The notion of “Digital sovereignty” in modern world politics challenges and opportunities for Russia

The global digital revolution transforms technological and economic structures, social relations and the very philosophy of human life. Along with that, it has a dramatic impact on states as key actors in international relations. For many centuries sovereignty has been a fundamental principle of a functioning state and has been mainly defined in physical and geographical terms. However, the transboundary nature of the digital environment has brought new issues to the agenda: how actors, including states, should function in a new digital reality; where the borders between the ‘national’ and the ‘transnational’ should lie and by which rules the new environment should be regulated. The key question summarizing all the above-stated is: ‘What does “state sovereignty” mean in the digital era?’. To answer this question, the article identifies key characteristics of digital space vis-à-vis sovereignty, studies the evolution of two approaches to the internet – as a new exceptional environment or as the next stage of telecommunications’ development – and points out challenges to maintaining digital sovereignty along with ways to mitigate them. Noting that the digital space is a unique environment for intergovernmental interaction which continuously evolves due to technological progress and the socio-economic practices, the authors observe the organic emergence of cyber-borders which brings seemingly obsolete idea of state sovereignty back into play. Modern states face a difficult challenge: how to find effective mechanisms to ensure sovereignty in the digital space without losing the benefits of the digital revolution while guaranteeing the equality and security of all parties involved. The absence of unified methodology and generally accepted conceptual terms in the previous scientific studies and political practice underpins the academic novelty of the research. At the same time, the study is practically oriented, since it is the digital technological sovereignty of the state that serves as a basis of its leadership in the new era and as a necessary condition for establishing and maintaining political independence and national coherence.

1. Batueva E. (2014) Informacionnye voyny SShA: k opredeleniyu nacional’noy kiberstrategii [The US Information Wars: Towards Defining a National Cyber Strategy. Mezhdunarodnye Processy. Vol. 12. No. 1–2. P. 117–127.

2. Bezrukov A.O., Mamonov M.V., Suchkov M.A., & Sushentsov A.A. (2021). Russia in the Digital world: international Competition and leadership. Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 64–85.

3. Bremmer I. (2021). The Technopolar Moment. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2021. URL: https:// www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-10-19/ian-bremmer-big-tech-global-order (accessed: 16.11.2021)

4. Bierwisch A., Kayser V., & Shala E. (2015). Emerging technologies in civil security – A scenario-based analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 101. P. 226–237.

5. Carr M. (2015). Power Plays in Global Internet Governance. Millennium. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 640–659.

6. Choucri N. (2012). Cyberpolitics in International Relations. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 320 p.

7. Couture S., Toupin S. (2020). Chto oznachaet ponyatie «suverenitet» v cifrovom mire? [What does the notion of “sovereignty” mean when referring to the digital?]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizatsij. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 48–69.

8. Crystal D. (2004). The Language Revolution. Cambridge: Polity. 152 p.

9. Doria A. (2013). Use [and Abuse] of Multistakeholderism in the Internet. In: Radu R., Chenou J.-M., Weber R.H. (eds.) The Evolution of Global Internet Governance: Principles and Policies in the Making. New York: Springer. P.115–138.

10. Drezner D.W. (2004). The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State Back. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 119. No. 3. P. 477–498.

11. Floridi L. (2020). The Fight for Digital Sovereignty: What It Is, and Why It Matters, Especially for the EU. Philosophy and Technology. Vol. 33. P. 369–378.

12. Globerman S. (1978). Canadian science policy and technological sovereignty. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse De Politiques. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 34–45.

13. Goldsmith J. (1998). The Internet and the Abiding Significance of Territorial Sovereignty. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. Vol. 5. No. 2. URL: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol5/iss2/6 (accessed: 20.09.2021).

14. Goldsmith J., Wu T. (2006). Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 238 p.

15. Goodchild M.F. (2001). Towards a location theory of distributed computing and e-commerce. In:Leibach T.R., Brunn S.D. (eds.) Worlds of E-Commerce: Economic, Geographical and Social Dimensions. New York: Wiley. P. 67–86.

