Evolution of the “digital sovereignty” concept in the EU: constants and dichotomies

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Somente assinantes

Resumo

The EU has recently actively discussed the concept of ‘digital (technological) sovereignty’. The goal of this article is to identify key trends in the EU’s discourse on digital sovereignty and to determine how the EU has evolved as an actor. Theoretically the article is based on critical geopolitics. A discourse analysis of the EU’s documents and speeches of its representatives was made. The analysis has demonstrated three constants which include the emphasis on values, development of the internal market and leadership aspirations. The study also identified five dichotomies: naivety - geopolitics, interdependence - dependence, openness - closeness / protectionism, market / competition - state intervention, sovereignty through rules - sovereignty through material production. It has been revealed how the EU tries to reconcile its classical power instruments (emphasis on interdependence, cooperation, universal promotion of values and norms) and greater autonomy, demanded by its perception of today’s world. Although the texts remain ambiguous, the Westphalian sovereignty dominates. It means the EU’s refusal to promote the universal values and norms, harsher order-drawing, further consolidation of its internal space, narrowing of cooperation to like-minded countries. The EU thus departs from the classical elements of its power and influence in the world. This trend is very strong in the digital sphere but is not limited to the latter.

Sobre autores

Tatayana Romanova

Saint Petersburg State University

Email: t.romanova@spbu.ru
St-Petersburg, Russia

Bibliografia

  1. Буторина О.В. (2021) Цели региональной интеграции: современное понимание. Мировая экономика и международные отношения. № 65(10). С. 5-14. doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-2021-65-10-5-14
  2. Зиновьева Е., Булва В. (2021) Цифровой суверенитет Европейского союза. Современная Европа. № 2. С. 40-49. doi: 10.15211/soveurope220214049
  3. Ребро О., Гладышева А., Сучков М., Сушенков А. (2021) Категория "цифрового суверенитета" в современной мировой политике: вызовы и возможности для России. Международные процессы. № 19(4). С. 47-67. doi: 10.17994/IT.2021.19.4.67.6
  4. Agnew J. (2018) Globalization and Sovereignty. Beyond the Territorial Trap. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, USA. 290 p.
  5. Barrinha A., Christou G. (2022) Speaking sovereignty: the EU in the cyber domain, European Security. No. 31(3). P. 356-376. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2022.2102895
  6. Bartelson J. (1995) A genealogy of sovereignty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 317 p.
  7. Biersteker T.J. Weber C. (1996) The social construction of state sovereignty. State sovereignty as social construct. Ed. by T.J. Biersteker, C. Weber. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 298 p.
  8. Bodin J. (1967) Six books on the Commonwealth. Basil Backwell, Oxford, UK. 212 p.
  9. Bradford A. (2020) The Brussels Effect. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. 424 p.
  10. Campbell, D. (1993) Politics without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics, and the Narratives of the Gulf War. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, USA. 128 p.
  11. Couture S., Toupin S. (2019) What does the notion of "sovereignty" mean when referring to the digital? New media & society. No. 21(10). P. 2305-2322. doi: 10.1177/1461444819865984
  12. Damro C. (2012) Market Power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. No. 19(5). P. 682-699.
  13. Farrand B., Carrapico H. (2022) Digital sovereignty and taking back control: from regulatory capitalism to regulatory mercantilism in EU cybersecurity. European Security. No. 31(3). P. 435-453. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2022.2102896
  14. Glasze G., Cattaruzza A., Douzet F., Dammann F., Bertran M.-G., Bômont C., Braun M., Danet D., Desforges A., Géry A., Grumbach S., Hummel P., Limonier K., Münßinger M., Nicolai F., Pétiniaud L., Winkler J., Zanin C. (2023) Contested Spatialities of Digital Sovereignty. Geopolitics. No. 28(2). P. 919-958. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2022.2050070
  15. Kuus M. (2010) Critical Geopolitics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Ed. by N. Sandal. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.137
  16. Manners, I. (2002) Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies. No. 40(2). P. 235-258. doi: 10.1111/1468-5965.00353
  17. Ó Tuathail G., Agnew J. (1992) Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy. Political Geography. No. 11 (2). P. 190-204.
  18. Pohle J., Thiel T. (2020) Digital sovereignty.Internet Policy Review. No. 9(4). doi: 10.14763/2020.4.1532
  19. Roberts H., Cowls J., Casolari F., Morley J., Taddeo M., Floridi L. (2021) Safeguarding European values with digital sovereignty: An analysis of statements and policies.Internet Policy Review. No. 10(3). doi: 10.14763/2021.3.1575
  20. Weber C. (1995) Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 164 p.

Declaração de direitos autorais © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2023

Este site utiliza cookies

Ao continuar usando nosso site, você concorda com o procedimento de cookies que mantêm o site funcionando normalmente.

Informação sobre cookies