To What Extent Does the Internet Pose a Challenge to the Sovereignty of States?

1

To What Extent Does the Internet Pose a Challenge to the Sovereignty of States?

Jane Doe

University of California

POLS 305: International Relations

Professor John Smith

May 8, 2025

2

To What Extent Does the Internet Pose a Challenge to the Sovereignty of States?

State sovereignty remains increasingly affected by the Internet. It has emerged with new threats and opportunities. Thus, it enables cyber activism that addresses hegemonic power relations by disseminating content across the globe (Ruijgrok, 2021). However, it is also crucial to point out that the internet also preserves state sovereignty through features like cyber espionage and data domestication (Kolozaridi & Muravyov, 2021). These two processes, therefore, capture the subtle dynamics of the relationship between the internet and sovereignty. In order to do this, the states must be able to control these changes so as to enable the proper establishment of their governance structures (Floridi, 2015). As such, political institutions and their efficiency are critical. According to Gao (2022), the level of digital infrastructure development in a state determines whether or not the state will use the internet to fortify its power and authority. However, there are some countries that face many challenges in maintaining their sovereignty in the course of digital transformation (Na & Pu, 2023). The paper will argue that the internet undermines state sovereignty but, on the other hand, strengthens it through its utilization and regulation.

Technological advancement, especially social media, has also helped in the organization and organization of protests through activism. Activists of the Bersih movement in Malaysia employed Facebook and WhatsApp; the government could not shut down these social media platforms (Ruijgrok, 2021). These tools assisted in spreading the information on the protest and hence encouraged the togetherness of the protesters. They could be easily communicated with and thrilled by short messages that could be posted on various social media sites. They provided a means of getting people to listen to the plight of the people and get the support of the international community.

3

It means that the state still needs to be able to effectively neutralize digital mobilization as a threat to its sovereignty. This activism not only disrupts the public discourse but also disrupts the authority of the authoritarians. The internet provides a platform to the oppressed, and therefore, it is an effective tool in the fight for social justice in the current society. Despite the demarginalization of information, digital platforms are still in the process of changing power relations between the state and its citizens in various ways.

These social media giants, like Facebook and Twitter, demonstrate the weakening of state authority in the digital environment. Most of these corporations have their business across various countries and are not bound by the laws of a specific country (Floridi, 2015). Activities that span across different jurisdictions create a problem for national laws, therefore making states vulnerable. It is probable that corporations develop global strategies and completely disregard domestic needs. That leads to what may be referred to as governance gaps because the individual states cannot implement the laws effectively. Hence, the states have to negotiate their stakes in a complex manner to assert their interest within the paradigm of global internet governance. That is because multinational companies take advantage of such spaces to avoid the legal frameworks set by the state. These platforms are gaining more power, and this is a significant threat to the sovereignty of the states. That is where the concept of global platforms poses the problem of how to regulate the platforms that operate across international relations. That way, state control over digital activities is limited only to such measures.

Economic sovereignty is at stake as the digital economy giants dominate the market and constrain the capacities of states to control economic transactions. This emphasis on cyber sovereignty in China can be attributed to the domination of Western technology (Gao, 2022). Thus, China is trying to reduce its reliance on foreign firms as much as possible.

4

Data localization laws are meant to protect domestic markets from foreign competition. These strategies are a way of getting back the sovereignty of the economic activities of the nations. However, the application of international trade restricts the achievement of full digital sovereignty. Big companies can have their ways of not being subjected to the laws of a specific country since they have the power due to their worldwide operations. Thus, the mentioned dynamics can be a challenge for newly industrialized countries. Only a country can foster economic growth by depending on digital technologies. That is the case because the protection of our economic sovereignty requires that there is a proper balance between the global and the local through the right policies. That is because the power of global platforms continues to rise and changes the power dynamics in the digital economy.

