primavera on network sovereignties

primavera de filippi @yaoeo on network sovereignties [https://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.eu/new-network-sovereignties-the-rise-of-non-territorial-states/2/]:

New Network Sovereignties: the rise of non-territorial states?

Introduction

In 2018, the Global Citizenship Governance’s symposium on Cloud Communities explored the emergence of *voluntary self-sovereign political communities, whose governance transcends territorial boundaries. From Estonia launching the world’s first digital residency program to a number of private initiatives such as BitNation, Liberland, and Asgardia, **institutions and communities are leveraging recent technological innovations to challenge conventional notions of sovereignty and governance ..t (De Filippi, 2018).

*rather.. still yet voluntary compliance (unless sans any form of m\a\p)

estonia

**leverage we need: tech as it could be via nonjudgmental expo labeling

Half a decade later, these pioneering ideas have proliferated in the public debate. The concept of voluntary self-sovereign political communities (Orgad 2018)—a relatively niche concept at the time—has evolved into a broader movement, giving rise to a variety of network-based political communities, many of which began to define themselves as network states (Srinivasan 2022). 

Our goal in this symposium is to explore the distinct features and motivations driving these new types of network sovereignties, emphasizing the importance of governance over territorial control. Conceptually and theoretically, we want to *explore the various meanings of sovereignty, the extent to which these networked communities can effectively be regarded as sovereign communities, and the extent to which they can assume state prerogatives—from law and governance to welfare services. Empirically, we aim to analyze whether these voluntary communities provide new avenues for political participation that might be absent in traditional nation-state structures. Normatively, we want to investigate the law and ethics of these initiatives to better delineate their positive potential to disrupt the longstanding Westphalian system of nation-states.

*supreme power, authority, dominion

The Emergence of New Network Sovereignties 

The advent of new network sovereignties (De Filippi et al. 2023) has been catalyzed by a confluence of historical factors and technological advancements. Throughout modern history, the conventional understanding of sovereignty has been intrinsically tied to the nation-state (Habermas 1996): a political entity acting as a sovereign authority within defined territorial boundaries, which can coerce its population to abide by its rules (Krasner 2001). However, in the past decades,  traditional notions of sovereignty have begun to undergo a profound transformation (Lapidoth 1992, Hirst & Thompson 1995, Joffe 1999, Ku & Yoo 2013).

any form of people telling other people what to do

This transformation of sovereignty is propelled by the rapid advancement and proliferation of digital communication technologies and decentralized networked systems. First, the advent of the *Internet has enabled the emergence of new network structures that operate in a decentralized fashion and purport to bypass traditional power structures—albeit with questionable success (Couldry 2015). The Internet enabled the formation of distributed social networks, facilitating cooperative dynamics among multiple actors and paving the way for **new modes of social and political organization (Fuchs 2007). Indeed, as the digital world started blurring the lines between the local and the global, we had the opportunity to witness a series of transformative developments in how communities coordinate themselves and assert their collective identities, both in the physical and digital world (Dolata & Schrape 2016). Many online communities use digital networks as the primary mechanisms of governance, organization and cooperation. These communities span across geographic borders, experimenting with novel patterns of governance that do not rely on traditional political structures (Rheingold 1999). As such, these communities have the potential to present an alternative framework to the established Westphalian order, which has long dictated our understanding of sovereignty (Bartelson 2006).

*1\ because we haven’t yet let go enough to see and 2\ because it hasn’t yet been all of us

**no new/diff/novel/alt org to date.. need to org around legit needs ie: as infra

Second, the advent of blockchain technology further facilitated the development of distributed systems where governance and authority are dispersed across interconnected digital networks, thereby further challenging the conventional state-centric model of sovereignty (Atzori 2015). Indeed, by empowering individuals to collectively manage networked systems, digital assets and resources, *blockchain technology has created new opportunities for online communities to govern themselves in a distributed manner (De Filippi 2021). These ‘self-sovereign’ systems collectively managed by non-state actors are not (directly) subject to the sovereignty of existing nation-states (Ziolkowska 2021), forcing us to **re-evaluate how individuals, communities, and institutions interact and collaborate on a global scale..t (Manski & Manski 2018). 