16. Grant P. (1983). Technological sovereignty: Forgotten factor in the ‘hi-tech’ razzamatazz". Prometheus. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 239–270.

17. Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 58 (5). P. 1159–1197.

18. Hardy I.T. (1994). The Proper Legal Regime for ‘Cyberspace’. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Vol. 55. P. 993–1055.

19. Harmaakorpi V., Haikonen A., Kauranen I. (2003). The Shift of Techno-Economic Paradigm and Its Effects on Regional Disparities. The 43rd Conference of European Regional Sciences Association (ERSA), 27–31 Aug. Lahti Center, Jyväskylä, Finland: Helsinki University of Technology.

20. Hill R. (2013). Internet Governance: The Last Gasp of Colonialism, or Imperialism by Other Means? In: Radu R., Chenou J.-M., Weber R.H. (eds.) The Evolution of Global Internet Governance: Principles and Policies in the Making. New York: Springer. P. 79–94.

21. Howard P. N., Ganesh B., Liotsiou D. (2012). The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, 2012–2018. Computational Propaganda Research Project. University of Oxford. 47 p.

22. Jackson R. (1990). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 181 p.

23. Jiang M. (2010). Authoritarian Informationalism: China’s Approach to Internet Sovereignty. SAIS Review of International Affairs. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 71–89.

24. Johnson D.R., Post D. (1996). Law and Borders – The rise of law in Cyberspace. First Monday. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 1–25.

25. Kasenova M.B, Demidov O.V. (2013). Kiberbezopasnost' i upravlenie internetom: Dokumenty i materialy dlya rossijskih regulyatorov i ekspertov [Cybersecurity and Internet Governance: Documents and Materials for Russian Regulators and Experts]. Moscow: Statut. 465 p.

26. Kello L. (2017). The Virtual Weapon and International Order. New Haven: Yale University Press. 320 p. Kissinger H. (2014). World Order. Penguin. 432 p.

27. Korzak E. (2021). Russia’s Cyber Policy Efforts in the United Nations. Tallinn Papers. No. 11. P. 4–20.

28. Kosakian N.L. (2021). Additivnaya tehnologicheskaja sovokupnost’ 6-go tehnologicheskogo uklada [Additive Technological Network of the 6th Technological Setup]. Ekonomika I upravlenie: problem I resheniya. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 4–8.

29. Kovalchuk M.V., Naraikin O.S., Yatsishina E.B. Prirodopodobnye tehnologii: novye vozmozhnosti I novye vyzovy [Nature-like technologies: new opportunities and new challenges] // Vestnik Rossijskoj akademii nauk. 2019. Vol. 89. No. 5. P. 455–465.

30. Laurence S. (2015). The Four-Dimensional Human: Ways of Being in the Digital World. London: Penguin Random House. 272 p.

31. Mainwaring S. (2020). Always in control? Sovereign states in cyberspace. European Journal of International Security. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 215–232.

32. Makarycheva A.V. Cifrovoj i bezopasnyj? [Digital and secure?] Mezhdunarodnye process. 2015. Vol. 13. No. 2 (41). P. 141–145.

33. Mueller M.L. (2020). Against Sovereignty in Cyberspace. International Studies Review. Vol. 22. No. 4. P. 779–801.

34. Mueller M.L. (2002). Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 328 p.

35. Nadkarni S., & Prügl R. (2021). Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Management Review Quarterly. Vol. 71(2). P. 233–341.

36. Naughton J. (2016). The evolution of the Internet: from military experiment to General Purpose Technology. Journal of Cyber Policy. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 5–28.

37. Nikonov V.A., Voronov A.S., Sazhina V.A., Volodenkov S.V., Rybakova M.V. (2021). Tsifrovoj suverenitet sovremennogo gosudarstva: soderzhanie i strukturnye komponenty (po materialam ekspertnogo issledovaniya) [Digital Sovereignty of a Modern State: Content and Structural Components (Based on Expert Research)]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Politologiya. No. 60. P. 206–221.

38. Perez C. (2010). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge journal of economics. Vol. 34 (1). P. 185–202.

39. Perritt H. (1998). The Internet as a Threat to Sovereignty? Thoughts on the Internet's Role in Strengthening National and Global Governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 423–442.

