Sovereign Digital Infrastructure: The Geopolitics of Cyber-Territoriality and AI Nationhood

Full report

On this page

The concept of territoriality has historically been confined to the physical domains of land, sea, air, and, more recently, outer space. However, the rapid digitization of global economies and the advent of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) have precipitated a profound paradigm shift. Nation-states and emerging "AI polities" are increasingly asserting jurisdictional control over the digital realm, transforming computing infrastructure, data centers, and network resources into sovereign cyber-territory. The discourse surrounding digital sovereignty has evolved from an abstract technological aspiration into a critical geopolitical imperative, fundamentally redefining how modern states protect their citizens, economies, and national security interests. Just as physical states deploy military and legal mechanisms to protect pipelines, maritime shipping lanes, and satellite constellations, an AI-driven machine state must protect its cyber-assets. Recognizing such "cyber-territory" through international legal frameworks—or establishing it via the de facto control of decentralized physical infrastructure—grounds AI sovereignty in tangible, defensible assets1. If a state relies on automated systems for critical resource allocation, defense grid management, and economic forecasting, the integrity of its computing infrastructure becomes a matter of existential importance. A machine state must possess the capacity to claim and defend its cyber-territory, encompassing its dedicated servers, spectrum allocations, and data lakes. Consequently, protecting cyber-assets from foreign disruption is elevated to the same strategic tier as protecting physical borders, airspace, and maritime exclusive economic zones. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of sovereign digital infrastructure. It examines the layered architecture of digital sovereignty, the strategic vulnerabilities of centralized Big Tech dependency, the rise of the AI nation across regional blocs, the structural promise of Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN), and the evolving international legal frameworks required to govern cyber-territoriality.

The Conceptual Architecture of Digital Sovereignty

Digital sovereignty concerns the extent to which nation-states can retain control over their digital infrastructure, technologies, and data in an interconnected world2. Rather than an isolationist retreat from the global network, it represents the institutional competence and agency to make intelligent, informed choices to shape a digital future by design2. True sovereignty is not achieved by completely eliminating dependencies, but by ensuring that no single external dependency can prevent the continued operation, maintenance, or evolution of critical infrastructure5. To operationalize this concept, policymakers and technologists conceptualize digital sovereignty across three distinct but deeply interconnected layers. A state must exert meaningful control over all three layers to achieve true technological independence, as outlined in extensive briefings by the UK House of Lords2.

Countries often take fragmented approaches to these layers, primarily due to an absence of domestic providers2. For instance, a nation may enforce strict data localization laws at the data layer, yet remain entirely dependent on foreign-owned hyperscalers at the infrastructure layer. True digital sovereignty requires a holistic architecture that secures residency, domestic operational control, and domestic control of cryptographic key management simultaneously5.

Distinguishing Data Sovereignty from Data Residency

A common fallacy in digital policy is conflating data residency with data sovereignty. Data residency simply refers to the geographical or physical location where data is stored and processed6. Data sovereignty, conversely, dictates that the digital data is subject exclusively to the laws and governance structures of the country where the entity legally responsible for controlling the data is based7. Data held in a domestic data center but operated by a foreign-controlled entity, or encrypted with keys managed by a foreign supplier, does not constitute sovereign data in a meaningful sense5. If a foreign authority can compel access to that data through extraterritorial legislation, the host nation lacks true sovereignty. To achieve genuine data sovereignty, organizations and states increasingly rely on rigorous international standards. Frameworks such as ISO 27001 mandate the highest international standards for information security management, while ISO/IEC 27701 maps directly to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), providing assurance that sovereign data is protected through rigorous, auditable compliance controls8. Modern sovereign cloud strategies emphasize "Bring Your Own Key" (BYOK) or "Hold Your Own Key" (HYOK) methodologies, ensuring that encryption keys are stored locally and controlled exclusively by the domestic entity, rendering cloud providers technically incapable of decrypting confidential information6.

