Digital Sovereignty; Geopolitics; Cyber Ethics; Data Localization; European Union; China; United States; Techno-nationalism
Structured Abstract
Background: The digital transformation of societies has redefined power, autonomy, and governance. In this context, “digital sovereignty” has emerged as a key principle of 21st-century statecraft, denoting a nation’s ability to control data, infrastructure, and digital dependencies.
Objective: To analyze the geopolitical, ethical, and societal dimensions of digital sovereignty across the European, American, and Chinese models of digital governance.
Methods: Comparative policy analysis using primary policy frameworks (EU’s Digital Strategy, U.S. cybersecurity doctrine, China’s Cybersecurity Law), complemented by secondary literature on global technology governance and ethics.
Results: The study finds that the EU seeks “normative sovereignty” through regulation and ethics; the U.S. champions “market sovereignty” via innovation and corporate dominance; and China pursues “state sovereignty” through centralized control and techno-political integration. These approaches reflect different interpretations of autonomy and human self-determination.
Conclusion: Digital sovereignty can either strengthen democratic control and human rights or evolve into techno-nationalism and digital protectionism. The ethical challenge lies in reconciling state autonomy with the universality of digital rights.
Policy Implications: Policymakers should prioritize interoperable standards, ethical oversight, and multi-stakeholder governance to prevent fragmentation of the global digital commons.
1. Introduction
Digital technologies have become the core infrastructure of global society, transforming not only economies but also the foundations of political sovereignty. The concept of digital sovereignty—a state’s capacity to regulate, protect, and control its digital environment—has emerged as a strategic imperative in the 21st century (Pohle & Thiel, 2020). As data flows transcend borders, questions arise about who owns, accesses, and governs digital information. The issue is not merely technical but deeply political and ethical: control over digital infrastructure equates to control over autonomy, security, and identity (Chander & Lê, 2023).
This article investigates how digital sovereignty functions as both an ethical aspiration for human self-determination and a geopolitical tool of techno-nationalism. It examines three models of digital sovereignty: the European Union’s regulatory-humanistic model, the United States’ innovation-capital model, and China’s statist-technocratic model. The analysis highlights how each approach embodies distinct values and power logics within the global digital order.
2. The Rise of Digital Sovereignty as a Principle of Statecraft
The rise of digital sovereignty coincides with two global trends: the weaponization of interdependence in digital infrastructure and the societal demand for data protection. The Snowden revelations (2013) and successive cyber incidents underscored the vulnerability of states relying on foreign technology stacks. In response, governments have sought to secure “technological autonomy”—from cloud computing and semiconductors to AI and 5G networks (Bradford, 2020).
Digital sovereignty thus represents both a defensive strategy against dependency and an offensive mechanism for geopolitical leverage. Yet it also introduces an ethical paradox: efforts to reclaim autonomy may erode global cooperation and fragment the digital commons into competing spheres of control (Floridi, 2022). The challenge is to achieve sovereignty without digital isolation.
3. The European Model: Normative Digital Sovereignty
The European Union (EU) articulates digital sovereignty primarily as an ethical and regulatory project. Anchored in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and initiatives such as GAIA-X and the European Data Act, Europe seeks to protect citizens’ rights and ensure that technological development aligns with democratic values (European Commission, 2023). The EU’s digital strategy emphasizes “trust, transparency, and human-centric technology.”
From an ethical standpoint, the EU model prioritizes human self-determination—individuals’ control over personal data and algorithmic decision-making. Politically, it aims to reduce dependence on U.S. cloud providers and Chinese hardware, establishing a European digital ecosystem governed by privacy and accountability (Bradford, 2020). This “Brussels Effect” extends EU standards globally, making ethics a form of soft power (Pohle & Thiel, 2020).
4. The American Model: Market-Centered Digital Sovereignty
The United States approaches digital sovereignty through innovation and market dominance rather than regulation. U.S. policy, shaped by private-sector leadership, rests on the principles of open internet governance, technological entrepreneurship, and minimal state interference. Dominant tech firms—Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta—function as quasi-sovereign entities wielding vast data and infrastructure control (Morozov, 2019).
Ethically, the American model champions freedom of innovation but often underestimates collective accountability. The privatization of sovereignty leads to ethical blind spots, including corporate surveillance, monopolistic behavior, and uneven data governance. Geopolitically, the U.S. maintains power through technological ecosystems rather than direct state control—what some scholars term “platform imperialism” (Jin, 2015).
5. The Chinese Model: State-Centric Digital Sovereignty
China’s concept of digital sovereignty centers on the fusion of technological control and political authority. The Cybersecurity Law (2017) and Data Security Law (2021) codify the principle of “cyber sovereignty,” asserting the state’s absolute jurisdiction over domestic digital space. This model integrates AI surveillance, data localization, and digital governance into a system of techno-political stability (Creemers, 2017).
While China frames its approach as protecting national security and social harmony, critics argue that it normalizes state surveillance and information control (Ding, 2021). Ethically, it prioritizes collective welfare over individual privacy, reflecting Confucian traditions of moral order. Internationally, China promotes this model through infrastructure projects such as the Digital Silk Road, extending its digital governance norms globally.
6. Ethical and Societal Dimensions
The competing models of digital sovereignty raise profound ethical questions. Who defines the moral boundaries of data use? How can societies reconcile collective security with personal freedom? The EU’s human-centered ethics contrasts sharply with China’s collectivist approach and the U.S.’s market individualism. Yet each seeks legitimacy through the promise of autonomy—whether for individuals, states, or corporations.
At the societal level, digital sovereignty influences education, employment, and social participation. Data localization may enhance privacy but limit global research collaboration. Similarly, national standards for cybersecurity can protect citizens yet impede international interoperability. Ethical digital sovereignty thus requires balancing security with openness and rights with innovation.
7. Conclusion: Sovereignty or Techno-Nationalism?
Digital sovereignty is both a necessity and a risk. It provides a path toward human and national self-determination in a digitized world but risks devolving into techno-nationalism—where technology becomes an instrument of exclusion and power. To avoid this outcome, governance must remain multilateral, ethics-driven, and inclusive.
Global cooperation through frameworks like the OECD’s AI Principles and UNESCO’s digital ethics guidelines could anchor digital sovereignty in shared human values rather than strategic rivalry. Ultimately, true sovereignty lies not in control but in the capacity to shape technology in service of human dignity and democratic accountability.
References
Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford University Press.
Chander, A., & Lê, U. P. (2023). Data sovereignty and the geopolitics of digital trade. Stanford Journal of International Law, 59(1), 101–145.
Creemers, R. (2017). Cyber China: Upgrading propaganda, public opinion work, and social management for the twenty-first century. Journal of Contemporary China, 26(103), 85–100.
Ding, J. (2021). Deciphering China’s AI Dream. Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
European Commission. (2023). Europe’s Digital Decade: Digital Targets for 2030. Brussels.
Floridi, L. (2022). Digital sovereignty and the reconfiguration of power in the information age. Philosophy & Technology, 35(2), 1–14.
Jin, D. Y. (2015). Digital platforms, imperialism, and political culture. Routledge.
Morozov, E. (2019). Digital socialism? The calculation debate in the age of Big Data. New Left Review, 116, 33–67.
Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty: Rethinking governance in a datafied world. Internet Policy Review, 9(4).
