Week 9: Cyber Operations, Strategic Competition, and Infrastructure Conflict

Week 10: Public–Private Power and Infrastructure Governance

MODULE V: Space Infrastructure and Systemic Futures

Week 11: Space Infrastructure and Orbital Dependency

Week 12: Foresight and Systemic Futures of Infrastructure Security

Analytical Proposition

Contemporary geopolitical power increasingly operates through the capacity to control, secure, or disrupt transboundary infrastructure networks, extending strategic competition beyond traditional forms of territorial dominance. The security dynamics of global infrastructure are shaped by varying degrees of cyber-physical integration:

• Deeply Cyber-Embedded Systems – Sectors such as electricity grids and financial infrastructures, where digital systems directly govern physical processes and operational continuity. Their high degree of cyber dependence creates exposure to remote disruption, systemic compromise, and cascading failure.

• Cyber-Mediated Physical Systems – Infrastructure domains such as maritime routes, canals, and logistics corridors, where geography remains the primary strategic constraint and cyber capabilities serve as enabling mechanisms for monitoring, optimisation, and selective disruption.

Integrated Learning Stages

Each week of this 12-week course is structured around three integrated learning stages designed to develop theoretical understanding, infrastructure security analysis, and critical reflexivity.

1. Preparation: Engaging with Concepts, Frameworks, and Evidence
   Before each session, students engage with assigned readings, policy documents, technical reports, and empirical materials to develop familiarity with key concepts, analytical frameworks, and contemporary infrastructure security debates. Preparation establishes the foundation for informed discussion and evidence-based analysis.

2. Discussion-Based Lecture: Applying Theory to Infrastructure Security Challenges
   Class sessions combine theoretical engagement with structured analytical discussion. Students examine competing approaches, apply conceptual frameworks to empirical cases, and evaluate how different perspectives explain infrastructure vulnerability, strategic competition, and governance challenges.

3. Research Lab: Developing Analytical Skills Through Applied Investigation
   The research lab develops practical analytical capabilities in critical infrastructure assessment. Students work with empirical evidence, map infrastructure dependencies, analyse vulnerabilities, evaluate causal mechanisms, and examine the assumptions and limits of different security assessments.

Foundational Texts

• Dunn Cavelty, Myriam. 2024. The Politics of Cyber-Security. Routledge.

• Greenberg, Andy. 2019. Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin’s Most Dangerous Hackers. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

• Kaplan, Fred M. 2016. Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War. Simon & Schuster.

• Lindsay, Jon R. 2025. Age of Deception: Cybersecurity as Secret Statecraft. Cornell University Press.

• Maschmeyer, Lennart. 2024. Subversion: From Covert Operations to Cyber Conflict. Oxford University Press.

• Radvanovsky, Robert, and Allan McDougall. 2024. Critical Infrastructure: Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Routledge.

• Smeets, Max. 2022. No Shortcuts: Why States Struggle to Develop a Military Cyber-Force. Oxford University Press.

• Zetter, Kim. 2014. Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon. Crown Publishers.

Research articles do not appear in the bibliography above. This is intentional. Each week, students are expected to identify a peer-reviewed article relevant to that week’s topic, bring it to the seminar, and share it with the group. The lecturer contributes selections alongside the class. This practice develops independent literature-searching habits, exposes the seminar to a wider range of scholarly perspectives than any fixed reading list could provide, and keeps the course in sustained contact with current debates in the field.

Learning Outcomes

1. Analyse critical infrastructure as a domain of geopolitical power and vulnerability
   Evaluate infrastructure networks as instruments of strategic leverage, dependency, and coercion. Distinguish between deeply cyber-embedded systems (where digital architectures directly govern physical operations) and cyber-mediated systems (where geography remains the primary strategic constraint and digital capabilities add a further layer of control and disruption).

2. Assess systemic interdependence and cascading risk
   Identify how disruptions propagate across interconnected energy, maritime, digital, and orbital infrastructures. Analyse cross-sector dependencies, transmission pathways, and institutional vulnerabilities that transform localised incidents into systemic disruptions.

3. Apply theoretical and governance frameworks to infrastructure security
   Use international relations, international political economy, and security governance approaches to explain variations in vulnerability, resilience, and state capacity. Critically assess the roles of states, corporations, and international institutions in infrastructure protection and crisis governance.