The Crisis of Centralization and the Big Tech Oligopoly

The urgency surrounding digital sovereignty has been catalyzed by the overwhelming market dominance of a small number of global technology firms, predominantly headquartered in the United States and China2. Cloud computing, data systems, AI, and algorithmic networks are no longer peripheral tools; they constitute the operating system of modern states, economies, and democracies10. The delegation of these critical systems to foreign commercial entities has introduced severe economic, security, and policy risks, creating a state of chronic digital dependency11.

Economic Extraction and Vendor Lock-in

The reliance on foreign proprietary technology creates systemic vendor lock-in, leading to inflated costs for governments and the extraction of value from domestic economies through continuous profit repatriation11. In the United Kingdom, the Open Rights Group's "Tech Giants and Giant Slayers" report highlighted this dysfunction, revealing that the government cannot expect effective procurement while it operates as a passive recipient of foreign software services12. The UK Competition and Markets Authority found that the nation is being overcharged by at least £500 million annually in the cloud market, while the Social Market Foundation estimated an additional £300 million in overcharges through restrictive software license conditions11. This dynamic mirrors historical forms of infrastructural control—comparable to colonial resource extraction—where those who own the underlying platforms and transit routes dictate the terms of economic participation and capture the overwhelming majority of generated value10. By failing to develop sovereign technical capabilities, states are relegated to perpetual tenant status within commercial ecosystems where the financial and strategic costs are increasingly unjustifiable10.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Weaponization of Infrastructure

A foundational threat to digital sovereignty is the exposure of domestic data and critical infrastructure to the extraterritorial legal frameworks of foreign nations. The US Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act of 2018 grants the US government the power to compel US-based technology companies to hand over data they host, regardless of where those data centers are physically located across the globe2. Similarly, China's National Intelligence Laws obligate Chinese technology companies to cooperate with state intelligence operations, raising profound surveillance and espionage risks for nations reliant on Chinese hardware and 5G infrastructure2. The geopolitical weaponization of technology has vividly demonstrated that reliance on foreign tech giants is an urgent national security crisis11. The "tech powers of sanction" allow foreign states to unilaterally cut off access to essential public services11. A stark precedent occurred when the US government sanctioned the International Criminal Court (ICC) following the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli officials. Microsoft, complying with US sanctions, immediately shut down email and electronic banking facilities for ICC members11. This incident illustrates a chilling reality: without sovereign infrastructure, a nation or international body's critical operations can be instantly paralyzed by the foreign policy decisions of another state. If geopolitical relationships deteriorate, a foreign power could leverage its corporate dominance to effectively shut down an adversary's government, cloud systems, and financial networks4. Furthermore, there is a "real and growing" risk of regulatory capture, wherein the immense lobbying power of Big Tech distorts policy-making, leading to weaker regulations, anti-competitive practices, and a centralized digital information environment11. In the UK, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee warned that without action to prioritize open competition and domestic sovereign capabilities, a small number of tech firms will rapidly consolidate control of the critical AI market, stifling new players and leaving the nation strategically dependent on overseas firms for a foundational technology16.

The Rise of the AI Polity and Regional AI Blocs

As artificial intelligence becomes the primary engine of economic and military power, the concept of the "AI Nation" or "AI Polity" has emerged. An AI polity recognizes that the ability to train AI talent, build indigenous data centers, and create sovereign large language models (LLMs) is tantamount to national survival and prosperity17. The global AI contest is increasingly defined not just by the sophistication of algorithms, but by the physical and logical infrastructure required to run them18. Nations are actively transitioning from being passive consumers of foreign AI to developers of robust, sovereign AI architectures.

