22 July 2025
Introduction
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally transformed the landscape of international relations, challenging traditional notions of state sovereignty and introducing new complexities in global governance. As AI technologies become increasingly embedded in economic, political, and social systems worldwide, nation-states find themselves compelled to reconsider their approaches to sovereignty and control in the digital domain. The emergence of AI sovereignty as a distinct concept reflects this paradigmatic shift, representing states’ efforts to maintain autonomy and authority in an era where technological capabilities often transcend national borders and where multinational corporations wield unprecedented influence over critical digital infrastructure.
The concept of AI sovereignty has gained prominence as governments worldwide grapple with the implications of artificial intelligence for national security, economic competitiveness, and social governance. Unlike traditional forms of sovereignty that emphasized territorial control and political authority, AI sovereignty encompasses a multidimensional framework that addresses technological capabilities, regulatory frameworks, economic independence, and geopolitical positioning. This evolution reflects the recognition that in the digital age, state power is increasingly defined not only by physical control over territory but also by the capacity to shape and govern technological systems that operate beyond conventional jurisdictional boundaries.
This article examines the conceptual foundations of AI sovereignty, tracing its definitional boundaries, historical evolution, and theoretical underpinnings. By analyzing the multifaceted nature of AI sovereignty and its relationship to broader concepts of digital and data sovereignty, we can better understand how states are adapting their governance strategies to maintain relevance and authority in an increasingly interconnected and technologically dependent world.
Defining AI Sovereignty: A Multidimensional Framework
AI sovereignty refers to the capacity of a nation-state to exercise control over the development, deployment, and regulation of artificial intelligence technologies within its jurisdiction while safeguarding its autonomy from external interference (Usman et al., 2023). This definition builds upon traditional understandings of state sovereignty but acknowledges the unique challenges posed by AI technologies, including their transnational nature, reliance on global data flows, and the dominance of multinational technology corporations in their development and deployment.
The conceptual framework of AI sovereignty encompasses several interrelated dimensions that collectively define a state’s capacity for autonomous action in the digital domain. The technological dimension represents perhaps the most fundamental aspect, encompassing a state’s ability to develop or access advanced AI capabilities without undue reliance on foreign entities. This includes not only technical expertise and human capital but also control over critical infrastructure such as data centers, cloud computing resources, and proprietary algorithms (Gu, 2023). States that lack these foundational capacities often find themselves dependent on external providers, thereby limiting their ability to set independent policies or protect sensitive national information.
The regulatory dimension of AI sovereignty involves the establishment and enforcement of legal frameworks that govern the use and impact of AI technologies within national borders. This aspect of sovereignty is particularly complex because it must balance multiple objectives: protecting public goods such as privacy, security, and civil liberties while ensuring that innovation aligns with national interests and values. Regulatory approaches vary significantly across countries, reflecting different philosophical orientations toward the role of government in technology governance. Some states adopt light-touch regulatory strategies that encourage private sector innovation while intervening only in cases of clear market failure, while others employ more proactive approaches aimed at preemptively addressing risks associated with AI deployment (Djeffal et al., 2022).
Economic sovereignty represents another critical dimension, addressing how AI-enabled technologies reshape industrial structures, labor markets, and international competitiveness. As AI becomes increasingly central to economic productivity and innovation, states must navigate the implications for economic independence and social stability. The ability to harness AI for domestic economic benefit—whether through supporting national technology champions, fostering local innovation ecosystems, or ensuring beneficial participation in global value chains—becomes integral to maintaining economic autonomy in an interconnected world (Gu, 2023).
The geopolitical dimension of AI sovereignty reflects how technological capabilities translate into international influence and bargaining power. In an era where AI capabilities are increasingly viewed as strategic assets, states must position themselves effectively within global technology competition while managing relationships with both allied and rival nations. This dimension encompasses not only military and security applications of AI but also the broader question of how technological leadership translates into normative influence and standard-setting power in international forums.
Historical Evolution of Sovereignty in the Digital Age
The concept of state sovereignty has undergone significant transformation throughout the digital age, shaped by the complex interplay between technological innovation, globalization, and the emergence of powerful non-state actors. Traditional sovereignty, anchored in the Westphalian model established in 1648, emphasized the absolute authority of states over their territories and populations, free from external interference. This classical understanding presumed that states could exercise comprehensive control over activities within their borders and that international relations primarily involved interactions between sovereign equals.