4. Develop strategic infrastructure risk assessments
   Produce evidence-based threat assessments and scenario analyses that integrate geopolitical, technological, and institutional factors. Apply rigorous analytical methods and keep a clear distinction between physical infrastructure systems and their digital control environments.

Assessment

Graded Assessment Components

Assessment 1: Infrastructure Vulnerability Analysis (35% | 2,500 words)
Select one critical infrastructure system (energy, maritime, digital, financial, or orbital). Produce an analytical assessment of its geopolitical vulnerability and governance challenges. Examine:  

• physical architecture and digital control environment  

• dependencies and key actors  

• position on the cyber-physical spectrum

Apply a relevant theoretical framework (e.g., weaponised interdependence or complex systems theory).  

Submission Deadline: End of Week 7.

Assessment 2: Capstone Strategic Infrastructure Risk and Foresight Report (55% | 5,000–6,000 words)
Develop a strategic assessment of a contemporary transboundary infrastructure security challenge. The report must:

• analyse key actors and interests  

• map interdependencies and cascading risks  

• apply theoretical frameworks  

• evaluate governance limitations

Conclude with three plausible scenarios for the next 10–20 years.  

Submission Deadline: Sunday of Week 14 (Formal Assessment Period, following the conclusion of Week 12 teaching).

Assessment 3: Participation and Analytical Engagement (10% | Ongoing)
Participation is assessed throughout the semester based on the quality of students’ engagement with the analytical objectives of the course. Assessment considers contributions to Discussion-Based Lectures and Research Labs. Students are expected to demonstrate the ability to apply theoretical concepts to empirical cases, engage critically with different interpretations, use evidence effectively, and respond constructively to alternative arguments. Attendance is required. Marks are awarded for the quality of intellectual engagement.

Grading Scale (%) and Performance Standards

• 80–100: Exceptional
  Outstanding analytical ability, originality, and intellectual independence. The work develops a sophisticated, tightly integrated argument that combines theory, evidence, and method with exceptional precision. It critically evaluates competing explanations, exposes underlying assumptions and limitations, and produces insights that approach professional analytical standards.

• 70–79: Excellent
  Advanced analytical skills and strong theoretical understanding. The work presents a clear, well-supported argument and engages critically with relevant debates and alternative explanations. Minor limitations may remain in originality, depth, or full integration of perspectives.

• 60–69: Good
  Solid command of key concepts, literature, and analytical approaches. Theories are applied appropriately and the argument is coherent. Limitations typically appear in originality, critical depth, methodological sophistication, or engagement with competing interpretations.

• 50–59: Satisfactory
  Adequate understanding of core concepts and empirical material. The work engages with the course content but remains largely descriptive or summary-based, with limited analytical depth, theoretical application, or critical evaluation.

• 40–49: Marginal Pass
  Basic understanding of course requirements is present, but analysis is underdeveloped, heavily descriptive, and insufficiently supported by evidence or theoretical reasoning.

• Below 40: Fail
  Does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of key concepts, analytical approaches, or evidence. The work lacks a coherent argument and fails to meet minimum academic standards.

Submission, Formatting Requirements and Academic Integrity

• All written work must be submitted as a PDF file.

• Use 12-point Aptos or Arial font. Number all pages. On the first page include your name, student number, course name, assignment title, and word count. A separate cover page is not required.

• The stated word count is a guide. Stay within 10% above or below it. The word count includes the main text and in-text citations, but excludes the reference list, tables, figures, and appendices.

• Use the Chicago Author-Date citation style throughout. Examples: (Yergin 2020) or Yergin (2020) argues that… For direct quotations include the page number: (Yergin 2020, 47). Place the reference list at the end, organised alphabetically by surname. Footnotes may be used sparingly for substantive clarifications only; do not use them for routine citations.

• Formal policies regarding academic integrity and the use of AI tools vary by institution and will apply in full. Beyond these formal requirements lies a deeper educational principle: the purpose of assessment is not merely to demonstrate completion of tasks, but to develop genuine understanding, analytical capability, and intellectual independence. A qualification represents not only the work submitted, but the knowledge and skills that work is designed to cultivate. This course is built on meaningful engagement with scholarship, practitioners, and professional perspectives that extend beyond the formal syllabus. The value students gain depends on a shared commitment to curiosity, preparation, critical thinking, and responsible academic practice.

