Network Sovereignty

Description

Primavera de Filippi and Felix Beer:

"Network sovereignty captures the emergence of new forms of sovereignties grounded in network technologies and digital infrastructures. Network sovereigns do not operate within the territorial borders of the nation-state, instead, they exercise political agency within, through, and by virtue of networks. To analyse this emerging concept as both a continuity and a rupture with the Westphalian model, we can revisit the classical triad of sovereignty—space, population, institution—through the lens of networks."

(https://networknations.network/essay/)

Typology

Primavera de Filippi and Felix Beer:

1. Networked Spaces

"Traditional sovereignty presupposes a territorially bounded, continuous, and mutually exclusive domain in which each point of land, sea, air, or even outer space can be assigned to a single jurisdiction. Digital networks unsettle this territorial approach, introducing what Castells (2004) terms a space of flows—a global, real-time interaction arena constituted by data routes, cloud infrastructures, and software protocols. This new form of spatial arrangement—operating across time zones and jurisdictions—overlays and reorganises the space of places—rooted in physical proximity and territorial continuity, enabling distant, synchronous, and distributed coordination.

In this topology, sovereignty is not tied to territorial control but to the ability to configure and govern the infrastructures that mediate digital flows. Whoever can design, maintain, or disrupt these flows—whether through routing architectures, content moderation systems, platform interfaces, or cloud-based storage—exerts a new form of power, which Laura DeNardis (2014) describes as infrastructural power: the authority to allow, deny, prioritize, or surveil interactions by shaping the underlying technological stack.

Networked space dissolves the direct link between geography and authority that structured the Westphalian state system. Networks span across the globe and—unlike geographical regions—their boundaries are not fixed: they are often modular, overlapping (subject to multiple regimes), and selectively permeable (allowing differentiated access). As such, they dissolve the traditional logic of sovereignty: power is now exercised through the control of digital infrastructures rather than control over bounded territory. Thus, network architectures—not maps—become the primary medium through which spatial authority is asserted, contested, and lost.

2. Networked Population

Traditional sovereignty regards citizens as residents of a nation-state, recorded by census and governed by territorial jurisdiction. This link between people and place has long underpinned the legitimacy of sovereign power, as governing a territory meant governing those inhabiting a defined space.

In networked environments, populations are held together by relational connectivity rather than physical proximity. They are constituted by individuals who may reside across multiple geographies but are linked through continuous digitally mediated relationships. What defines closeness is not location on a map but position in a social graph, where proximity is ultimately a function of relationality: two actors are “close” because they are linked by flows of information, attention, value, or resources (Wittel, 2001). Similarly, identity becomes fluid and relational rather than defined by place of birth or residency. Thus, in these social formations, belonging is performative rather than inherited, constituted through ongoing interaction and contribution within the network (boyd, 2010). To be part of a networked population is to be continually engaged as a node in a socio-technical system.

One defining characteristic of networked populations is their plural and overlapping affiliations. Individuals simultaneously inhabit multiple networks: one might be simultaneously a member of a transnational movement, a contributor to a global open-source project, a participant in a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). These affiliations operate under distinct governance logics, different norms, and expectations. This leads to a condition of multi-positionality, in which individuals are subject to various—and often conflicting—forms of allegiance and authority (boyd, 2010).

All this profoundly impacts the nature of sovereignty: sovereign power over networked populations does not depend on geography but upon the capacity to shape and govern the infrastructures of social interaction. Sovereignty, in this sense, becomes a matter of relational design: structuring the flows of engagement and determining the conditions under which collective life is made legible and actionable in networked spaces. In sum, networked populations represent a shift from territorial subjects to relational actors, whose political identity is defined not by where they are located, but by how and with whom they interact.

3. Networked Institutions

The third pillar of sovereignty relates to institutional capacity—the ability to establish rules, enforce decisions, and maintain legitimacy over time. In the Westphalian model, institutional power is vested in the apparatus of the state, typically subdivided into the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers. State institutions historically exercise centralised authority over defined territories and bounded populations, ensuring internal legitimacy and external diplomatic recognition.

If territory and population mutate under network conditions, institutions must also evolve. Digital networks are subject to regulation from traditional institutions; but they are also increasingly capable of building native governance systems that reflect their distributed, modular, and protocolized logics.