Data localization policies can be viewed as a mechanism that enhances state sovereignty. That is because countries like Russia and India have made it a law to store data within their nation, thus controlling online activities (Kolozaridi & Muravyov, 2021). These platforms are designed to stop the flow of sensitive information to foreign actors. Localization is a good way of enforcing the laws of the country and for the improvement of the data governance structures. However, such policies may conflict with the general rules of international trade. The critics of data localization have argued that the policy increases costs to businesses, especially for multinational companies. However, the criticisms, more and more states see localization as essential for digital sovereignty. It allows governments to regain some measure of control over the global technology companies.

Some states opt for hybrid governance systems in order to retain their sovereignty as well as engage in international relations. The European Union focuses on digital sovereignty when it comes to engagement in the cyberspace norms of the world (Gao, 2022).

5

This approach thus enables the EU to safeguard its interests in a way that does not make it a mere observer of globalization. Thus, the hybrid models allow people to consider transnational digital issues as more flexible. The states coordinate in enhancing the security of cyberspace and in the optimum use of the Internet. Through these frameworks, they are able to actively engage in the determination of the international policies that govern the use of the Internet; they have total control over the domestic policies. That is so because there is still a need to come up with other forms of regulation that may help in achieving both these objectives. Such models can reveal the transformation of sovereignty in the context of modern digital culture. Consequently, each state carries the obligation to strike a balance between attaining its national interest and operating within the system of the international system. The mode of governance revealed in a hybrid manner depicts the way the political structures grapple with the challenge of controlling the Internet in the global village.

Internet governance employs multistakeholderism. That has proved beneficial as civil society, the corporate sector, and the state embrace it in decision-making. Of course, it enhances participation; that is, it guarantees all the stakeholders from specific fields. That is due to the reason that everyone will have a say in the decisions to be made to arrive at the best solution to the challenges that affect the Internet. However, at the same time, it reduces the power of an individual state regarding the centralized authority in the decision-making process (Floridi, 2015). That is the position in shared decision-making where power is decentralized, and it may take some time before a decision is made. All the stated corporations remain geared towards making profits, and therefore, they will opt for the commercial benefits regardless of the country’s regulations. The users have representation through other non-governmental organizations, which may be counterproductive to the state policies of control.

6

This governance model captures the transition from Westphalian state sovereignty to interstate relations. The states must consider how the power to regulate internet policies can be shared between them. In the new digital environment, multistakeholder governance changes the meaning of authority to make it both more democratic and effective. That is unlike in the past, when the world could easily control the physical space.

The Internet has been central to the formation of cultural discourses and sovereignty. Most of these platforms are developed using the ‘Western approach’ and may need to be more considerate of the regional cultures and languages. That is so because the content provided on the Internet is ordinarily Western-oriented, and therefore, the online culture could be more varied. One issue noted in the states in relation to the preservation and promotion of cultural iconic identity (Fuchs, 2020). Some of the impacts of culture dilution include: The impact of culture dilution is most likely to be experienced by smaller countries that have yet to develop digital technology. For example, local languages and cultures may not be as prominent as the English language. Local authorities have increased the proportions of their legacy budgets dedicated to digital initiatives, including regional content. However, these efforts could be more successful in competing with large global companies. The Internet is a force that represents both profit and bias – on one side, it promotes cultural exchange; on the other, it promotes cultural elimination. It means that culture can only be shielded from globalization and its ramifications if stakeholders formulate new policies that advance globalization and culture at the same pace.

Issues of surveillance illustrate that the Internet represents the paradox between state sovereignty and individual freedom. These tools assist the states in observing and containing the populace and ensuring that it does not act in a manner that is contrary to state authority. The governments employ surveillance with the aim of safeguarding the state and countering cyberspace threats.

7

Nevertheless, advances in surveillance undermine civil society and human rights organizations (Ruijgrok, 2021). Modern-day opponents have vehemently argued against such measures, insisting that they are an infringement of individual freedom and a threat to democracy. That leads to a conflict that can be described as power and liberty, with those occupying the power position trying to limit the liberties of others while the latter seek to exercise their freedom as they wish. Totalitarian governments may use it as an instrument to control the population, whereas democratic societies have issues of privacy vs. security. These have included facial recognition and data mining technologies, among other modern technological advancements. Some of these are public enlightenment programs and cases that people can bring against government surveillance. These two conflicting interests engage in a struggle for dominance in the internet domain. This duality means that in the age of the Internet, the freedom to speak is separate from the ability to govern and control.

