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)."