However, the advent of digital technologies has fundamentally disrupted these established paradigms. The rise of the internet, global telecommunications networks, and increasingly sophisticated AI systems has created new domains of activity that transcend traditional territorial boundaries. Cyberspace, as a domain of human activity, operates according to different logics than physical territory, characterized by network effects, digital infrastructure dependencies, and the ability of information and code to move instantaneously across national borders (Usman et al., 2023).
Globalization has played a central role in eroding traditional notions of sovereignty even before the digital revolution. The proliferation of international organizations, trade agreements, and supranational governance structures introduced new layers of authority that constrained unilateral state action. However, digital technologies have accelerated and deepened these trends by creating new forms of interdependence and enabling non-state actors to exercise influence across borders with unprecedented speed and scale.
The emergence of global technology companies represents perhaps the most significant challenge to traditional state sovereignty in the digital era. Companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Nvidia have acquired capabilities that in many respects rival those of nation-states. Their control over critical digital infrastructure, vast user bases, and data resources grants them influence over economic transactions, social interactions, and even political processes on a global scale. This shift has led to what some scholars describe as the emergence of “private superpowers” that operate across multiple jurisdictions while maintaining significant autonomy from traditional state control (Gu, 2023).
Artificial intelligence further complicates this landscape by introducing new forms of power that transcend traditional jurisdictional boundaries. AI-enabled platforms can influence public opinion, economic behavior, and political outcomes across borders through algorithmic recommendation systems, automated content moderation, and sophisticated targeting capabilities. The borderless nature of cyberspace means that states face increasing difficulty in asserting control over AI systems and data flows that originate outside their territory but have significant impacts within it.
Paradoxically, while digital technologies have created new challenges for state sovereignty, they have also provided tools that can reinforce certain aspects of state authority. AI applications in areas such as border control, immigration management, and domestic surveillance enable states to exercise more granular oversight over their territories and populations. Digital identity systems, automated monitoring capabilities, and predictive analytics offer governments new mechanisms for social control and public administration (Usman et al., 2023).
AI Sovereignty versus Digital and Data Sovereignty
While AI sovereignty, digital sovereignty, and data sovereignty are closely related concepts, each addresses distinct aspects of state power and autonomy in the technological domain. Understanding their relationships and differences is crucial for developing coherent policy frameworks that address the full spectrum of challenges posed by digital transformation.
Digital sovereignty encompasses the broadest scope, involving state control over the entire digital ecosystem, including networks, platforms, digital services, and the regulatory environment for all forms of digitalization (Kurbalija & Ittelson, 2025). This concept reflects a state’s ability to assert authority over digital activities occurring within its borders and to shape the overall regulatory environment for technological development and deployment. Digital sovereignty initiatives often focus on reducing dependence on foreign technology providers, developing domestic technological capabilities, and ensuring that digital transformation aligns with national values and priorities.
Data sovereignty represents a more focused concept, concerning the governance of data collection, storage, processing, and transfer within national territories. It encompasses the rights and mechanisms by which states regulate how data generated within their borders is handled by both domestic and foreign entities (Ayana et al., 2024). Data sovereignty initiatives often involve requirements for local data storage, restrictions on cross-border data transfers, and enhanced oversight of how multinational companies handle citizen data. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) exemplifies this approach, establishing comprehensive rules for data protection that have influenced global standards.
AI sovereignty, while building upon both digital and data sovereignty, addresses the specific challenges posed by artificial intelligence technologies. The development of AI systems requires access to large datasets, sophisticated algorithms, and substantial computational resources—elements that are often controlled by a small number of global technology companies. Achieving meaningful AI sovereignty therefore requires not only data governance capabilities but also domestic capacity for AI research, development, and deployment (Calderaro & Blumfelde, 2022).
The interdependence among these forms of sovereignty is particularly evident in practice. Calderaro and Blumfelde (2022) argue that achieving meaningful AI sovereignty requires mastery over three core elements: data, algorithms, and computational hardware. Without sovereign control over these components, a state’s ambition to develop independent AI capabilities is severely constrained. For example, if a country lacks access to high-quality local datasets or must rely on foreign cloud providers for computational resources, its ability to develop autonomous AI capabilities is fundamentally compromised.
China’s approach illustrates how national strategies can integrate these multiple layers of sovereignty. The implementation of China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) in 2021 represented a significant move toward establishing both data and digital sovereignty by mandating local storage of sensitive personal information and imposing strict oversight on companies operating within Chinese borders (Larsen, 2022). These measures not only enhance data protection but also reinforce state control over resources necessary for AI innovation.