Yet, in terms of governance, networked institutions are still in early stages of development. They are either consolidated but proprietary (e.g. run by corporations), flexible but fragile (e.g. based on informal norms and practices), or fully experimental (e.g. using new technological frameworks). Regardless of their characteristics, they all come with unresolved issues when it comes to effectiveness, scalability, and legitimacy.

The main challenge—and opportunity—lies in designing institutions capable of legitimizing and operationalizing sovereignty within networked digital systems. This means moving away from traditional territorial forms of authority toward new institutional grammars that reflect the realities of digital life: decentralized, participatory, interoperable, and adaptive. As we move further into a networked society, the question is not whether sovereignty will persist, but what forms it will take, who will exercise it, and how its legitimacy will be constituted."

(https://networknations.network/essay/)

Discussion: Claims for Sovereignty in Network Landscapes

The digital landscape is characterized by three distinct categories of actors with contending claims to a new form of “network sovereignty” over the digital realm: corporate platforms, nation-states, and networked communities.

1. Corporate Platform Sovereigns: The Rise of Techno-Feudalism

A striking manifestation of network sovereignty comes from the rise of large digital platforms—such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Apple, or Microsoft—which control key services and infrastructure (e.g. search, app stores, e-commerce, social media), setting and enforcing rules that shape public discourse, economic activity, and data flows. Shoshana Zuboff (2019) and other critics (e.g. Pasquale, 2023) argue that these firms have accumulated governing power that enables them to act as “quasi-sovereign” actors.

1. Spatial Dimension:

These platform giants have constructed vast, enclosed digital spaces sometimes called walled gardens – that are not geographic but infrastructural—defined by proprietary protocols, algorithms, and interfaces. Their boundaries are enforced not by physical borders but by APIs, logins, and software permissions. Julie Cohen (2017) terms these “techno-feudal” spaces: governed, enclosed, and extractive. These platform territories are modular, interoperable only on their terms, and architected to maintain user dependency and competitive advantage.

2. Personal Dimension:

The populations of tech giants often rivals—and sometimes even surpasses—those of large nation-states. For instance, Meta’s Facebook hosts over three billion users, a population larger than any existing country. Users engage under quasi-citizenship: subject to platform rules via terms of service, algorithmic governance, and discretionary enforcement. While governed, they lack the rights or democratic input expected in traditional polities.

3. Institutional Dimension:

Platforms maintain institutional architectures that mimic state functions—moderation policies, trust and safety teams, and quasi-judicial bodies like the Oversight Board. These structures often operate beyond the reach of democratic oversight, creating what Frank Pasquale (2023) calls “functional sovereignty”: the ability to define and enforce norms of participation, communication, and commerce within a governed domain, without needing formal recognition from the international system.

Platforms’ network sovereignty demonstrates how authority can be exercised over digital space and networked populations, with little recourse to territorial jurisdiction or democratic accountability. Indeed, the sovereignty of digital platforms is not grounded in formal international law but enacted through infrastructural dominance, user dependency, and market entrenchment. As Pinto (2018) notes, entire nations depend on a few companies for critical infrastructure, creating asymmetric power relations with no democratic oversight. At the same time, platforms require states (for contract enforcement, intellectual property regimes, etc.) to secure their position—demonstrating both autonomy from, and dependence on traditional sovereign structures (De Filippi & Belli 2021).

2. Digital Statehood: Extending Nation-States into the Digital Realm

Far from being passive observers to this corporate ascendance, nation-states are developing their own strategies to assert sovereignty in networked spaces. Rather than delegating authority to tech platforms, many states are extending their sovereignty claims into the digital domain through surveillance infrastructure and regulatory regimes that attempt to govern their citizens’ digital life.

. Spatial Dimension:

Some states are actively re-territorializing the digital realm by creating virtual borders that solidify regulatory oversight and strengthen jurisdictional claims. China’s “Great Firewall” represents the most comprehensive attempt to create a controlled national digital space through technical means. Russia’s “sovereign internet” law similarly aims to create a nationally bounded internet infrastructure that can operate independently from the global Internet network, if necessary. Conversely, some states are extending their territorial presence beyond physical borders. Estonia’s e-residency program, for instance, allows non-Estonians to establish digital identities and businesses under Estonian jurisdiction, effectively expanding the state's digital territory.