National Initiatives for AI Sovereignty

Governments worldwide are codifying AI sovereignty into national strategy. In Europe, Germany's coalition agreement (Koalitionsvertrag) explicitly pledged to turn the country into an "AI nation," aiming to host European AI gigafactories and pursue digital sovereignty to reduce dependence on US and Chinese tech19. Ukraine has launched a highly ambitious "AI Factory" initiative, building domestic AI infrastructure with high-performance GPU clusters and water-cooled servers to ensure absolute data sovereignty amidst its geopolitical conflict20. By maintaining full control over its AI ecosystem and developing a national LLM trained on local cultural and historical data, Ukraine aims to secure its digital borders while deploying AI for defense capabilities and public services20. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia has set a strategic objective to become an AI-ready nation by 203021. Malaysian policymakers recognize that digital sovereignty is no longer limited to data residency, but involves ensuring security, resilience, trust, and control over how AI models make decisions based on citizen data. Through architectures like IBM Sovereign Core, Malaysia aims to leverage open-source foundations that allow government agencies to innovate with AI while preventing the loss of control over workloads to external cloud providers21.

The Restructuring of Global AI Competition

The race to dominate AI has evolved from a competition between individual countries into a broader contest defined by regional ecosystems and blocs18. Countries that lead in AI laboratories, infrastructure, and governance are systematically securing their future economic dominance.

Table: Regional Blocs Redefining AI Competition and Digital Sovereignty18. These regional blocs demonstrate that AI sovereignty requires massive coordinated investments in physical data centers, localized data sets, and unified governance frameworks. By building these ecosystems, states and regional coalitions are effectively claiming their cyber-territory, ensuring that the wealth and strategic advantages generated by the next wave of AI innovation are not entirely captured by foreign hegemons18.

DePIN: Architecting Sovereign Cyber-Assets at the Edge

For nations and AI polities seeking to escape the oligopoly of centralized hyperscalers, Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN) offer a revolutionary architectural alternative. DePIN utilizes crypto-economic incentives—specifically native blockchain tokens—to orchestrate the crowdsourced deployment and operation of real-world physical infrastructure22. By distributing hardware ownership across millions of independent nodes globally, DePIN neutralizes the risk of a single point of failure, localized physical destruction, or centralized censorship, creating a highly resilient, sovereign cyber-territory.

The Mechanics of Decentralized Infrastructure

DePIN encompasses two primary categories: Physical Resource Networks (PRNs) and Digital Resource Networks (DRNs)23. PRNs rely on location-dependent hardware, such as wireless hotspots (e.g., Helium), environmental sensors (e.g., WeatherXM), and geospatial mapping dashcams (e.g., Hivemapper)23. DRNs are location-agnostic and pool digital resources like decentralized cloud storage (e.g., Filecoin, Shadow Drive, Arweave) and decentralized GPU compute23. The architecture functions through a continuous "flywheel effect." A decentralized protocol issues cryptographic rewards to incentivize the supply side (individuals or enterprise entities buying and deploying hardware). As the network's capacity scales, it becomes highly attractive to the demand side (developers, researchers, and governments), whose usage generates revenue that financially sustains the hardware operators23.

Table: Architectural Comparison of Centralized Infrastructure and DePIN Networks23.

Orchestrating Sovereign AI Compute

Artificial intelligence is currently running into a severe structural bottleneck: the massive demand for GPU compute power is projected to grow tenfold by 2030, yet supply remains highly concentrated in hyperscaler data centers26. This concentration pushes prices up and locks out emerging players and smaller nations, threatening their ability to achieve AI sovereignty. DePIN networks democratize access to this compute infrastructure, making it exponentially cheaper, more resilient, and highly resistant to censorship27. Protocols like the Render Network and io.net aggregate underutilized GPU hardware from independent suppliers, crypto miners, and decentralized data centers to create massive, enterprise-grade compute clusters for AI training, inference, and machine learning workloads24. Because DePIN protocols generate high volumes of frequent micro-transactions (such as proof-of-work attestations and reputation updates), they frequently operate on high-throughput, low-latency settlement layers like the Solana blockchain24. By routing AI workloads through a decentralized infrastructure stack, an AI nation can build a sovereign cloud that cannot be shut off by a foreign executive order or degraded by a targeted military strike on a single data center. DePIN provides the trustless nervous system required by the next generation of autonomous AI architectures, enabling edge computing where GPU power sits physically close to the data source, drastically reducing latency and fulfilling strict data sovereignty requirements23.

