FEATURES OF CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE IDEA OF DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY IN MODERN POLITICAL SCIENCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29038/2524-2679-2023-03-229-244Keywords:
digital sovereignty of the state, political science, digital sovereignty, digital sovereignty of the European Union, motivation for declaring digital sovereignty, geopolitical subjectivity, political control, political regimeAbstract
The article identifies and explores the features of conceptualizing the idea of digital sovereignty in modern political science. A substantive study of scientific discussions and discourse of digital sovereignty made it possible to identify a number of characteristic features of the conceptualization of this phenomenon in the research space of political science. It has been proven that attempts to directly compare the sovereignty of the state and the digital sovereignty of the state in measuring the linear evolution of concepts indicate the need to search for other principles for determining the relationship between them and the mechanisms of interaction between these two phenomena in the plane of real politics. An impor- tant vector of scientific searches for markers of digital sovereignty is the plane of the relationship between the digital sovereignty of a national EU member state and the digital sovereignty of the EU as a whole, which reflects the real political steps of all interested subjects. This context requires a departure from the state- centric understanding of sovereignty as a prerequisite for the exercise of power in a certain territory and evolution towards the definition of digital sovereignty as an orderly, value-oriented, regulated and secure digital space formed through the individual self-determination of citizens of the state/EU. It is substantiated that the idea of forming the possibility and ability of a national state (union of states) to independently make decisions regulating digital infrastructure and the use of relevant technologies in a space limited by sovereignty is a reflection of changes in stable models of power relations under the influence of digital transforma- tions. Public debates about the boundaries of digital sovereignty, technological sovereignty, data sovereignty and strategic autonomy have articulated a number of challenges to the sovereignty of citizens, states and the EU as measured by the nature of their (geo)political subjectivity. It has been established that the con- ceptualization of the digital sovereignty of the state in modern political science revolved around the problem of motivation for its proclamation and use as a tool for achieving political goals. In political practice, this idea unfolded through the formation of a controlled political space of cyber sovereignty in authoritarian states (China and russia) and a security architecture space for control over digital infrastructure in European liberal democracies.
References
ANSSI (2016). The European digital sovereignty: a common objective for France and Germany. URL: https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/en/actualite/the-european-digital-sovereignty- a-common-objective-for-france-and-germany
Barlow, J. P. (1996). Declaration on the Independence of Cyberspace, Electronic Frontier Foundation. URL: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
Bellanger, P. (2012). De la souveraineté numérique, Le Débat, vol. 170(3), p. 149–159.
Bhandar, B. (2011). The conceit of sovereignty: toward post-colonial technique, in: Lessard, B. (ed.). Stories Communities: Narratives of Contact and Arrival in Constitut- ing Political Community. Vancouver, BC, Canada: University of British Columbia Press, p. 66–88.
Burwell, F. G., Propp, K. (2020). The European Union and the Search for Building “Fortress Europe” orPreparing for a New World? Atlantic Council Future Europe Initiative. Issue Brief, June 2020. URL: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ The-European-Union-and-the-Search-for-Digital-Sovereignty-Building-Fortress-Europe- or-Preparing-for-a-New-World.pdf
Chander, A., Sun, H. (2021). Sovereignty 2.0. Georgetown Law Faculty Publica- tions and Other Works. 2404. University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2021/041. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3904949
Christakis, T. (2020). European Digital Sovereignty’: Successfully Navigating Be- tween the ‘Brussels Effect’ and Europe’s Quest for Strategic Autonomy. Multidisciplinary Institute on Artificial Intelligence/Grenoble Alpes Data Institute. URL: https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748098
Council of the European Union (2020). The German Presidency of the EU Council. Together for Europe’s recovery: Programme for Germany’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union (1 July to 31 December 2020). URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20200624STO81905/together-for-europe-s-recovery-germa- ny-takes-over-council-presidency
Creemers, R. J. E. H. (2020). China’s conception of cyber sovereignty: rhetoric and realization, in: Broeders, D., Berg, B. van den (Eds.). Governing Cyberspace: Behavior, Power, and Diplomacy. Digital Technologies and Global Politics, Lanham: Rowman & Lit- tlefield, p. 107–142.
