Sovereignty 2 0 Vlex United States

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Dec 28, 2025, 11:21 AM

Table of Contents I. Introduction 284 II. From Hobbes to Zuckerberg: The Rise of Digital Sovereignty 290 A. Defining "Digital Sovereignty" 291 B. China: Inventing Digital Sovereignty 293 C. The EU: Embracing Digital Sovereignty 298 D.

Russia: Promoting the Runet 300 E. The United States: Digital Sovereignty by Default 301 F. The Global South: Avoiding Data Colonialism 303 III. How Digital Sovereignty Is Different 305 A. Always Global 306 B. Against Corporations 307 C.

More Control 308 D. Enables Protectionism 309 IV. The Double-Edged Sword of Digital Sovereignty 311 A. Speech 312 1. NetzDG (Germany) 312 2. Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited (European Union) 314 B.

Privacy 315 1. Justice Reform Act (France) 315 2. Data Protection/Didi (China) 316 C. National Security 317 1. TikTok Ban (United States) 317 2. NSO Spyware for Hire (Israel) 320 V.

Conclusion 323 I. INTRODUCTION The internet was supposed to end sovereignty. "Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, you have no sovereignty where we gather," John Perry Barlow famously declared. (1) Sovereignty would prove impossible over a world of bits, with the internet simply routing around futile controls. (2) But reports of the death of sovereignty over the internet proved premature.

Consider recent events: * In late 2020, on the eve of what was to be the world's biggest initial public offering (IPO) ever, the Chinese government scuttled the listing of fintech provider Ant Group. Before the failed offering, Ant's CEO, Jack Ma. had made what some saw as a veiled critique of the government: "We shouldn't use the way to manage a train station to regulate an airport.... We cannot regulate the future with yesterday's means." (3) Chastened after Beijing's intervention, Ant announced that it would "embrace regulation," and Chinese netizens declared Jack Ma duly "tamed." (4) * In June 2021, France fined Google $593 million for failing to follow an order to negotiate with news publishers to compensate them for displaying snippets of the publishers' news items before linking to...

(5) * In July 2021, Luxembourg's privacy regulator fined Amazon $887 million for data protection violations. (6) Anupam Chander, Georgetown University Haochen Sun, University of Hong Kong Digital sovereignty-the exercise of control over the internet-is the ambition of the world's leaders, from Australia to Zimbabwe, seen as a bulwark against both foreign states and foreign corporations. Governments have resoundingly answered first-generation internet law questions of who, if anyone, should regulate the internet.

The answer: they all will. Governments now confront second-generation questions--not whether, but how to regulate the internet. This Article argues that digital sovereignty is simultaneously a necessary incident of democratic governance and democracy's dreaded antagonist. As international law scholar Louis Henkin taught, sovereignty can insulate a government's worst ills from foreign intrusion. Assertions of digital sovereignty, in particular, are often double-edged--useful both to protect citizens and to control them. Digital sovereignty can magnify the government's powers by making legible behaviors that were previously invisible to the state.

Thus, the same rule can be used to safeguard or repress-a feature that legislators across the Global North and South should anticipate through careful checks and balances. Anupam Chander and Haochen Sun, Sovereignty 2.0, 55 Vanderbilt Law Review 283 (2023) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol55/iss2/2 Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, International Law Commons, Internet Law Commons Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 4202(b) of this title, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the... No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 4202(b) of this title shall prevent the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States from amending...

Reports, including findings and recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant to any trade agreement entered into under section 4202(b) of this title shall have no binding effect on the law of the... Citation: Anupam Chander, Haochen Sun Sovereignty 2.0. Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Sovereignty 2.0 Wikidata (metadata): Q109796645 Download: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3422&context=facpub Tagged: Claims to be the "first comprehensive account of digital or data sovereignty" and surveys various ways states (China, US, EU, Global South) are asserting it. Argues that digital sovereignty is not merely an extension of sovereignty needed to control corporations and competitor states, but is suited to hijacking by states to control their citizens. Digital sovereignty is new because it is:

Historically "sovereign" is most often paired with "immunity"; provides examples of speech, privacy, and security controls being used to insulate the state or control citizens. Concludes that the power of both corporations and regulators must be regulated. Access the most comprehensive collection of US federal and state legal materials through vLex's award-winning platform, featuring live case law, statutes, regulations, and secondary sources from all 50 states and federal jurisdictions. Our authoritative US legal database combines real-time updates with expert editorial oversight, delivering the precision-engineered legal intelligence that Vincent uses to transform legal workflows for America's leading legal professionals. vLex's comprehensive US legal database includes case law, statutes, regulations, and administrative codes from all 50 states and federal jurisdictions. Explore our recommended products for legal professionals in the United States.

Our complete collection of United States case law and legislation. US & Global Journals is a curated collection of legal, business, technology, policy, and news journals from around the world. It provides publications from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Anupam Chander, Georgetown University Law CenterFollow Haochen Sun, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Digital sovereignty—the exercise of control over the internet—is the ambition of the world’s leaders, from Australia to Zimbabwe, a bulwark against both foreign state and foreign corporation. Governments have resoundingly answered first-generation internet law questions of who if anyone should regulate the internet—they all will.

We now confront second generation questions—not whether, but how to regulate the internet. We argue that digital sovereignty is simultaneously a necessary incident of democratic governance and democracy’s dreaded antagonist. As international law scholar Louis Henkin taught us, sovereignty can insulate a government’s worst ills from foreign intrusion. Assertions of digital sovereignty, in particular, are often double-edged—useful both to protect citizens and to control them. Digital sovereignty can magnify the government’s powers by making legible behaviors that were previously invisible to the state. Thus, the same rule can be used to safeguard or repress--a feature that legislators across the Global North and South should anticipate by careful checks and balances.

Chander, Anupam and Sun, Haochen, "Sovereignty 2.0" (2021). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 2404. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2404 Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Kevin DUMONT, Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. Andrew James Kinstler, Helsell Fetterman LLP, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Frederick E. Wollett, Seattle City Attorney's Office, Jennifer Schubert, City Hall, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

¶ 1 Kevin Dumont, a white City of Seattle firefighter, appeals from the summary judgment dismissal of his lawsuit alleging that the City of Seattle fire chief violated RCW 49.60.400 by not promoting him... The sole contested issue on appeal is whether Dumont met his burden of showing that material issues of fact exist as to whether the fire chief's stated basis for the promotion was pretextual. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dumont, we conclude that he met his burden. Accordingly, we reverse. Major legal research databases can be prohibitively expensive. Fortunately, many free and low-cost resources for conducting legal research are available.

This guide will help you locate them. We will mainly focus on resources for researching federal law and Washington State law. Some resources for researching the law in other states and countries are mentioned as well. Remember to evaluate every source that you consult to determine whether it is current, accurate, and authoritative. This is particularly important when relying on free and low-cost resources. Fastcase is a low-cost legal research database.

People Also Search

Table Of Contents I. Introduction 284 II. From Hobbes To

Russia: Promoting The Runet 300 E. The United States: Digital

More Control 308 D. Enables Protectionism 309 IV. The Double-Edged

Privacy 315 1. Justice Reform Act (France) 315 2. Data