Cryptographic Sovereignty: Identity, DIDs, and Open Standards

Securing the physical hardware and compute layers is fundamentally insufficient if the data and identity layers remain vulnerable to external governance. In the traditional Web 2.0 architecture, digital identity is managed through centralized or federated models, relying on intermediaries like Google, Microsoft, or state databases28. These centralized honeypots present massive attack surfaces for cybercriminals, resulting in devastating data breaches, while simultaneously centralizing geopolitical control over who is permitted to authenticate and access digital services29. To achieve true digital sovereignty, states, enterprises, and autonomous AI agents are rapidly adopting self-sovereign identity (SSI) models built on open cryptographic standards.

Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and Verifiable Credentials

At the core of this transition are Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs), an official web standard introduced by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)31. A DID is a globally unique, cryptographically verifiable string registered on a decentralized ledger29. Unlike traditional identifiers such as email addresses or usernames, DIDs are generated and owned entirely by the identity controller (a person, organization, or autonomous software agent), independent of any single issuing authority or registry29. Operating in tandem with DIDs are Verifiable Credentials (VCs). VCs are cryptographically secured digital attestations that represent identity data—such as citizenship, corporate compliance, university degrees, or security clearances30. Using Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs), VCs allow entities to selectively disclose information29. For example, a user or AI agent can present a VC to prove they meet an age or clearance requirement to access a national database, without ever revealing their actual date of birth or underlying sensitive data to the verifier28. Together, DIDs and VCs form a "Trust Triangle" involving an Issuer, a Holder, and a Verifier28. Because the cryptographic keys are held securely by the user—often in isolated hardware wallets (e.g., OneKey) that protect private keys from malware and phishing—this architecture drastically reduces the risk of centralized data breaches and eliminates reliance on foreign identity brokers29. The European Union is heavily investing in these concepts through frameworks like eIDAS, seeking to remove cross-border barriers while strengthening the digital sovereignty of its citizens against foreign tech monopolies32.

Open Source as a Sovereign Imperative

Digital sovereignty is fundamentally incompatible with proprietary, black-box software that limits inspectability and interoperability. Organizations advocating for sovereignty, such as the Open Rights Group, stress the principle that "public money, public code" must be the default standard for government procurement11. Open Source software, open standards, and open hardware foster domestic innovation, prevent vendor lock-in, and allow a global community of security researchers to audit code for vulnerabilities12. Open Source comprises approximately 70% of the codebase in modern proprietary software systems; national economies would be 2-3% smaller without it12. By investing in in-house digital leadership and prioritizing open technologies, a sovereign state guarantees that even if a foreign vendor goes bankrupt, withdraws services due to sanctions, or alters its licensing terms, the state's critical digital infrastructure continues to function autonomously and securely12.

The Jurisprudence of Cyber-Territory: Precedents and Protections

A prominent criticism of cyber-territoriality is the assertion that international law, which is traditionally grounded in physical geography, cannot apply to digital bits. Critics argue that networks are inherently borderless, rendering the concept of sovereign "cyber-territory" legally incoherent. However, this perspective ignores both the physical realities of internet infrastructure and the historical adaptability of international law. The law evolves to govern new domains of human and state activity, just as it did for the oceans and outer space.

The UNCLOS Precedent: Extending Territoriality

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) serves as the primary legal analogy for the evolution of cyber-territoriality. Prior to the mid-20th century, maritime law strictly limited sovereign territorial waters to a narrow band off the coast, leaving the vast oceans governed by the principle of mare liberum (freedom of the seas). As states recognized the immense economic and strategic value of offshore resources, international law evolved. UNCLOS formally recognized the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), granting coastal states sovereign rights over the exploration, exploitation, and management of marine resources up to 200 nautical miles from their coast35. Similarly, a future legal framework could formally extend a state's sovereign rights into specific domains of cyberspace, recognizing dedicated servers, edge computing nodes, spectrum allocations, and national data lakes as the digital equivalent of an EEZ. The theoretical claim over cyber-territory is directly analogous to asserting sovereign rights over subsea minerals or offshore fisheries37.