Crespi, F., Caravellla, S., Menghini, M., Salvatori, Ch. (2021). European Tech- nological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy. Intereconomics. Re- view of European Economic Policy, 56(6), p. 348–354. URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bit- stream/10419/247773/1/10.1007_s10272-021-1013-6.pdf
Damon, L. (1986). Freedom of Information versus National Sovereignty: The Need for a New Global Forum for the Resolution of Transborder Date Flow Problems. Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 10(2), p. 262–287.
De Filippi, P., McCarthy, S. (2012). Cloud Computing: Centralization and Data Sovereignty. European Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 3(2), URL: https://hal.science/ hal-00746065/file/07_-_2012_EJLT_-Cloud_Computing_and_Data_Sovereignty.pdf
Edler, J., Blind, K., Frietsch, R., Kimpeler, S., Kroll, H., Lerch, Ch., Reiss, T., Roth, F., Schubert, T., Schuler, J., Walz, R. (2020). Technology sovereignty from demand to con- cept [Technologiesouveränität: Von der Forderung zum Konzept]. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research. Perspectives – Policy Briefs, vol. 02. URL: https://www. isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/publikationen/technology_sovereignty.pdf
Elms, D. (2021). Digital Sovereignty: protectionism or autonomy. Hinrich foun- dation, Asian Trade Centre. September 2021. URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5393d501e4b0643446abd228/t/615f394c5533a623afeac00b/1633630545286/Digita l+sovereignty+protectionism+or+autonomy+-+Hinrich+Foundation+-+Deborah+Elms+-
+September+2021.pdf
European Commission (2022). Joint Communication to the European Parlia- ment and the Council. EU Policy on Cyber Defense. Brussels, 10.11.2022 Join(2022) 49. URL: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Comm_cyber%20defence.pdf
European Council (2021). Statement of the members of the European Council. 25 March 2021. URL: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/03/25/ statement-of-the-members-of-the-european-council-25-march-2021
European Council. General Secretariat of the Council (2021). European Council Conclusions. Brussels, 22 October 2021 (OR. en). EUCO 17/21. CO EUR 15 CONCL 5. URL: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/52622/20211022-euco-conclusions-en.pdf
Farrand, B., Carrapico H. (2022). Digital sovereignty and taking back control: From regulatory capitalism to regulatory mercantilism in EU cybersecurity, European Security, 31(3), р. 435–453.
Glasze, G, Cattaruzza, A., Douzet, F., Dammann, F., Bertran, M.-G., Bômont,
C. , Braun, M., Danet, D., Desforges, A., Géry, A., Grumbach, S., Hummel, P., Limonier, K., Münßinger, M., Nicolai, Fl., Pétiniaud, L., Winkler, J. Zanin, C. (2023). Contested Spatiali- ties of Digital Sovereignty, Geopolitics, vol. 28(2), p. 919–995.
Gong, W. (2005). Information Sovereignty Reviewed, Intercultural Communica- tion Studies, vol. XIV, is. 1, p. 119–135.
Havercroft, J. (2011). The Captive of Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Heller, K. J. (2021). In Defense of Pure Sovereignty in Cyberspace, International Law Studies, vol. 97, p. 1432–1499.
Hu ,T. H. (2015). A Prehistory of the Cloud. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Innerarity, D. (2021). European Digital Sovereignty. URL: https://www.iedonline. eu/download/2021/IED-Research-Paper-Innerarity.pdf
Irion, K. (2012). Government Cloud Computing and National Data Sovereignty,
Policy and Internet, vol. 4 (3–4), p. 40–71.
Johansson, L. G. (2016). Theories about the Development of Science, in: Philosophy of Science for Scientists. Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy. Springer, p. 103–121.
Kaloudis, M. (2021). Sovereignty in the Digital Age – How Can We Measure Digital Sovereignty and Support the EU’s Action Plan?, New Global Studies, vol. 16(3), p. 275–299.
Krippendorff, K. (1993). Major metaphors of communication and some construc- tivist reflections on their use, Cybernetics & Human Knowing, vol. 2(1), p. 3–25.
Lambach, D. (2019).The Territorialization of Cyberspace. International Studies Re- view, vol. 22(3), p. 482–506.
Misterek, F. (2017): Digitale Souveränität. Technikutopien und Gestaltung- sansprüche Demokratischer Politik. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung. Köln.
Mueller, M. L. (2020). Against Sovereignty in Cyberspace. International Studies Review, 22(4), p. 779–801.
