Definition and demarcation
The concept of digital sovereignty has become a new key term in German and European digital policy in recent years. It is not only representatives of the entire party spectrum who use it to express their demands for more autonomy, agency and decision-making power in the digital sphere. Actors from civil society, business and academia also use the term to call for more individual and collective self-determination over the development and use of digital technologies [1], [2], [3].
Due to its prominence, the concept of digital sovereignty has many different meanings. Regardless of its use in the digital context, the term sovereignty refers to the ability to act in a self-determined manner and free from foreign domination. The jurisprudential interpretation is also significant, according to which the concept of sovereignty stands for the ability of a legal subject to self-determination. In this context, digital does not describe the opposite of analogue, which only refers to the use of computer technology. Rather, the meaning must be embedded in the context of the overall social transformation process of digitalisation. This is characterised by two interlinked developments: firstly, the spread and use of digital networking technologies and, secondly, the strong increase in digital data collections and cross-border data flows [4].
Digital sovereignty refers to both dimensions and thus encompasses both technological sovereignty and data sovereignty. Both are related concepts (as are, for example, information or cyber sovereignty), but can be seen as subcategories of digital sovereignty. While these subcategories refer either only to the control of technical resources and information flows or self-determination over data or to cyber security, digital sovereignty also includes legal, social and economic aspects [5].
A very broad understanding of digital sovereignty therefore encompasses the ability of states, companies and individuals to control, organise and use their digital infrastructures, technologies, services and data in a self-determined and independent manner. This self-determination also refers to protection against external influence in the digital space and the ability to develop and implement their own digital strategies [4].
History
The discussion about sovereignty has accompanied the spread of the internet as a global digital infrastructure since the early days. Originally, however, cyberspace itself was recognised as having its own sovereignty. The newly developed digital sphere was seen as a free and unregulated space that was beyond the control of governments and state institutions [7]. However, this conviction has lost its significance over the years. Current calls for digital sovereignty are more an expression of the fact that the internet is no longer seen as an obstacle to the exercise of state power. Instead, governments are attempting to enforce their state and economic sovereignty and the self-determination of their citizens in the digital space through laws, regulation and technical interventions.
Originally, authoritarian countries such as China and Russia in particular invoked the concept of sovereignty to justify their digital foreign and domestic policies [7], [8]. Gradually also adopted by other BRICS countries Brazil, India and South Africa [9]since 2013, the concept of digital sovereignty or technological sovereignty has also been increasingly used in Europe [4], [5] and recently also in countries of the so-called Global South and the southern Mediterranean region [10].
In Europe, particularly in France and Germany, following Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 about the surveillance practices of the NSA and allied intelligence agencies, there have been increasing calls to protect national security, citizens’ privacy and the digital single market through stronger regulation of digital infrastructures, services and data flows [11], [12]. In 2020, the pursuit of digital sovereignty was officially declared the main objective of the EU’s digital policy agenda [13] and has since been institutionalised in a large number of political documents and regulatory initiatives. This goal is not only internally focussed, but also has an external geopolitical dimension. This is aimed at creating an alternative normative framework through a value- and people-oriented European digital policy, which can also represent a third way for other countries alongside the market-liberal US and state-centralised Chinese model [4], [14].
Application and examples
Due to the very broad and often divergent understanding of the term, it is used in very different areas and is associated with very different political measures. For better structuring, three dimensions of digital sovereignty can be distinguished in Germany and Europe, based on the actors or sectors whose autonomy is to be strengthened. All three dimensions overlap in many respects, so it is not always possible to make a clear distinction.
(1) The state dimension aims to strengthen the IT and data security of the state and state institutions as well as the technological independence of the administration. It therefore mainly comprises security and domestic policy measures for the control and independence of technological infrastructures, the development of strategic cyber security technologies and the reduction of dependencies through open standards and interfaces [15], [16], [17].
(2) The economic dimension is aimed at promoting the competitiveness and independence of Europe as a centre of business and technology and of the digital single market. The focus here is on promoting key technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data and cloud computing, but also on regulating the global platform economy. Relevant examples of concrete measures in this area are initiatives such as Gaia-X as a European cloud platform and the EU Digital Markets Act [18], [19].
(3) With regard to the individual dimension of digital sovereignty, the primary aim is to enable all people to use digital technologies in a self-determined way. The main focus here is on strengthening general digital literacy and protecting consumer and civil rights and data protection. This also includes the regulation of digital services, in particular by the large platform companies, for example as part of the EU Digital Services Act [4], [20].
