Network Sovereignties

Discussion

(Source: draft of a conference convener, October 2023)

Primavera de Filippi:

"The advent of blockchain technology further facilitated the development of distributed systems where governance and authority are dispersed across interconnected digital networks, thereby challenging even more the conventional state-centric model of sovereignty (Atzori 2015). Indeed, by empowering individuals to collectively manage networked systems, digital assets and resources, blockchain technology created new opportunities for online communities to govern themselves in a more distributed manner (De Filippi 2021). These 'self-sovereign' systems collectively managed by non-state actors are not (directly) subject to the sovereignty of existing nation states (Ziolkowska 2021), forcing us to re-evaluate the manner in which individuals, communities, and institutions interact and collaborate on a global scale (Manski & Manski 2018).

At the core of this transformation lies the concept of new network sovereignties—a term coined to describe the emergence of self-sovereign networked political communities as an engine for global coordination (De Filippi & al, 2023). These represent a paradigm shift in social and political organization in that they transcend traditional definitions of political and geographical sovereignty. Network sovereignties do not seek to replicate the state-centric model of sovereignty, nor do they seek to replace or supplant the institution of the state. Instead, they exist in parallel with existing state formations, serving as animating forces for coordination and cooperation in an interconnected world. As such, network sovereignties are not confined by geographical borders; they extend into the digital realm, facilitating the free flow of ideas, information, digital assets and resources (Pohle & Thiel 2020).

These new political communities offer a novel perspective on the concept of sovereignty itself. Indeed, while traditional state sovereignty is rooted in territorial control (Murphy 2018), network sovereignties are more concerned with the concept of 'functional sovereignty', emphasizing the importance of governance functions over territorial boundaries. Initially coined to describe situations where sovereignty is exercised by non-states entities—e.g. international organizations with authority over a particular set of functions or tasks (Riphagen 1975) — ’functional sovereignty’ acquired newfound popularity with the advent of digital platforms operated by transnational corporations (Dederer 2015).

Indeed, in the digital age, functional sovereignty takes on a new dimension as the ability to exercise control over the governance and operations of digital platforms becomes of utmost importance, and the control of digital resources does not require control of land. Some argue that large online operators are also extending their sovereignty beyond their digital platforms, moving from being mere market participants to actually dictating the rules of the market (Pasquale 2018). Amazon, for instance, controls not only the sale of goods on its platform, but also aspects of logistics, payment services, credit lending, and many more services that are generally subject to the rules and regulations of nation states (Pasquale 2017). As a result, individuals and businesses find themselves subject to private corporate control—rather than public democratic control—in crucial areas of their lives ranging from e-commerce to urban planning (Ranchordas & Giants 2020). The very concept of citizenship is also starting to mutate (Orgad 2018), as illustrated by the advent of cybernetic citizenship (Reijers & al. 2023) and other forms of corporate citizenship (Windsor 2017)."

2.

“While there is no commonly-agreed definition of a network state, it is typically regarded as something that builds upon, or replicates the institution of the state. Even if their territories are distributed across multiple regions, network states remain entrenched within the political institutions of traditional nation states. Whether they subsist as extensions of existing states (Grosse 2010), or within their own sovereign jurisdictions (Srinivasan 2022), network states operate within defined (albeit geographically dispersed) territories, enforcing laws and regulations based on geographic demarcations. They are thus bound to the conventional Westphalian model of sovereignty grounded on physical territory (Newman 2003).

New network sovereignties distinguish themselves from network states to the extent that they do not purport to replicate the institutional fabric of the state, but rather to create additional layers of sovereignties that exist in parallel with traditional forms of territorial sovereignty (De Filippi & al. 2023). As such, they do not compete for territories—nor citizens—with existing nation-states, but rather coexist alongside them, as a novel institutional structure that individuals can join regardless of their geographical location.

Members of these political communities are united not by land, but by shared ideologies, values, and objectives. A sense of affinity or kinship often develops among members, along with a collective identity. Yet, in contrast to most nations, membership in these communities is voluntary and defined by participation, adherence to community guidelines, and mutual goals rather than birth or geographical location (Ohler 2012); belonging is based on shared purposes and ideals rather than on the happenstance of one's birthplace or ancestry.