2. Personal Dimension:

Nation-states are asserting claims over citizens in the digital realm, regardless of the platforms they use (Rejiers, Orgad, De Filippi 2023). Some states have engaged in what Ziyaad Bhorat and Martin Rauchbauer (2023) call “networked authoritarianism”— the strategic use of information technology by authoritarian regimes to surveil, repress, and manipulate domestic and foreign populations. China’s social credit system shows how states can monitor, evaluate, and control subjects through datafication (Cheung & Chen, 2021). Similarly, a few democratic states are similarly extending citizenship into digital realms, with digital identity systems like India's Aadhaar and Estonia’s e-ID, bringing both digital and physical identities under state oversight.

3. Institutional dimension:

States are building new institutions to exercise sovereignty in the digital realm. These include dedicated cybersecurity agencies and specialized cyber military commands (e.g. the U.S. CYBERCOM). The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) represents an institutional attempt to project regulatory sovereignty across digital networks, backed by significant enforcement mechanisms and financial penalties. States are also increasingly engaging in digital diplomacy—negotiating agreements that establish norms of behavior in cyberspace, such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime or various bilateral cyber non-aggression pacts.

Over the past decade, “digital sovereignty” has emerged as a central theme in policy debates—particularly in Europe (Pohle & Thiel, 2020). It is generally framed as a pathway to a more ordered, value-driven, regulated and therefore secure digital space—promising to address a broad range of challenges, from safeguarding individual rights to ensuring political and legal enforceability as well as fair economic competition. However, the nationalisation of cyberspace also represents a significant transformation of sovereignty itself, as states must increasingly contend with the technical realities of borderless networks that resist traditional territorial control. This has led to a hybrid form of sovereignty that combines traditional state authority with new technical affordances, creating what might be termed “digital statehood”—a form of sovereign authority that extends state power into networked spaces while adapting to their unique characteristics and constraints."

3. Networked Communities: Civil Society Seeking Political Agency

"The third actor category emerges directly from the social fabric of global connectivity itself: networked communities. These communities are formed through voluntary association and sustained interaction through both online and offline spaces, interrelating different people and places across the world. These range from open-source software communities and decentralized autonomous organizations, to diaspora networks and translocal cultural movements. Despite their diversity, they share common traits: they are socially connected, digitally networked, and geographically dispersed.

1. Spatial Dimension:

Networked communities operate primarily through shared digital commons and platforms built around community governance rather than corporate control or state regulation. The Bitcoin network, for instance, exists as a distributed ledger maintained across thousands of computers worldwide, creating a form of sovereign space that transcends national borders. Similarly, federated social networks like Mastodon establish interconnected but autonomous “instances” that function as semi-sovereign digital territories. These spaces are defined not by geographic boundaries or corporate ownership, but by shared protocols, technical standards, and governance norms.

2. Personal Dimension:

Networked communities construct their populations through voluntary affiliation rather than citizenship or platform enrollment. Members join based on shared values, interests, or identity, progressively building the cultural and social foundations of nationhood—a shared sense of identity, purpose, history, and future vision. The Ethereum ecosystem, for example, has fostered a distinct community identity with its own cultural practices, specialized language, and collective narratives. Similarly, diaspora networks leverage digital tools to maintain cultural continuity and political solidarity across national borders, forming transnational communities with their own political agency.

3. Institutional dimension:

From the formal governance processes of major open-source projects to the algorithmic consensus mechanisms of blockchain networks, networked communities are building institutional capacity for self-governance. Yet these communities typically operate outside formal political recognition, relying on specific organizations (e.g., the Ethereum Foundation) to coordinate large-scale collective action or represent community interests in relation to established political entities. Balaji Srinivasan’s (2023) concept of the "Network State" ("a highly aligned online community with the capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states") represents a novel approach to institutionalizing these communities, which has been adopted by several initiatives, such as Praxis Society (2024) among others. Yet despite its disruptive rhetoric, the Network State largely recreates traditional forms of sovereignty, integrating the corporate logics of tech startups into a nation-state institution.

The sovereignty claims of networked communities reveal both. This raises an important question: Can emerging forms of network sovereignty serve collective self-determination rather than corporate profit or state control? As digital networks become primary mediums of human association, the question isn't if new political forms will emerge—but which ones. If we want democracy to thrive in the digital realm, we must design novel institutions that enable networked communities to exercise meaningful self-governance in the digital world."

(https://networknations.network/essay/)