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."