Since participation is opt-in, new network sovereignties promote individual autonomy and self-determination. Yet, they recognize the value (and inevitability) of interdependency, often trying to increase interdependency through the sharing and mutualisation of resources (Pazaitis & al. 2017). Insofar as people voluntarily choose to become entrenched with one another to increase their capacity to engage in collective action (Bayer 2014), these communities are pressured to implement participatory governance systems where individuals are incentivized to express themselves (via voice) rather than vote with their feet (via exit). This represents a departure from traditional power structures—such as nation states—where participation is not voluntary and exit is generally costly (Allen & al. 2020).

New network sovereignties redefine governance, both at the endogenous and exogenous levels. Endogenously, they can experiment with new governance models, unhindered by the bureaucratic constraints and centuries-old administrative frameworks of traditional nation-states (Heady 2001). By leveraging digital technologies, governance processes can be designed to be more decentralized, participatory, and adaptable (Voshmgir 2017) —allowing for swift responses to emerging challenges . Besides, in light of the voluntary and non-coercive nature of these networked communities, decision-making processes are often guided by principles such as transparency, inclusivity, participation and consensus-building (Rozas & al. 2021). The caveat is that the more open and decentralized a governance system is, the more resilient it is against centralized control or manipulation, but also the more vulnerable it may become against potential influence or co-optation by powerful third parties (De Filippi & Lavayssière 2020). Therefore, while the polycentric governance of network sovereignties offers many benefits over traditional centralized political structures (Aligica & Darko 2012), it also demands mechanisms for maintaining integrity and preventing manipulation by internal or external forces (Grover & al. 2021).

Political participation therefore plays a crucial role in the governance of these networks, whose polycentric nature requires active participation at all levels of governance, from deliberation to decision-making and enforcement (Ostrom 2010). Indeed, without any central authority that can impose the will of the majority, decision-making necessarily becomes a collaborative effort that values consensus over authority (Ostrom 2014).

Exogenously, as opposed to traditional nation states (or network states) whose operations are confined to a determined geographical location—whether it is made of contiguous or geographically dispersed territories—new network sovereignties transcend physical borders and are thus more conducive to global cooperation (De Filippi & al. 2023). By spanning territories, they facilitate connections and collaborations among individuals from diverse cultural, social, and economic backgrounds (Tapscott & Williams 2008). This fosters a rich tapestry of ideas, experiences, and perspectives, enriching the collective intelligence of these communities (Benkler & al. 2015). Collaborative efforts span continents, with contributors working together in pursuit of shared objectives without the constraints imposed by traditional geopolitical boundaries. As such, these networked political communities facilitate the integration of global perspectives with localized insights. This constitutes a form of globalization (Waters 2001) blurring the distinction between the local and the global (Giddens 2003) that is particularly attuned to the ‘cosmolocalism’ approach proposed by Bauwens & al. (2019)—where communities use global knowledge, resources, and collaboration networks to enhance their local economies and cultures.

At the geopolitical level, one may wonder whether these networked communities could be regarded as new political actors in international relations. Indeed, network sovereignties have shown that many of the functions that were once a defining feature of the state can now also be achieved by non-state actors. These include the issuance of a sovereign currency, often in the form of cryptocurrencies; the enactment of legal frameworks which—although not universally recognized in traditional legal systems—hold legal weight within their constituents; participation in economic activities, such as trade, production, and consumption within the networks and beyond; the provision of welfare services like healthcare, education, and social support, both to the members of the network and to the public at large. While these services are provided on a smaller scale than most state-provided services, they reflect a community’s responsibility for collective well-being.

Besides, although not recognized as sovereign states, new network sovereignties can engage in diplomacy with other communities, organizations, or traditional nation-states, to form alliances and collaborations for mutual benefit and shared goals. For instance, cryptocurrency communities, like those orbiting around Bitcoin or Ethereum, often engage in diplomacy-like activities, negotiating with governments or financial institutions to develop regulations that ensure the legality of their currencies (Riordan 2019). These communities also form alliances to promote the adoption of blockchain technology on a global scale (Berg & al. 2018). Other online social movements, like Anonymous, have conducted actions that resemble diplomacy, e.g., issuing statements to governments and private organizations, accompanied by coordinated online actions (Desforges 2014). More recently, political communities are attempting to negotiate living arrangements, tax issues, and legal matters with governments and local authorities in various countries, for the creation of autonomous economic zones or charter cities (Kohn 2020)”

(draft of symposium invitation at [1])