Against Sovereignty in Cyberspace

Abstract

In discussing the historical origins of sovereignty, Jens Bartelson (2018, 510) wrote, “Making sense of sovereignty . . . entails making sense of its component terms—supreme authority and territory—and how these terms were forged together into a concept.” The question of sovereignty in cyberspace, however, inverts this historical “forging together,” as territoriality and authority are sundered in cyberspace. This paper argues that attempts to apply sovereignty to cyberspace governance are inappropriate to the domain. It develops a technically grounded definition of “cyberspace” and examines its characteristics as a distinct domain for action, conflict, and governance, while clarifying its relationship to territoriality. It reviews the literature on cyberspace and sovereignty since the early 1990s, showing the emergence of explicitly pro-sovereigntist ideas and practices in the last ten years. The cyber-sovereignty debate is linked to IR research on the historical emergence of sovereignty, demonstrating how technologies routinely change the basis of international order and challenging the presumption that territorial sovereignty is a stable and uniform principle of international organization that can be presumptively applied to the internet. The paper also links the conceptual debate over cyber-sovereignty to the real-world geopolitical struggle over the governance of the internet, showing how different conceptions of sovereignty serve the interests of different powers, notably the United States, Russia, and China. The paper explores the relevance of an alternative governance model for cyberspace based on the global commons concept. It refutes the arguments made against that model and then explains what difference it might make to governance if we conceive of cyberspace in that way.

The Treachery of Images in the Digital Sovereignty Debate

“…There are both proponents (Philpott 1999) and opponents (Osiander 2001;Sen 2012). The debate has also been seized to argue that there cannot be sovereignty in the digital realm (Mueller 2019). But are we seeing the same historical image?…”

“…Second, innovations and capacity, but not balance, characterize also today's digital conflicts between states (Ruohonen 2020b). Even though different states have different stances on these conflicts just as they have different positions on digital sovereignty (Chong 2014;Couture and Toupin 2019;Mueller 2019), what seems clear is that the line between war and peace is becoming foggy in the digital realm, or that it has already become blurry. Warfare in the digital realm may be a myth (Gartzke 2013), or it may be that obscurity prevents seeing the treachery of the image.…”

“…For the early utopian theorists, such as Barlow (1996), the cyber space was a sovereign space by itself, but since there was no authority, no Leviathan, which is required for sovereignty as a theoretical construct without losing its qualifying characteristics, the discourse was later hijacked by "realists" who perceived the cyber space as an anarchy akin to Hobbes, Schmitt, and other conflict theorists (cf. Mueller 2019). The fundamental theoretical paradox is that much of Western philosophical thought has been either intentionally or inexpertly skipped with this utopian-realist parochialism.…”

Who Should Be in Charge of Cyberspace? The European Union, Member States and the Constitution of Structural Power

“…1 As its pervasiveness constantly increases to enable the functioning of modern societies (Choucri, 2012: 52), corporate actors, governments and international organizations alike have been struggling over competencies within cyberspace. For instance, a Sino-Russian coalition has for years been attempting to challenge the United States and the transnational legacy institutions that govern the Internet, especially the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (Mueller, 2019). The coalition aims to replace them with sovereign agreements within the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (Flonk et al, 2018;Lindsay, 2015: 37-40).…”

What's in a Name? Metaphors and Cybersecurity

“…For example, the second edition begins by affirming: “The principle of State sovereignty applies in cyberspace.” Schmitt 2017, 11. International legal debates often define “cyberspace with reference to territory.” Manjikian 2015, 4. See also Mueller 2019.…”