However, many countries in the Global South face substantial obstacles in asserting any form of technological sovereignty. Limited resources, inadequate infrastructure, and insufficient technical capacity hinder their ability to enforce robust data protection regulations or develop indigenous AI solutions. Even when legal frameworks exist for data protection or digital governance, challenges related to enforcement and institutional capacity persist, illustrating the gap between policy aspirations and implementation realities.
Theoretical Approaches to Technological Power and Autonomy
The theoretical landscape surrounding technological power and autonomy has evolved significantly in response to the increasing integration of advanced technologies into global political and economic systems. These theoretical frameworks provide essential insights into how states can navigate the complex challenges of maintaining sovereignty while participating in an interconnected technological ecosystem dominated by powerful multinational corporations.
The concept of technological sovereignty has emerged as a central theoretical framework for understanding state ambitions to control critical technologies, data flows, and digital infrastructures within their jurisdictions. However, this concept is inherently complex due to the globalized nature of technological development and the dominant position of multinational corporations in key sectors. Edler et al. (2023) emphasize that while states may retain legal sovereignty, their actual capacity for autonomous action is constrained by deep economic and technological interdependencies that extend far beyond bilateral relationships.
The embedded agency perspective offers a particularly valuable lens for understanding these dynamics. This approach recognizes that attempts to preserve or enhance technological autonomy must account for the reciprocal effects of state actions on the broader global system. States do not operate in isolation when pursuing technology sovereignty; their efforts inevitably influence and are influenced by the actions of other states, corporations, and international organizations. This perspective highlights that technological sovereignty is always situated within a broader international structure where interdependencies shape the possibilities for autonomous action.
The European experience provides a compelling case study for understanding these theoretical tensions. European discourse on digital sovereignty often reflects concerns about dependency on external digital intermediaries and technology companies, particularly those based in the United States and China. Despite frequent references to concepts such as control, autonomy, and independence, significant ambiguity remains regarding how digital sovereignty should be operationalized in practice (Calderaro & Blumfelde, 2022). The European Union’s Strategic Compass emphasizes technological sovereignty as a means to mitigate strategic dependencies and safeguard intellectual property, yet practical implementation remains challenging due to entrenched reliance on foreign technology providers.
Pohle and Thiel (2020) contribute another important theoretical perspective by examining how the very concept of sovereignty has shifted in the context of networked technologies. Early visions of cyberspace imagined it as a domain beyond traditional territorial governance, embodying ideals of freedom and decentralization. However, contemporary debates increasingly focus on how states can reassert authority over digital infrastructures that are both transnational and dominated by private actors. This shift reflects a broader evolution in thinking about sovereignty from a purely territorial concept to one that encompasses various forms of functional control over critical systems and processes.
The geopolitical dimensions of technological power have also received significant theoretical attention. Franke (2021) observes that artificial intelligence has become a central element of great power competition, influencing not only bilateral relationships between major powers but also broader patterns in international politics. The European Union’s engagement with AI reflects an awareness that technological capabilities are now integral to international standing and strategic autonomy, driving efforts to develop indigenous capacities while managing complex alliance relationships.
From a governance perspective, theoretical work on hybrid models has emerged to address the blurred boundaries between public and private authority in technological domains. These frameworks recognize that effective governance of rapidly evolving technologies requires flexible institutional arrangements that can adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining democratic accountability. The involvement of industry representatives in expert discussions on AI governance highlights the reliance on informal mechanisms where clear differentiation between state and corporate roles may be lacking (Radu, 2021).
Implications for Global Governance and Diplomacy
The conceptual foundations of AI sovereignty have profound implications for how international relations are conducted and how global governance mechanisms must evolve to address technological challenges. As states grapple with the multidimensional nature of AI sovereignty, traditional diplomatic practices are being supplemented and sometimes transformed by new forms of engagement that reflect the expanded range of actors and issues involved in technology governance.
The emergence of tech diplomacy represents one of the most significant adaptations in diplomatic practice, reflecting the recognition that effective governance of AI technologies requires engagement with a broader set of stakeholders beyond traditional state actors. Tech diplomacy encompasses negotiations and cooperation on governance and policy issues between governments and the companies that develop and deploy AI technologies, as well as other relevant actors including international organizations, civil society groups, and technical experts (Kurbalija & Ittelson, 2025).
This expansion of diplomatic practice reflects the reality that multinational technology companies have become critical actors whose decisions significantly impact national security, economic competitiveness, and social welfare. Their control over essential digital infrastructure, data flows, and AI capabilities means that states must engage with them as partners in governance rather than simply as subjects of regulation. However, this dynamic also introduces new challenges related to democratic accountability and the appropriate balance between public and private authority in technology governance.