*but to date have only used blockchain et al for same song

**need to ‘interact’ via itch-in-the-soul.. and will be no legit itches.. if evaluating/reevaluating.. et al

how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us.. ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

At the core of this transformation lies the concept of new network sovereignties—a term coined to describe the emergence of self-sovereign networked political communities that operate as an engine for global coordination, transcending traditional definitions of political and geographical sovereignty (De Filippi et al. 2023). Network sovereignties do not seek to replicate the state-centric model of sovereignty, nor do they seek to replace or supplant the institution of the state. Instead, they exist in parallel with existing state formations, serving as animating forces for coordination and cooperation in an interconnected world. Indeed, because they are not confined by geographical borders, network sovereignties facilitate the free flow of ideas, information, digital assets and resources (Pohle & Thiel 2020).

These new political communities offer a novel perspective on the concept of sovereignty. While traditional state sovereignty is rooted in territorial control (Murphy 2018), network sovereignties are more concerned with the concept of ‘functional sovereignty’, emphasizing the importance of governance functions over territorial boundaries. Initially coined to describe situations where sovereignty is exercised by non-states entities—e.g. international organizations with authority over a particular set of functions or tasks (Riphagen 1975)—’functional sovereignty’ acquired newfound popularity with digital platforms operated by transnational corporations (Dederer 2015).

In the digital age, functional sovereignty takes on a new dimension as the ability to exercise control over the governance and operations of digital platforms becomes of utmost importance, and the control of digital resources does not require control of land. ..Yet, *despite the fluid and borderless nature of the digital world, these digital juggernauts cannot entirely ignore governments’ rules and regulations as they nonetheless remain subject to the law of the land they are incorporated in, and that of the jurisdiction they provide their services to (De Filippi & Belli 2012). 

*yeah.. until we find/try a way that can ignore.. will be same song

ie: sabbatical ish transition

*Blockchain technology is a crucial building block for these networked political communities because it provides a decentralized, transparent, secure and immutable ledger that does not rely on an intermediary authority..t (De Filippi & Wright 2018). This allows these political communities to create their own sovereign financial infrastructure—and their own currency—rather than depending on governmental institutions or private actors to manage their finances (Vigna & Casey 2016). But the technological innovation underpinning blockchain technology extends beyond **financial transactions. The ability to tokenize real-world assets on blockchain platforms ***revolutionizes the way resources are managed and shared within these online communities (Tapscott & Tapscott 2016). Decentralized identity solutions enabled by blockchain technology ensure more ****privacy and security in online interactions, allowing individuals to control their digital personas without reliance on central authorities (Wang & De Filippi 2020). *****Smart contracts deployed on a blockchain can be used to automate agreements, ensuring the execution of predefined rules without the need for intermediaries (De Filippi & Hassan 2018). The proliferation of ******Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (Hassan & De Filippi 2021) makes it possible to automate *******decision-making processes, allowing members to propose, discuss, and vote on initiatives without intermediaries (Singh & Kim 2019). Blockchain technologies also promote experimentation in political participation, with ********blockchain-based voting systems ensuring the integrity of the votes (Jafar & al. 2021) and new governance tools like conviction voting, turning political participation into a continuous, real-time engagement (Ding et al. 2023).

*we just need a ledger to do nonjudgmental expo labeling..  to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs

**same song – token and fin transaction.. 10-day-care-center\ness et al

***not revolutionary until let go of any form of m\a\p.. hari rat park law.. oi.. don tapscott ness

****need gershenfeld something else law

*****smart contracts as cancerous distractions

******dao ness as cancerous distraction

*******finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. any form of democratic admin as cancerous distraction

********oi.. voting ness and seat at the table ness

Real-world initiatives serve as compelling case studies. Many of the online communities forming around specific cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin or Ethereum) or blockchain initiatives (e.g., Gitcoin, vitaDAO, or LexDAO) are self-organized, inviting individuals to collaborate voluntarily based on shared interests and goals (Schaffers 2018). Projects like CityDAO or Cabin are experimenting with blockchain technology to govern land-based communities, showing that physical spaces can also be governed in a decentralized and self-sovereign manner, paving the way for the advent of new networked sovereignties (Abdi 2023).

not legit self-organizing if invited vs invented et al.. so voluntary compliance of non legit (itch-in-the-soul) interests..