40. Poteev A.T. (2017). Tekhnologicheskij uklad: metodologiya ocenki urovnya tekhnologicheskogo uklada otrasli [Technological mode: methodology for assessing the level of the technological mode of the industry]. In: Predpriyatiya, otrasli i regiony: genezis, formirovanie, razvitie i prognozirovanie: Sbornik nauchnyh trudov po materialam III Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii. Nauchnaya obshchestvennaya organizaciya "Professional'naya nauka". P. 161–169.

41. Priisalu J., Ottis R. (2017). Personal control of privacy and data: Estonian Experience. Health and Technology. Vol. 7. P. 441–451.

42. Pohle J., Thiel T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 1–19.

43. Rainie L., Anderson J. (2017). Whether or not people disconnect, the dangers are real. Security and civil liberties issues are being magnified by the rapid rise of the Internet of Things // Pew Research Center. URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/06/06/theme-7-whether-or-not-peopledisconnect-the-dangers-are-real-security-and-civil-liberties-issues-are-being-magnified-by-the-rapidrise-of-the-internet-of-things/ (accessed: 20.09.2021).

44. Romashkina N.P. (2019). Informatsionnyj suverenitet v sovremennuyu epohu strategicheskogo protivoborstva [Information Sovereignty in the Modern Era of Strategic Warfare]. Informatsionnye vojny. Vol. 4. No. 52. P. 14–19.

45. Sharikov P. (2018). Infomacionnyy suverenitet I vmeshatel’stvo vo vnutrennie dela v rossijskoamerikanskih otnoshenijah [Information sovereignty and interference in internal affairs in Russian-American relations]. Mezhdunarodnye Processy. Vol. 16. No. 3(54). P. 170–188.

46. Shen Y. (2016). Cyber Sovereignty and the Governance of Global Cyberspace. Chinese Political Science Review. Vol. 1. P. 81–93.

47. Scholte J.A. (2000). Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 519 p.

48. Suchkov M.A. (2021). Whose hybrid warfare? How ‘the hybrid warfare’ concept shapes Russian discourse, military, and political practice. Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 32. No. 3. P. 415–440.

49. Tikk E., Kerttunen M. (2020) Routledge Jandbook of International Cybersecurity. Routledge. 416 p.

50. Uskov V.S. (2020) Nauchno-tehnologicheskoe rezvitie rossiyskoy ekonomoki v usliviyah perehoda k novomu tehnologicheskomu ukladu [Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Economy in the Transition to a New Technological Order]. Ekonomicheskie I social’nye peremeny: facty, tendencii, prognoz. Vol. 13. No.1. P. 70–86.

51. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 122. P. 889–901.

52. Vesali Naesh M. (2016). Person and Personality in Cyber Space: A Legal Analysis of Virtual Identity. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. Vol. 10. No 1. P. 1–21.

53. Vinogradova E.V., Polyakova T.A. (2021). O meste informacionnogo suvereniteta v konstitucionnopravovom prostranstve sovremennoj Rossii [On the Place of Information Sovereignty in the Constitutional Legal sphere in Modern Russia]. Pravovoe gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 32–49.

54. Volodenkov S.V., Voronov A.S., Leont'eva L.S., Suhareva M. (2021). Tsifrovoj suverenitet sovremennogo gosudarstva v usloviyah tekhnologicheskih transformatsij: soderzhanie i osobennosti [Digital sovereignty of a modern state in the context of technological transformations: content and features]. Polylogos. Vol. 5. No. 1. URL: https://polylogos-journal.ru/s258770110014073-2-1/ (accessed: 20.09.2021).

55. Wu T. (1997). Cyberspace Sovereignty? – The Internet and the International System. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 647–666.

56. Zolotareva, O. A. (2021). Gumanitarno-tekhnologicheskaya revolyuciya: ocenka sostoyaniya gotovnosti perekhoda v novyj tekhnologicheskij uklad [Humanitarian and technological revolution: assessment of the state of readiness for the transition to a new technological order]. Vestnik NGUEU. Vol. 4. P. 55–66.