The pursuit of AI sovereignty also has important implications for international cooperation and competition. As states seek to develop indigenous AI capabilities and reduce dependence on foreign technology providers, there is a risk of fragmentation in global technology standards and governance frameworks. This fragmentation could undermine the benefits of international cooperation while exacerbating inequalities between technologically advanced and less developed countries.
For countries in the Global South, the conceptual framework of AI sovereignty highlights both opportunities and challenges. While the goal of technological autonomy is appealing, the practical barriers to achieving meaningful AI sovereignty are substantial. Limited resources, technological dependencies, and restricted access to global innovation networks constrain these countries’ ability to develop independent AI capabilities or participate effectively in international governance processes (Ayana et al., 2024).
Conclusion
The conceptual foundations of AI sovereignty reveal the complex challenges that states face in maintaining autonomy and authority in an era of rapid technological change and increasing global interconnectedness. As this analysis has demonstrated, AI sovereignty encompasses multiple dimensions—technological, regulatory, economic, and geopolitical—that must be addressed coherently to achieve meaningful autonomy in the digital domain.
The historical evolution of sovereignty in the digital age illustrates how traditional Westphalian concepts have been challenged and transformed by technological innovation and the emergence of powerful non-state actors. The distinction between AI sovereignty and related concepts of digital and data sovereignty highlights the need for nuanced policy approaches that address the specific characteristics of artificial intelligence technologies while building upon broader frameworks for technological governance.
Theoretical approaches to technological power and autonomy provide valuable insights into the constraints and opportunities that states face in pursuing AI sovereignty. The embedded agency perspective emphasizes that technological autonomy is always situated within broader systems of interdependence, requiring strategies that balance independence with cooperation. The European experience demonstrates both the potential and limitations of regulatory approaches to asserting digital sovereignty, while highlighting the ongoing challenges of translating normative aspirations into practical policy outcomes.
For the future of tech diplomacy and global AI governance, these conceptual foundations suggest several important directions. First, the multidimensional nature of AI sovereignty requires comprehensive policy frameworks that address technological capabilities, regulatory frameworks, economic strategies, and international engagement simultaneously. Second, the complex interdependencies inherent in AI development necessitate diplomatic approaches that can balance autonomy with cooperation, recognizing that complete independence is neither feasible nor desirable in a globally interconnected technological ecosystem.
Third, the significant disparities in technological capabilities between different regions of the world underscore the need for inclusive governance mechanisms that can accommodate diverse levels of development while promoting equitable participation in global AI governance processes. Finally, the rapid pace of technological change requires adaptive governance frameworks that can evolve with emerging technologies while maintaining democratic accountability and respect for fundamental rights.
As artificial intelligence continues to reshape global politics and economics, the conceptual foundations of AI sovereignty will remain central to how states navigate the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. Understanding these foundations is essential for developing effective policies and diplomatic strategies that can promote both national interests and global stability in an era of technological transformation.
References
Ayana, G., Dese, K., Nemomssa, H. D., Habtamu, B., Mellado, B., Badu, K., Yamba, E., Faye, S. L., Ondua, M., Nsagha, D., Nkweteyim, D., & Kong, J. D. (2024). Decolonizing global AI governance: Assessment of the state of decolonized AI governance in sub-saharan Africa. Royal Society Open Science, 11, 231994. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231994
Calderaro, A., & Blumfelde, S. (2022). Artificial intelligence and EU security: The false promise of digital sovereignty. European Security, 31(3), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2101885
Djeffal, C., Siewert, M. B., & Wurster, S. (2022). Role of the state and responsibility in governing artificial intelligence: A comparative analysis of AI strategies. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2094987
Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy: Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52, 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
Franke, U. (2021). Artificial intelligence diplomacy as a new European Union external policy tool.
Gu, H. (2023). Data, big tech, and the new concept of sovereignty. Journal of Chinese Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09855-1
Kurbalija, J., & Ittelson, P. (2025). Tech diplomacy: Actors, trends and controversies.
Larsen, B. C. (2022). The geopolitics of AI and the rise of digital sovereignty.
Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532
Radu, R. (2021). Steering the governance of artificial intelligence: National strategies in perspective. Policy and Society, 40(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1929728
Usman, H., Nawaz, B., & Naseer, S. (2023). The future of state sovereignty in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Law & Social Studies, 5(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.52279/jlss.05.02.142152