Functional Sovereignty

Context

Igor Calzada:

"In their 2018 work, Frank Pasquale and Arthur Cockfield discuss the concept of Functional Sovereignty, which is highly influential for the second paradigm Network Sovereignties suggested by De Filippi et al. . Functional sovereignty examines how sovereignty is increasingly being exercised by powerful non-state actors, such as multinational corporations and digital platforms, that control critical functions traditionally managed by nation-states. The authors argue that these entities are beginning to operate with a level of autonomy and influence that rivals or even surpasses that of traditional governments, effectively reshaping the landscape of global governance. This concept of functional sovereignty directly supports the libertarian Web3 ideology, which advocates for the decentralization of power away from both state and corporate monopolies. By enabling decentralized networks where power is distributed among individuals and communities rather than concentrated in the hands of a few dominant players, the Web3 movement offers a way to reclaim sovereignty in the digital age. Pasquale and Cockfield’s analysis underscores the need for alternative governance models that can counterbalance the growing influence of these powerful entities, making a compelling case for the adoption of Web3 technologies that promote transparency, accountability, and individual autonomy."

(https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/16/10/361#B11-futureinternet-16-00361)

Description

Liad Orgav:

"Under this approach, sovereignty is divided by functions, with each being governed by a different entity. Think of federal systems, a condominium of states, mandate/trusteeship, autonomy (e.g., Quebec or Puerto Rico), or municipalities (where certain functions are governed by local sovereignty). Divisible sovereignty can be exercised over territories – e.g. Andorra, which was a condominium before independence in 1993 and still had two heads of state (the French president and a Catalan bishop) – or peoples. Sovereignty can be divided between political entities, as in federations or in the European Union, or between political and nonpolitical entities – think of religion (in Israeli law, for example, religious law is sovereign in family issues). The idea of functional sovereignty, as coined by Willem Riphagen in 1975,[1] enables entity A to have sovereignty over social welfare, entity B to be the sovereign on financial issues, and entity C to enjoy sovereignty over security – all in the same territory. It also makes it possible for different political authorities to exercise functional sovereignty over different peoples in the same space. The switch is from a jurisdiction over territories to a jurisdiction over functions, peoples and services. "

(https://globalcit.eu/cloud-communities-the-dawn-of-global-citizenship/16/)