The Physical Vulnerability of Undersea Cables

The physical reality of the internet further dismantles the "borderless bits" argument. Approximately 95% to 99% of all intercontinental data traffic—carrying trillions of dollars in daily transactions—is transmitted via a physical network of undersea fiber-optic cables35. Despite their status as the absolute backbone of the global digital economy, the international legal framework protecting these physical cyber-assets remains dangerously fragmented and outdated. Current protections rely heavily on the 1884 Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables (the Paris Convention) and limited, loosely regulated provisions within UNCLOS35.

Table: Fragmentation of International Law Governing Undersea Cyber-Assets35. This fragmented framework creates a glaring "prosecution gap"35. When a cable is damaged in international waters or a state's EEZ—as seen in the suspected hybrid warfare attacks on cables in the Baltic Sea, such as the Eagle S incident where a ship's anchor dragged for nearly a hundred kilometers severing vital links—the coastal state has highly limited jurisdictional authority35. Jurisdiction defaults to the flag state of the offending vessel, or is complicated entirely if the vessel is stateless or operated by non-state actors35. The inadequacy of UNCLOS to protect the physical backbone of the internet highlights the urgent need for new jurisdictional doctrines. Scholars suggest that states could leverage the "effects doctrine" and the "protective principle" to extend criminal jurisdiction over deliberate damage to submarine cables that connect to their territory, treating such sabotage as an attack on national security42. Furthermore, as hackers increasingly target the Network Management Systems (like SCADA systems) that control these cables—reminiscent of the Stuxnet worm that targeted physical centrifuges—states must establish legal avenues, potentially through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), to pursue liability against state-sponsored cyber-sabotage36. These legal acrobatics underscore that bits do rely on physical laws and physical infrastructure, and defining cyber-territoriality is an essential next step in international jurisprudence.

Contesting the Digital World Order: Cyber Sovereignty vs. Multi-Stakeholderism

The push for a formalized recognition of cyber-territoriality is already underway, spearheaded by geopolitical powers seeking to challenge the historically Western-dominated, multi-stakeholder model of internet governance44. China, operating extensively through platforms like the World Internet Conference (WIC) in Wuzhen, has aggressively promoted the doctrine of "cyber sovereignty" (or Internet sovereignty)45. This doctrine asserts that national governments possess absolute sovereign rights to regulate all online activities, data flows, and technological deployment within their borders45. It effectively aligns the control of digital communication with traditional Westphalian jurisdictional boundaries, explicitly rejecting the notion of a borderless, ungovernable cyberspace45. According to Chinese diplomatic framing, sovereignty constitutes the key ingredient for equality and justice in a new digital world order, protecting states from Western technological imperialism and the extraterritorial reach of US data laws44. While Western democracies frequently criticize the authoritarian applications of China's cyber sovereignty model—such as severe domestic censorship and surveillance—the underlying structural assertion that cyberspace requires clear jurisdictional boundaries is gaining immense global traction. Developing and emerging countries in the Global South are increasingly adopting national AI strategies, data localization laws, and state-centric cyber policies to protect their digital economies from foreign extraction, signifying a massive geopolitical shift toward territorialized digital governance45.

Negotiating the Network: The Cyber-Territoriality Act

A second major counterargument against digital sovereignty posits that because network infrastructure is inherently global and multi-jurisdictional, attempting to impose territorial boundaries is technically impossible and will irreparably balkanize the internet.