New network sovereignties distinguish themselves from network states to the extent that they do not purport to replicate the institutional fabric of the state, but rather to create additional layers of sovereignties that exist in parallel with traditional forms of territorial sovereignty (De Filippi & al. 2023). As such, they do not compete for territories—nor citizens—with existing nation-states, but rather coexist alongside them, as a novel institutional structure that individuals can join regardless of their geographical location. 

if join ness.. then compete ness.. so then same song ness

Members of these political communities are united not by land, *but by shared ideologies, values, and objectives. A sense of affinity or kinship often develops among members, along with a collective identity. Yet, in contrast to most nations, membership in these communities is voluntary and **defined by participation, adherence to community guidelines, and mutual goals rather than birth or geographical location (Ohler 2012); belonging is based on shared purposes and ideals rather than on the happenstance of one’s birthplace or ancestry.

*of whales.. need global detox leap.. hari rat park law.. for that phrase to mean anything other than same song

**defined, participation, guidelines, goals, belonging based on (rather than brown belonging law) .. all ie’s of same song

Since participation is opt-in, new network sovereignties promote individual autonomy and self-determination. Yet, they recognize the value (and inevitability) of interdependency, often trying to increase interdependency through the sharing and mutualisation of resources (Pazaitis & al. 2017). Insofar as people voluntarily choose to become entrenched with one another to increase their capacity to engage in collective action (Bayer 2014), these communities are pressured to implement participatory governance systems where individuals are incentivized to express themselves (via voice) rather than vote with their feet (via exit). This represents a departure from traditional power structures—such as nation states—where participation is not voluntary and exit is generally costly (Allen & al. 2020).

pressured to be participatory = voluntary compliance

At the geopolitical level, one may wonder whether these networked communities could be regarded as new political actors in international relations. Indeed, network sovereignties have shown that many of the functions that were once a defining feature of the state can now also be achieved by non-state actors. These include the issuance of a sovereign currency, often in the form of cryptocurrencies; the enactment of legal frameworks which—although not universally recognized in traditional legal systems—hold legal weight within their constituents; participation in economic activities, such as trade, production, and consumption within the networks and beyond; the provision of welfare services like healthcare, education, and social support, both to the members of the network and to the public at large. While these services are provided on a smaller scale than most state-provided services, they reflect a community’s responsibility for collective well-being.

ie that the ‘alongside’ ness really means same song

Conclusion & open challenges

The emergence of new network sovereignties raises a multitude of questions that we hope to analyze through this online symposium. .. *What are the challenges involved in this transition towards the emergence of new network sovereignties?..t What are the dynamics of scaling or growth within these networked political communities? How do they adapt to **evolving needs and complexities in the global governance arena?

*letting go enough to try something legit diff.. graeber rethink law et al

**need to org around legit needs for the dance to dance..

..Already in the blockchain space, legal scholars and practitioners are faced with the difficult task of reconciling the operations of smart contracts and decentralized autonomous organizations with existing legal norms (Millard 2018), so that they can better interface with existing institutions (De Filippi & al. 2022). 

can’t do that if want graeber make it diff law

As we navigate these uncharted territories, it is essential to *engage in rigorous, multidisciplinary dialogue.

until global detox leap.. all cancerous distraction of whalespeak

Primavera De Filippi is a research director at CERSA/CNRS and faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. She is the PI of the BlockchainGov ERC research project, which focuses on the legal challenges and opportunities of blockchain technology and distributed governance.

_________

________

________

________

_______

__________

__________