Bridging Cybersecurity and Counterterrorism through Institutional Coupling and Interagency Governance in the Public Sector
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examined how governments formally connected cybersecurity and counterterrorism when a security problem crossed both policy domains. A comparative qualitative document analysis was conducted on national laws, strategies, crisis plans, and institutional mandates from Indonesia, Australia, and the United Kingdom that were operative by 31 August 2026. The analysis focused on institutional mandates, the division of authority, formal coordination mechanisms, and information or incident coordination. The findings showed that cybersecurity and counterterrorism remained administratively distinct in all three systems, although the points of connection differed. Indonesia relied on separate lead institutions with selective formal bridging. Australia provided a more explicit interface through national counterterrorism and cyber response arrangements. The United Kingdom connected the fields through shared national security institutions, particularly GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre. The study concluded that institutional coupling offered a useful way to compare formal cross-domain governance without treating documentary arrangements as evidence of operational effectiveness.
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504
Boeke, S. (2018). National cyber crisis management. Different European approaches. Governance, 31(3), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12309
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brass, I., & Sowell, J. H. (2021). Adaptive governance for the Internet of Things. Coping with emerging security risks. Regulation & Governance, 15(4), 1092–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12343
Broeders, D., Cristiano, F., & Weggemans, D. (2023). Too close for comfort. Cyber terrorism and information security across national policies and international diplomacy. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 46(12), 2426–2453. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2021.1928887
Carr, M. (2016). Public-private partnerships in national cyber-security strategies. International Affairs, 92(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12504
Chaudhary, T., Jordan, J., Salomone, M., & Baxter, P. (2018). Patchwork of confusion. The cybersecurity coordination problem. Journal of Cybersecurity, 4(1), tyy005. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy005
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x
Cotta, B., & Righettini, M. S. (2026). Governing cybersecurity in the digital age. Mapping comprehensive policy mixes with the Nodality-Authority-Treasure-Organization lens. Review of Policy Research, 43(4), e70113. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70113
Hossain, S. T., Yigitcanlar, T., Nguyen, K., & Xu, Y. (2025). Cybersecurity in local governments. A systematic review and framework of key challenges. Urban Governance, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2024.12.010
Huang, K., Madnick, S., Choucri, N., & Zhang, F. (2021). A systematic framework to understand transnational governance for cybersecurity risks from digital trade. Global Policy, 12(5), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13014
Jarvis, L., & Macdonald, S. (2015). What is cyberterrorism. Findings from a survey of researchers. Terrorism and Political Violence, 27(4), 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2013.847827
Jarvis, L., Macdonald, S., & Nouri, L. (2014). The cyberterrorism threat. Findings from a survey of researchers. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 37(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2014.853603
Kadir, Z. K. (2025). Kejahatan Berbasis Identitas Digital: Menggagas Kebijakan Kriminal untuk Dunia Metaverse. Jurnal Litigasi Amsir, 12(2), 124–137.
Kadir, Z. K. (2026). Old Explanations, New Crimes? Testing the Portability of Criminological Theory in the Digital Age. Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum, 4(4), 20463–20475. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v4i4.12119
Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies. Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005280605
Kapucu, N., & Hu, Q. (2016). Understanding multiplexity of collaborative emergency management networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014555645
Kianpour, M., & Frantz, C. (2025). Analysis of institutional design of European Union cyber incident and crisis management as a complex public good. Regulation & Governance, 19(4), 1037–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12640
Lewallen, J. (2021). Emerging technologies and problem definition uncertainty. The case of cybersecurity. Regulation & Governance, 15(4), 1035–1052. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12341
Magnusson, L., Iqbal, S., Elm, P., & Dalipi, F. (2025). Information security governance in the public sector. Investigations, approaches, measures, and trends. International Journal of Information Security, 24, 177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-025-01097-x
Mappaselleng, N. F., Kadir, N. K., Ahmad, A. K., Kadir, Z. K., & Normiati. (2025). Beyond the Surface: Exploring the Next Level of Terrorism on the Dark Web. Jambura Law Review, 7(1), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.33756/jlr.v7i1.26150
Masyhar, A., Utari, I. S., Usman, U., & Sabri, A. Z. S. A. (2023). Legal challenges of combating international cyberterrorism. The NCB Interpol Indonesia and global cooperation. Legality, 31(2), 344–366. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i2.29668
Michalec, O., Milyaeva, S., & Rashid, A. (2022). Reconfiguring governance. How cyber security regulations are reconfiguring water governance. Regulation & Governance, 16(4), 1325–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12423
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance. Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
Savaş, S., & Karataş, S. (2022). Cyber governance studies in ensuring cybersecurity. An overview of cybersecurity governance. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 3, 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-021-00045-4
Setiawan, D. A. (2020). Cyber terrorism and its prevention in Indonesia. Jurnal Media Hukum, 27(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.v27i2.9237
Siddha, A., & Benarrivo, R. (2023). Counter cyber terrorism governance in Indonesia. Khazanah Sosial, 5(2), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.15575/ks.v5i2.26414
Solansky, S. T., & Beck, T. E. (2009). Enhancing community safety and security through understanding interagency collaboration in cyber-terrorism exercises. Administration & Society, 40(8), 852–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399708326345
Strom, K. J., & Eyerman, J. (2007). Interagency coordination in response to terrorism. Promising practices and barriers identified in four countries. Criminal Justice Studies, 20(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010701396871
Utomo, E. S., Zulfa, E. A., Yuliatiningtyas, S., Rofi’i, M. S., & Barton, G. (2025). Governing cyberterrorism in Indonesia. Resilience and gaps in the Draft Cybersecurity Law RUU KKS 2025. Indonesia Law Review, 15(3), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v15n3.2
Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee. (2024). National Counter-Terrorism Plan. Fifth edition. Australian Government.
Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2023). 2023–2030 Australian Cyber Security Strategy.
Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2025a). A Safer Australia. Australia’s Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy 2025.
Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2025b). Australian Cyber Response Plan. AUSCYBERPLAN Version 1.
Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2026). Horizon 2 Action Plan for the 2023–2030 Australian Cyber Security Strategy.
Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme. (2026). Regulation No. 1 of 2026 on coordination among law-enforcement actors in terrorism criminal cases.
Government of Indonesia. (2021). Presidential Regulation No. 28 of 2021 on the National Cyber and Crypto Agency.
Government of Indonesia. (2023). Presidential Regulation No. 47 of 2023 on the National Cyber Security Strategy and Cyber Crisis Management.
Government of Indonesia. (2026a). Presidential Regulation No. 8 of 2026 on the National Action Plan for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism Leading to Terrorism 2026–2029.
Government of Indonesia. (2026b). Presidential Regulation No. 9 of 2026 on the National Counterterrorism Agency.
UK Government. (2022). National Cyber Strategy 2022.
UK Home Office. (2023). CONTEST. The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism 2023.