Criticism and problems
Despite the broad acceptance of the idea of digital sovereignty, there are various points of criticism. Firstly, due to the lack of a common understanding, the term becomes a projection surface for concerns and ideas that are often purely aspirational and difficult to realise in their entirety. Digital sovereignty therefore does not appear to be an achievable political goal, but rather a political promise to maintain control and the ability to act even in times of global digital networking and big tech. Secondly, the broad interpretation of the term leads to a number of conflicting goals between the demands associated with digital sovereignty. In particular, measures to strengthen the state dimension of digital sovereignty, such as greater control of digital data flows, can further restrict the individual self-determination of users of digital services instead of promoting it. Thirdly, the normative charge that the idea of digital sovereignty has been given in recent years, particularly at EU level, can be criticised. The attainment of digital sovereignty in the EU is increasingly equated with a human-centred digital transformation based on European and democratic values [21], [6]. However, such a reinterpretation obscures the fact that in the EU, too, the policies associated with the term are not geared towards the common good and democratisation of the digital transformation, but rather towards state control and regulation and are guided by geopolitical and geoeconomic interests [22].
Research
Research on digital sovereignty covers an increasingly broad spectrum of topics – from security and geopolitical aspects [23] economic and technological challenges [24] to ethical and legal implications [25]. While some studies focus on European perspectives and policies [21], [26], [27], others shed light on global and regional differences and the associated challenges [28], [29], [30]. Many researchers also address the ambiguity and theoretical foundations of the concept [5]. The political implications of the different meanings and how they affect global power structures is a central question [14]. Furthermore, there is a growing body of research that analyses the application of the concept in different countries or in international comparisons, for example in the BRICS countries [9], [29] or on the African continent [10], [31]. Alternative interpretations by non-state actors and indigenous groups are also receiving increasing attention [32]. Critical research is also focussing on the security promises of digital sovereignty in connection with the use of new technologies [33],[34].
Sources
[2] Digital Civil Society (2021). Four demands for a digitally sovereign society. [01.07.2024].
[5] Pohle, J./Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. In: Internet Policy Review 9 (4), 1-19.
[6] Barlow, J. P. (1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Electronic Frontier Foundation.
[7] Creemers, R. (2016). The Chinese cyber-sovereignty agenda. In: Leonard, M. (ed.). Connectivity Wars: Why migration, finance and trade are the geo-economic battlegrounds of the future, 120-125. European Council on Foreign Relations.
[10] Gagliardone, I. (2023). A Postcolonial Perspective on Digital Sovereignty. In: Feldstein, S. New Digital Dilemmas: Resisting Autocrats, Navigating Geopolitics, Confronting Platforms, 23-26.
[11] Federal Government. (2020). Together. Making Europe strong again. Programme of the German EU Council Presidency. https://www.eu2020.de/eu2020-de/ programme [16.06.2024].
[12] European Parliament (2020). Digital sovereignty for Europe. EPRS Ideas Paper. [03.07.2024].
[13] von der Leyen, U. (2020). State of the Union 2020. European Commission. [11.09.2024]
[17] Federal Government (2022). Key Issues Paper Digital Policy of the Federal Government: Reorganisation of Digital Policy Responsibilities. Bundesregierung.de [10.07.2024].
[20] European Commission (n.d.). The EU Digital Services Act. [02.07.2024].
[23] Adler-Nissen, R./Eggeling, K. (2023). The Discursive Struggle for Digital Sovereignty: Security, Economy, Rights and the Cloud Project Gaia-X. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies.
[28] Budnitsky, S. (2022). A Relational Approach to Digital Sovereignty: E-Estonia Between Russia and the West. In: International Journal of Communication, 16, Article 0.
[29] Prasad, R. (2022). People as data, data as oil: The digital sovereignty of the Indian state. In: Information, Communication & Society 25 (6), 801-815. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2056498
[31] Basu, A. (2023). Defending the “S Word”: The Language of Digital Sovereignty Can be a Tool of Empowerment. In: Feldstein, S. (ed.). New Digital Dilemmas: Resisting Autocrats, Navigating Geopolitics, Confronting Platforms, 19-22.
[32] Noone, G. (2022, April 28). How New Zealand’s Māori people are fighting for their data sovereignty.
[33] Calderaro, A./Blumfelde, S. (2022). Artificial intelligence and EU security: The false promise of digital sovereignty. In: European Security 31 (3), 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2101885