DIGITAL DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY: THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF OSINT UNDER HYBRID THREATS

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published: Oct 14, 2026

  Tetiana Krasnopolska

  Yuliia Zavhorodnia

  Alina Polukhina

Abstract

The accelerating digital transformation of international relations has fundamentally reshaped the institutional architecture of diplomacy, expanding its functions far beyond political communication. Contemporary digital diplomacy is increasingly operating as a multidimensional governance mechanism, integrating data infrastructures, artificial intelligence, open-source intelligence (OSINT), digital platforms, and strategic analytics into foreign policy decision-making. Simultaneously, the emergence of hybrid threats has transformed the economic basis of international security, combining military coercion with cyber operations, disinformation, sanctions evasion, technological competition and the manipulation of global supply chains. These developments necessitate a rethink of digital diplomacy, viewing it not merely as a communication tool, but as an institutional component of the international political economy responsible for producing and managing strategic information resources. This article presents a political economy framework that explains how OSINT operates as an economic mechanism within digital diplomacy. Unlike existing studies, which primarily examine OSINT from the perspectives of intelligence, security or investigative journalism, this research conceptualises OSINT as an institutional process that transforms open data into strategic economic information. This information can reduce uncertainty, decrease transaction costs, strengthen sanctions enforcement, improve investment risk assessment and support evidence-based diplomatic decision-making. In terms of methodology, the study draws on political economy, international political economy, institutional economics, digital diplomacy studies, information economics, data economy theory and hybrid threat research. The analytical framework draws on institutional analysis, comparative analysis, document analysis, content analysis, qualitative case studies and OSINT methodology. The article presents an innovative conceptual model that illustrates how hybrid threats drive the institutional development of digital diplomacy by integrating OSINT, data analytics, and strategic decision-making processes. It posits that digital diplomacy has evolved into an institution that generates strategic information capital, thereby bolstering economic security and national competitiveness. The findings contribute to contemporary debates on digital diplomacy by broadening its theoretical interpretation to encompass the political economy of strategic information governance, not just communication and public diplomacy.

How to Cite

Krasnopolska, T., Zavhorodnia, Y., & Polukhina, A. (2026). DIGITAL DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY: THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF OSINT UNDER HYBRID THREATS. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 12(4), 462-473. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2026-12-4-462-473
Article views: 27 | PDF Downloads: 12

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

digital diplomacy, decision-making, foreign policy, OSINT, hybrid threats, economic security, data economy, sanctions, digital governance, transaction costs

References

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431

Bjola, C. (2019). The dark side of digital diplomacy: Countering disinformation and propaganda. Real Instituto Elcano. https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/the-dark-side-of-digital-diplomacy-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda/

Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730844

Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (Eds.). (2024). The Oxford handbook of digital diplomacy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192859198.001.0001

Council of the European Union. (2023). Council conclusions on EU digital diplomacy (11088/23). https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11088-2023-INIT/en/pdf

Council of the European Union. (2024). The future of EU digital policy: Council conclusions (9957/24). https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9957-2024-INIT/en/pdf

Council of the European Union. (2026). Hybrid threats. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/hybrid-threats/

European Commission. (2024a). List of common high priority items. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/list-common-high-priority-items_en

European Commission. (2024b). EU and partners expand list of common high priority items to further weaken Russia’s war effort. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-and-partners-expand-list-common-high-priority-items-further-weaken-russias-war-effort-2024-02-23_en

European External Action Service. (2023). Digital diplomacy for a secure and competitive Europe. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/digital-diplomacy-secure-and-competitive-europe_en

European External Action Service. (2025). 3rd EEAS report on foreign information manipulation and interference threats. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/3rd-eeas-report-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference-threats_en

Financial Action Task Force. (2025). Complex proliferation financing and sanctions evasion schemes. FATF/OECD. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/Complex-PF-Sanctions-Evasions-Schemes.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf

Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Digital economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20171452

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1998). Power and interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs, 77(5), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/20049052

Manor, I. (2019). The digitalization of public diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04405-3

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2024). NATO’s approach to countering hybrid threats. https://www.nato.int/ https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2024/10/18/natos-approach-to-counter-information-threats

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/pantheon_files/files/publication/joe_nye_wielding_soft_power.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). OECD digital economy outlook 2024. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b9a84b44-en

Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business School Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.