Measures taken by various states and stakeholders globally to address cyber governance issues are similar to measures that are currently available to address sovereignty concerns in cyberspace. These efforts include the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Information Security to improve cooperation between the states (Gao, 2022). These frameworks aim to aid the international system in addressing issues of security, economic growth, and the protection of privacy. However, this is not easy to achieve due to the fact that every country has its motives and objectives. It is also noteworthy that there are differences between countries in terms of data ownership, protection, and sharing. The underdeveloped countries are concerned with equal opportunities to access the Internet, whereas the developed countries are looking for higher security. That is compounded by the reality that there are no general policies that can be employed as a means of executing these agreements. However, these debates imply that there is a need for countries to embrace international cooperation in managing cyber risks.

8

Cyber norms occur when the antagonistic states are able to arrive at a middle ground beneficial to themselves and the other involved entities. These ongoing efforts attest to the challenges of envisaging architectures that could mediate between the sovereign nation-state and the world society in the realm of the Internet.

There are new forms of sovereignty in the world, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the blockchain. These are technologies that work beyond the state forms that question the state machinery. This has led to the adoption of blockchain technology in several industries due to the following characteristics: it has a distributed database, it eliminates the middleman, and it can facilitate international transactions. Similarly, other applications of AI, such as the use of autonomous systems and predictive analytics, do not have geographical restrictions (Na & Pun, 2023). They, therefore, are threatening traditional concepts of control, and this is why it becomes imperative to search for new control regimes. For example, the technology of applying blockchain in cryptocurrency threatens the sovereignty of nation-states in determining fiscal policies. Thus, they offer economic and social opportunities and possibilities, but, in so doing, raise questions about sovereignty. That has called for governance to work hand in hand with technological inventions to ensure they solve the population issue. Innovative management is a crucial factor, and the development of proper guidelines is imperative. Technology is the reason why sovereignty is no longer static, hence changing the relationships between the state and other stakeholders.

From the use of technology, sovereignty as a principle of control is not immune to ethical questions. However, AI and blockchain are used in the legal sphere, and both technologies can be misused. For example, with the implementation of AI technology in surveillance, the likelihood of privacy invasion and surveillance of the masses is heightened (Na & Pun, 2023).

9

That means that governments need to strike a balance between the security of society and liberty. Furthermore, due to the fact that the blockchain system does not require an intermediate presence to manage it, the provisions of the law cannot be directly applied in this regard, thereby leading to legal uncertainties. According to the principles of ethical governance, such choices should be made by states in a way that will not hinder further development. The appearance of international ethical standards may also contribute to the process of filling in the gaps in the legal framework and raising the bar for compliance with operations on the international level. In this paper, the author defines the principle of sustainable technological sovereignty as one of the possible ways through which one can separate technology and immoral acts. Hence, the various states that have integrated such principles into their policy system are well-placed to tackle the issues resulting from technological development.

Conclusion

In sum, the Internet is a paradox that undermines and strengthens state power simultaneously. They facilitate the flow of information across borders, effectively challenging the sovereignty of institutions. However, there are means such as data localization and cybersecurity tools that allow states to establish their power and sovereignty. The activism is present on social media, with the power decentralizing from the centralized bodies and the economic power of the multinational companies exerting pressure on the states to develop the frameworks. This ambivalence is the result of sovereignty being both present and absent in digital communication. AI and blockchain-based technologies are new phenomena of governance as they are cross-border technologies that are yet to be regulated locally. Therefore, the task of integrating digital elements and preserving national sovereignty is before the states.

10

Cooperative structures are seen as complicated, yet they are viewed as the sole way to address dangers emerging from the modern interconnected globe while simultaneously preserving sovereignty. Sovereignty and international governance have been significantly affected by the development of the Internet, and the manner in which it has been done has changed. This delicate balance is indicative of the fact that the Internet has emerged as one of the significant pillars of the modern political structure.

11

References