Padilla, M. (2017). Technological Sovereignty: What Are We Talking about?, Tech- nological Sovereignty, vol. 2. Barcelona: Descontrol, p. 3–15. URL: https://www.ritimo.org/ IMG/pdf/sobtech2-en-with-covers-web-150dpi-2018-01-10.pdf
Philpott, D. (2003). Sovereignty. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/sovereignty/
Pohle, J. (2020). Digital Sovereignty. A New Key Concept of Digital Policy in Germany and Europe. URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/228713/1/Full-text- report-Pohle-Digital-sovereignty.pdf
Pohle, J. (2020). Digitale Souveränität. Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Ver- waltung, T. Klenk, F. Nullmeier, G. Wewer (Eds.), Springer, p. 1–13.
Pohle, J., Thiel, T. (2019). Digitale Vernetzung und Souveränität: Genealogie eines Spannungsverhältnisses. Internet und Staat: Perspektiven auf eine komplizierte Beziehung,
I. Borucki, W. J. Schünemann (Eds.). Nomos, p. 57–80.
Pohle, J., Thiel, T. (2019): Digitale Vernetzung und Souveränität: Genealogieeines Spannungsverhältnisses, in: Borucki/Schünemann (Hg.): Internet und Staat, Baden-Baden.
Pohle, J., Thorsten, T. (2021). Digital Sovereignty. Practicing Sovereignty: Digital Involvement in Times of Crises. URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/247156/1/ Full-text-chapter-Pohle-et-al-Digital-sovereignty.pdf
Pohle, J., Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty, Internet Policy Review, vol. 9(4). URL: https://policyreview.info/concepts/digital-sovereignty
Powers, S. (2014). Towards Information Sovereignty, Beyond Netmundial: The Roadmap for Institutional Improvements to the Global Internet Governance Ecosystem, Philadelphia, p. 90–99.
Price, M. (2002). Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and its Challenge to State Power, Cambridge.
Prokscha, A. (2021). Digital Sovereignty for the European Union – Analysing Frames and Claims for Digital Sovereignty in the European Union’s Digital Strategy. URL: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/354888060_Digital_Sovereignty_for_the_European_Union_-_Ana- lysing_Frames_and_Claims_for_Digital_Sovereignty_in_the_European_Union%27s_Digital_Str
Proulx, S. (2007). Interroger la métaphore d’une société de l’information: horizon et limites d’une utopia, Communication & Langages, vol. 152, p. 107–124.
Rauhofer, J., Bowden, C. (2013). Protecting Their Own: Fundamental Rights Im- plications for EU Data Sovereignty in the Cloud, Edinburgh School of Law. Research Paper 2013/28. URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2283175; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2283175
Report of German Presidency on Digital Sovereignty (2020). URL: https://erstele- sung.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20-10-14_Germany_EU_Digital-Sovereignty.pdf
Ruohonen, J. (2021). The Treachery of Images in the Digital Sovereignty Debate.
Minds and Machines, vol. 31, p. 439–456.
Seamus, A. (2021). European Sovereignty In the Digital Age. URL: https://www.iiea.com/images/uploads/resources/European_Sovereignty_in_the_Digital_Age.pdf
Thiel, T. (2014). Internet und Souveränität, in: V. Kuntz (Hg.). Der Begriff der Sou- veränität in der transnationalen Konstellation, Baden-Baden, p. 215–240.
Thiel, T. (2019). Souveränität: Dynamisierung und Kontestation in der digitalen Konstellation, in: J. Hofmann, N. Kersting, C. Ritzi, W. J. Schьnemann (Hg.) Politik in der digitalen Gesellschaft Zentrale Problemfelder und Forschungsperspektiven, p. 47–60.
Timmers, P. (2022). Strategic Autonomy Tech Alliances: Political-Industrial Collaboration in Strategic Technologies. Foundation for European Progressive Studies. URL: https://fepseurope.eu/publication/strategic-autonomy-tech-alliances-political-indus- trial-collaboration-instrategic- technologies/
von der Leyen, U. (2020). Shaping Europe’s Digital Future: Op-ed by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. 19 February 2020. URL: https://ec.europa. eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ac_20_260
Wittpahl, V. (2017). Digitale Souveränität: Bürger, Unternehmen, Staat. Springer Vieweg.