Detailed Module Descriptions

MODULE I: Infrastructure, Networks, and Power in IR

Week 1: Infrastructure as Structural Power in International Relations

Core Question
How do infrastructure systems shape the material foundations of political authority, economic organisation, and geopolitical power?

Preparation
The historical relationship between infrastructure and state formation; infrastructure as a source of territorial control, economic integration, and political authority; the transformation from fixed territorial power to networked forms of influence; competing approaches to defining infrastructure criticality within national security frameworks.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Infrastructure as structural power in international relations; the role of material systems in enabling state capacity and shaping international hierarchies; infrastructure not as politically neutral technology but as an institutional and geopolitical arrangement through which authority, dependency, and strategic advantage are organised.

The session introduces the analytical distinction between infrastructure systems and their control environments, establishing the foundation for examining how physical networks and digital architectures interact within contemporary security dynamics.

Research Lab
Applying an infrastructure power framework to historical cases of strategic networks, including transnational canals, railway systems, and early telecommunication networks. Students identify how infrastructure ownership, geographical position, technological design, and institutional control generated geopolitical advantages.

Additional Literature 

• Baldwin, David A. 2016. Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach. Princeton University Press.

• Misa, Thomas J. 2004. Leonardo to the Internet: Technology and Culture from the Renaissance to the Present. Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press.

Week 2: Network Power and Weaponised Interdependence

Core Question
How do asymmetric global networks transform economic connectivity into instruments of strategic leverage and coercion?

Preparation
Network centrality and strategic dependence; global hubs and chokepoints; the theory of weaponised interdependence; surveillance and coercive mechanisms within financial, technological, and communication networks; the relationship between openness, connectivity, and vulnerability.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The transition from infrastructure as a foundation of connectivity to infrastructure as a mechanism of geopolitical competition. The session examines how actors positioned at critical network nodes can exercise influence through control over information flows, financial systems, technological standards, and commercial infrastructure.

The discussion challenges assumptions that interdependence necessarily reduces conflict by examining how asymmetric connectivity can become a source of strategic power.

Research Lab
Mapping a contemporary global network—such as financial clearing, digital communications, logistics, or technology supply chains—to identify central nodes, strategic dependencies, and potential mechanisms of coercion.

Additional Literature 

• Drezner, Daniel W., Henry Farrell, and Abraham L. Newman. 2021. The Uses and Abuses of Weaponized Interdependence. Brookings Institution Press.

• Farrell, Henry, and Abraham L. Newman. 2023. Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy. Henry Holt and Company.

• Nye, Joseph S. 2011. The Future of Power. PublicAffairs.

MODULE II: Deeply Cyber-Embedded Infrastructure Systems

Week 3: Industrial Control Systems and Cyber-Physical Vulnerability

Core Question
How does digital control over physical infrastructure transform cyber capabilities into instruments of strategic disruption?

Preparation
Industrial Control Systems (ICS), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) architectures, and operational technology environments; cyber-physical coupling; the evolution from information theft to physical manipulation; Stuxnet and Industroyer as foundational cases of cyber-physical conflict.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Cyber-physical infrastructure as a transformation in the character of vulnerability. The session examines how digital systems increasingly govern physical processes, creating new possibilities for sabotage, coercion, and strategic ambiguity.

The discussion focuses on the limits of traditional distinctions between cyber espionage, sabotage, and armed conflict, and examines the challenges of attribution and response.

Research Lab
Reconstructing a documented cyber-physical attack by analysing the attack pathway, affected infrastructure components, strategic objectives, and implications for national security.

Additional Literature 

• Rid, Thomas. 2013. Cyber War Will Not Take Place. Oxford University Press.

• Sanger, David E. 2019. The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, and Fear in the Cyber Age. Broadway Books.

• Zetter, Kim. 2014. Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon. Crown Publishers.

Week 4: Cascading Failure and Systemic Interdependence

Core Question
Why do disruptions within interconnected infrastructure systems develop into broader systemic crises?

