Suchergebnisse

Over the last decade, digital sovereignty has become a central element in policy discourses on digital issues. Although it has become popular in both centralised/authoritarian and democratic countries alike, the concept remains highly contested. After investigating the challenges to sovereignty apparently posed by the digital transformation, this essay retraces how sovereignty has re-emerged as a key category with regard to the digital. By systematising the various normative claims to digital sovereignty, it then goes on to show how, today, the concept is understood more as a discursive practice in politics and policy than as a legal or organisational concept. ; This article has been first published in Internet Policy Review: Julia Pohle and Thorsten Thiel. 2020. "Digital sovereignty." Internet Policy Review 9 (4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532

Over the last decade, digital sovereignty has become a central element in policy discourses on digital issues. Although it has become popular in both centralised/authoritarian and democratic countries alike, the concept remains highly contested. After investigating the challenges to sovereignty apparently posed by the digital transformation, this essay retraces how sovereignty has re-emerged as a key category with regard to the digital. By systematising the various normative claims to digital sovereignty, it then goes on to show how, today, the concept is understood more as a discursive practice in politics and policy than as a legal or organisational concept.

Over the last decade, digital sovereignty has become a central element in policy discourses on digital issues. Although it has become popular in both centralised/authoritarian and democratic countries alike, the concept remains highly contested. After investigating the challenges to sovereignty apparently posed by the digital transformation, this essay retraces how sovereignty has re-emerged as a key category with regard to the digital. By systematising the various normative claims to digital sovereignty, it then goes on to show how, today, the concept is understood more as a discursive practice in politics and policy than as a legal or organisational concept.

The concept of "European digital sovereignty" does not seem to fit well with the global nature of digitalisation, but a closer look at the phenomenon reveals why this term makes sense. First of all, digitalisation is not a process antithetical to territorialisation, contrary to the logic of states or incompatible with the defence of the interests of the European Union, especially at a time when the digital space has become a geostrategic battlefield between countries and, above all, different models. The proposal advocated here consists of understanding this term not only as an ad intra protection but also as a capacity to assert the European model of digitisation on a global scale.

This study is dedicated to the interdependencies between digital sovereignty and sustainable digitalization, which need to be explicitly linked to an increasing degree in political discourse, academia, and societal debates. Digital skills are the prerequisites for shaping digitalization in the interest of society and sustainable development.

Today ensuring data security is becoming one of the priority areas of EU policy. In February 2020, the EU adopted the Data Strategy aiming at strengthening its leadership in a digital society. Although the strategy sets primarily economic goals, the problem of ensuring digital sovereignty occupies an important place. The purpose of this study is to examine the EU information security policy, starting from the concept of "Westphalian sovereignty" proposed by the S. Krasner. This concept found coverage in the works of M.M. Lebedeva. S. Krasner defines "Westphalian sovereignty" as the completeness of state power within the borders and the absence of other subjects of power. Analysis of the EU strategy in the field of information security and big data allows us to conclude that the EU emphasizes the need to limit the "Westphalian sovereignty" within the framework of an integration structure, and not individual member states. This contributes to understanding of the trends of evolution of state sovereignty in the context of globalization and the modern data revolution.

Abstract
Why has the policy idea of mandating digital platforms with the procedural enforcement of national laws proven to be so widely appealing? This article employs an instrumental case study of Germany's NetzDG and develops a power-integrated multiple streams approach to examine the power dynamics between nation-states and big tech platforms in the development of digital policy. Drawing on 26 elite interviews, document analysis, and process tracing, the research uncovers a tug-of-war over sovereignty in the digital sphere. This struggle is characterized by the state's objectives to reclaim power, continuous contention over key resources, and the critical role of policy entrepreneurs, all of which profoundly shape contemporary technology regulations.

Brief Introduction Digital technologies can promote productivity, dynamic growth returns, structural change and the implementation of sustainable development goals, but they also present new challenges. Some of these challenges – such as data extraction and commodification, rising costs of innovation, an influx of predatory firms and the loss of privacy – have been linked to national policy to assert digital sovereignty in this new age (Pohle & Thiel, 2020). Put simply, such calls for digital sovereignty require governments to articulate a national vision of economic independence, development and personal freedom in the interest of their citizens. Yet this can be complex in practice. What does economic independence and development look like in the digital economy? How can we define and balance freedom, at the national, economic and personal levels, within countries? Are states best positioned to define the interests of their citizens and, if so, what forms of participatory engagement are required? What are the implications of the 'digital divide', both within and between countries, for digital sovereignty? Is 'digital sovereignty' the best way to articulate and frame policy in the digital economy? These questions assume particular importance in developing countries, especially for those in Africa, due to the challenges associated with the digital economy, weak institutions and policy capacity to anticipate the influence of new digital technologies, and data inequality. This collection of essays seeks to address these issues with considerable focus, and includes essays which address the following broad heads related to digital sovereignty in Africa: Digital transformations for and in Africa (economic autonomy, technological change) Digital technologies for development in Africa Privacy and data governance models for Africa Data access and data equality for Africa. Contents This volume includes twelve pieces written by fellows in the Research Sprint. Digital Sovereignty in Africa: An Introduction - Padmashree ...

Digital transformation affects all social spheres bringing to life interactive technologies and virtual reality. Since the virtual (digital) space depends on the digital and creative solutions that form its technological base, insofar the legal regime of copying creative solutions affects both the freedom of creativity necessary for sustainable development and public control which is significant for maintaining the manageability of sovereign states and integrational unions.Aim. Improving the legal regime for the protection of interactive works to create a universal and harmonious information space where the rights of authors and the economic interests of software developers are protected, as well as digital sovereignty is guaranteed.Tasks. The concept development for legal protection of interactive works and the political and legal modeling of the digital (information) space presuppose the implementation of international agreements in the field of intellectual rights, as well as solution of several tasks to formalize the results of the creative activity that are perceived through digital technologies.Methods. Political and legal modeling of the digital space is carried out by introducing terminological certainty and creating a system of the interactive works protection. Such legal construction should provide effective public control while preserving creative freedom in digital space.Results. The protection of the copyright and moral rights of the authors of interactive works differs significantly from the legal protection of audiovisual artworks and literature. While the form of objective expression in computer programs may be similar to a literary artwork, their perception by the target audience is fundamentally different in that it models a virtual (digital) space, which the state administration seeks to control in recent years.Conclusion. The state administration's tendency to digital sovereignty makes sense only if the target audience demonstrates high demand for interactive artworks published under the state jurisdiction. Since the information space is universal, the digital sovereignty of the state is inextricably linked with participation in integration unions that ensure the p roper quality of the results of creative work and create the digital space that is necessary under digital transformation for the interactive art development and the prosperity of creative corporations.