Preparation
Complex systems theory and infrastructure resilience; tight coupling and interactive complexity; normal accident theory; cross-sector dependency chains linking energy, water, transport, finance, and digital systems; governance approaches to systemic risk management.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Infrastructure vulnerability as an emergent property of interconnected systems. The session examines why highly optimised networks can become fragile, how failures propagate across sectors, and why technical reliability does not necessarily produce strategic resilience.

The discussion moves from individual vulnerabilities toward systemic exposure, institutional preparedness, and the governance of cascading risks.

Research Lab
Developing a cascading failure model of a transboundary infrastructure disruption. Students identify dependency pathways, amplification mechanisms, and institutional responses.

Additional Literature 

• Clark, Robert M., and Simon Hakim. 2018. Cyber-Physical Security: Protecting Critical Infrastructure at the State and Local Level. Springer.

• Egloff, Florian J. 2022. Semi-State Actors in Cybersecurity. Oxford University Press.

• Gartzke, Erik, and Jon R. Lindsay. 2024. Elements of Deterrence: The Foundations of Cyber Strategy. Oxford University Press.

• Shackelford, Scott J. 2023. Forks in the Digital Road: Tackling the Challenges and Discontents of the Digital Age. Oxford University Press.

Week 5: Energy Infrastructure as Cyber-Physical Geopolitical Power

Core Question
How do energy infrastructures function simultaneously as sources of geopolitical leverage, strategic dependency, and cyber-physical vulnerability?

Preparation
Energy systems as political and institutional structures; electricity grids, pipelines, and cross-border interconnections; energy dependence and coercion; digitalisation of energy systems; grid synchronisation as both resilience mechanism and strategic exposure.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Energy infrastructure as a central domain of geopolitical competition. The session examines how states use energy networks to generate influence, how interconnection creates both security benefits and vulnerabilities, and how cyber capabilities reshape traditional energy security calculations.

The focus is placed on the interaction between physical infrastructure, digital control systems, and geopolitical power.

Research Lab
Mapping a transnational energy infrastructure system to analyse dependency relationships, strategic vulnerabilities, and possible disruption scenarios.

Additional Literature 

• Cao, Yang, Y. Li, X. Liu, and Christian Rehtanz. 2019. Cyber-Physical Energy and Power Systems. Springer.

• Mahmoud, Magdi S., H. M. Khalid, and M. M. Hamdan. 2021. Cyberphysical Infrastructures in Power Systems. Elsevier.

• Parizad, Ali, H. R. Baghaee, and Saifur Rahman, eds. 2025. Smart Cyber-Physical Power Systems: Fundamental Concepts, Challenges, and Solutions. Wiley.

MODULE III: Indirectly Cyber-Mediated Systems and Material Flows

Week 6: Maritime Chokepoints and Geopolitical Geography

Core Question
How does physical geography continue to shape strategic vulnerability within an increasingly interconnected global system?

Preparation
The strategic role of maritime chokepoints in global trade and military mobility; the geopolitical significance of the Strait of Malacca, Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, and Panama Canal; maritime security, freedom of navigation, and the relationship between geography and state power.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The persistence of geography as a fundamental constraint on global infrastructure networks. The session examines maritime corridors as strategic spaces where commercial flows, military power, and geopolitical competition converge.

The discussion explores how physical constraints shape state behaviour, how control over maritime access generates strategic leverage, and why digitally connected economies remain dependent upon geographically concentrated infrastructure routes.

Research Lab
Conducting a strategic exposure assessment of a maritime-dependent economy. Students analyse the consequences of disruption to a major maritime corridor by mapping trade dependencies, alternative routes, political actors, and security implications.

Additional Literature 

• Medcalf, Rory. 2021. Indo-Pacific Empire: China, America and the Contest for the World’s Pivotal Region. Manchester University Press.

• Monaghan, Andrew, and Roy Allison, eds. 2023. The Sea in Russian Strategy. Manchester University Press.

• Till, Geoffrey. 2022. How to Grow a Navy: Maritime Strategy and Sea Power. Routledge.

• Vego, Milan N. 2022. Exercising Control of the Sea. Routledge.

Week 7: Ports, Logistics, and Digital Infrastructure Governance

Core Question
How does the digital transformation of logistics systems reshape vulnerability within physically constrained infrastructure networks?

Preparation
Ports as hybrid infrastructures combining geography, physical assets, digital management systems, and commercial networks; automated container management; supply-chain visibility platforms; customs and logistics technologies; public–private governance of global transport infrastructure.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Ports and logistics systems as sites where physical geography and digital coordination intersect. The session examines how automation and optimisation improve efficiency while introducing new forms of systemic exposure.

The discussion focuses on the political economy of global logistics, the role of private actors in infrastructure governance, and the tension between commercial efficiency and strategic resilience.

Research Lab
Developing a vulnerability assessment of a major port or logistics hub. Students analyse physical constraints, digital dependencies, ownership structures, and potential disruption pathways.

Additional Literature 

• Aït-Touati, Frédérique, Alexandra Arènes, Aurélia Grégoire, and Bruno Latour. 2022. Terra Forma: A Book of Speculative Maps. MIT Press.

• Alimahomed-Wilson, Jake, and Immanuel Ness, eds. 2018. Choke Points: Logistics Workers and Solidarity Movements Disrupting Global Capitalism. Pluto Press.

• Chayka, Kyle. 2024. Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture. Doubleday.

• Hillman, Jonathan E. 2021. The Digital Silk Road: China’s Quest to Wire the World and Win the Future. Harper Business.

• Khalili, Laleh. 2021. Sinews of War and Trade: Shipping and Capitalism in the Arabian Peninsula. Verso.

Week 8: Subsea Cables and the Physicality of Global Communications

Core Question
How does the material infrastructure of global connectivity shape contemporary geopolitical vulnerability?

Preparation
The geography of submarine fibre-optic cable networks; landing stations and maritime dependencies; private ownership of global communications infrastructure; hybrid cyber-physical threats; intelligence, surveillance, and strategic competition beneath the threshold of armed conflict.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The hidden material foundations of the digital economy. The session examines how global communications depend upon geographically concentrated physical infrastructure and how this creates strategic vulnerabilities for states, corporations, and international institutions.

The discussion explores the relationship between digital sovereignty, maritime geography, private ownership, and the challenges of protecting infrastructure beyond national jurisdiction.

Research Lab
Mapping global subsea cable networks to identify geographic concentrations, strategic dependencies, ownership patterns, and potential disruption scenarios.

Additional Literature 

• Clark, David D. 2023. Designing an Internet. MIT Press.

• Doctorow, Cory. 2024. Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation. Verso.

• Shapiro, Samantha J. 2023. Fancy Bear Goes Phishing: The Dark History of the Information Age, in Five Extraordinary Hacks. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

• Starosielski, Nicole. 2015. The Undersea Network. Duke University Press.

MODULE IV: Governance, Cyber Power, and Institutional Fragility

Week 9: Cyber Operations, Strategic Competition, and Infrastructure Conflict

Core Question
How do cyber capabilities reshape strategic competition by enabling coercion below the threshold of conventional conflict?

Preparation
Cyber capabilities as instruments of statecraft; cyber persistence and continuous competition; grey-zone operations; attribution challenges; state-sponsored actors, proxies, and non-state cyber capabilities; the relationship between secrecy, ambiguity, and strategic signalling.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Cyber operations as mechanisms of geopolitical competition rather than isolated technical events. The session examines how states use cyber capabilities to influence, disrupt, and exploit critical infrastructure while managing escalation risks.

The discussion evaluates how cyber operations challenge traditional assumptions about deterrence, sovereignty, and responsibility in international security.

Research Lab
Strategic reconstruction of a state-linked cyber infrastructure campaign. Students analyse objectives, actors, operational methods, attribution problems, and policy responses.

Additional Literature 

• Andersen, Louise H., Dennis Broeders, and Raluca Csernatoni, eds. 2024. Emerging and Disruptive Digital Technologies: National, Regional, and Global Perspectives. Publications Office of the European Union.

• Bjola, Corneliu, and Markus Kornprobst. 2023. Digital International Relations. Routledge.

• Edelman, Robert D. 2024. Rethinking Cyber Warfare. Oxford University Press.

• Fischerkeller, Michael P., Emily O. Goldman, and Richard J. Harknett. 2022. Cyber Persistence Theory: Redefining National Security in Cyberspace. Oxford University Press.

Week 10: Public–Private Power and Infrastructure Governance

Core Question
How is authority over critical infrastructure transformed when essential systems are governed through complex public–private arrangements?

Preparation
The changing role of the state in infrastructure governance; privatisation and market-based infrastructure management; cloud platforms and digital dependencies; corporate control over strategic technologies; regulatory challenges in transnational infrastructure systems.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The fragmentation of infrastructure authority in contemporary security environments. The session examines how governance responsibilities are distributed among states, corporations, and international institutions.

The discussion focuses on the implications of private ownership, technological dependence, and uneven regulatory capacity for national security and strategic autonomy.

Research Lab
Constructing an institutional map of a critical infrastructure governance system. Students identify key actors, authority structures, dependencies, and potential governance failures.

Additional Literature 

• Clarke, Richard A., and Robert K. Knake. 2019. The Fifth Domain: Defending Our Country, Our Companies, and Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats. Penguin.

• Hodge, Graeme A., and Carsten Greve. 2022. A Research Agenda for Public-Private Partnerships and the Governance of Infrastructure. Edward Elgar Publishing.

MODULE V: Space Infrastructure and Systemic Futures

Week 11: Space Infrastructure and Orbital Dependency

Core Question
Why has orbital infrastructure become a critical dependency within contemporary security and economic systems?

Preparation
The strategic role of satellite infrastructures; dependence on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS); commercial satellite constellations; military applications of space systems; counter-space capabilities including jamming, spoofing, and anti-satellite technologies.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Space infrastructure as an extension of terrestrial security systems. The session examines how orbital assets support military operations, economic activity, communications, and everyday societal functions.

The discussion explores the growing role of commercial actors in strategic space capabilities and the governance challenges created by increasing dependence on privately operated systems.

Research Lab
Conducting a strategic crisis simulation involving disruption to satellite infrastructure. Students evaluate cascading effects across military, economic, and civilian systems.

Additional Literature 

• Bateman, Aaron. 2024. Weapons in Space: Technology, Politics, and the Future of Orbital Security. MIT Press.

• Chaar, Walid. 2024. Data Independence. Advantage Media Group.

• Klein, John J. 2024. Space Warfare: Strategy, Principles and Policy. Routledge.

• Moltz, James Clay. 2026. The Politics of Space Security. Stanford University Press.

Week 12: Foresight and Systemic Futures of Infrastructure Security

Core Question
How will emerging technologies and geopolitical transformation reshape the future security of critical infrastructure systems?

Preparation
Artificial intelligence and autonomous infrastructure management; algorithmic decision-making; technological acceleration and systemic dependency; emerging vulnerabilities created by increasingly automated and interconnected systems; methods of strategic foresight and scenario construction.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The future evolution of critical infrastructure security under conditions of technological transformation and geopolitical uncertainty. The session examines whether emerging technologies enhance resilience or introduce new forms of systemic fragility.

The discussion integrates themes from the course by examining infrastructure security as an ongoing contest between connectivity, control, vulnerability, and governance capacity.

Research Lab
Developing alternative infrastructure security scenarios for 2040. Students construct plausible futures based on technological change, geopolitical competition, institutional adaptation, and systemic risk.

Additional Literature 

• Bailey, Michael. 2025. Unknowable Minds. Imprint Academic.

• Bostrom, Nick. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.

• Christian, Brian. 2020. The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values. W. W. Norton.

• Scharre, Paul. 2018. Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. W. W. Norton.

Office Hours and Consultation 

I welcome students to discuss course material, assessment questions, research ideas, or analytical challenges during consultation hours. To ensure that all requests are received and can be scheduled appropriately, please use the contact form provided for booking consultations.

I will respond with available times and confirmation of the meeting arrangement.

*** This course is designed to be adaptable across different higher education contexts. The weekly structure, assessment components, and reading requirements can be adjusted to meet the needs of particular institutions, programmes, or individual teaching contexts, and can be scaled appropriately for both undergraduate and postgraduate students. While the course’s analytical framework and intellectual objectives remain consistent, the structure presented here should be understood as a flexible model rather than a fixed template.

Updated – June 2026

I have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and coherence of this course design, but if you identify any errors, omissions, or areas for improvement, I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Academic work is always strengthened through careful review and constructive engagement. Additionally, if you are aware of any outstanding publications that could further enrich the course, I would welcome your recommendations.

Contact Form