Rebuttal: Technical Treaties and Shared Infrastructure

This argument fundamentally misunderstands how shared international infrastructure is currently governed and partitioned. The internet is already intensely negotiated. Nations routinely draft complex agreements for digital transit, the allocation of radio spectrum, and the landing rights of undersea cables. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operate across borders through technical treaties, peering agreements, and Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing policies that determine exactly how and where data flows. In the same vein, machine states and AI nations can enter into formalized technical treaties to manage sovereign infrastructure rights over shared networks. Just as a state leases physical territory or secures exclusive rights from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) for a geostationary satellite orbit, they can negotiate the exclusive utilization of specific satellite internet bandwidth, command dedicated partitions within DePIN computing clusters, or share network spectrum under legally binding sovereign terms.

Toward a Digital Geneva Convention

To prevent the unrestricted weaponization of cyberspace and establish clear rules of engagement for cyber-territoriality, there are growing calls for a new, comprehensive international legal framework. Concepts such as a "Digital Geneva Convention" or a future "Cyber-Territoriality Act" have been proposed to codify state jurisdiction over networks, data, and digital assets36. Such a treaty would establish internationally recognized protocols to deter actions against sovereign digital infrastructure41. It would formally delineate state rights over decentralized compute networks, criminalize the hacking or physical destruction of undersea cables under a framework of universal jurisdiction, and guarantee the inviolability of sovereign LLMs and AI training data. By grounding AI sovereignty in practical, internationally recognized physical and logical assets, a Cyber-Territoriality Act would transition digital sovereignty from a theoretical ideal into a robust, enforceable tenet of international law.

Conclusion

The discourse surrounding sovereign digital infrastructure marks a pivotal turning point in geopolitical history. As societies transition into AI-driven machine states, absolute reliance on foreign-controlled, centralized technology oligopolies poses an unacceptable existential risk to national security, economic prosperity, and democratic integrity. The weaponization of digital infrastructure, extraterritorial data laws, and the systemic extraction of economic value have definitively proven that a nation without control over its hardware, code, and data is a nation without true sovereignty. To reclaim strategic autonomy, AI nations and regional blocs must aggressively pursue the development of independent, highly resilient digital architectures. This requires transitioning from passive consumption of Big Tech services to investing heavily in Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN) to secure censorship-resistant compute power. Furthermore, states must mandate cryptographic sovereignty at the data layer, adopting self-sovereign identity standards like W3C DIDs and enforcing strict Open Source procurement policies to eliminate proprietary vendor lock-in. Simultaneously, the international community must address the glaring gaps in global jurisprudence. The arguments that cyberspace is too ethereal to govern, or too globally integrated to partition, fall flat against the historical precedents of maritime law and the extreme physical vulnerabilities of undersea infrastructure. The evolution of a "Cyber-Territoriality Act" or a Digital Geneva Convention is not just a theoretical possibility; it is an inevitable geopolitical necessity. By mapping the principles of territorial integrity onto the digital domain, states can ensure that the critical infrastructure of the AI era remains secure, sovereign, and firmly subject to the rule of law.

Works cited

1. Epilogue: Refractions and Disintegrations of the Majesty: The King, https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300134407.003.0004

2. Digital and technology policy and national sovereignty \- House of Lords Library, https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/digital-and-technology-policy-and-national-sovereignty-2/

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital\_sovereignty

4. Digital sovereignty \- House of Commons Library \- UK Parliament, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10547/

5. Best Practices with OpenInfra for Digital Sovereignty, https://openinfra.org/best-practices-with-openinfra-for-digital-sovereignty/

6. Sovereign Cloud And Data Sovereignty: An Overview – \- Exoscale, https://www.exoscale.com/blog/data-sovereignty/

7. Data Sovereignty \- Entro Security, https://entro.security/glossary/data-sovereignty/

8. Data Sovereignty vs Data Residency \- Analytics Platform \- Matomo, https://matomo.org/blog/2026/07/data-sovereignty-vs-data-residency/

9. What is data sovereignty? \- Cloudflare, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/privacy/what-is-data-sovereignty/

10. Tech giants and giant slayers: the case for digital sovereignty \- East Anglia Bylines, https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/technology/tech-giants-and-giant-slayers-the-case-for-digital-sovereignty/

11. New report: UK needs digital sovereignty strategy to address threats from reliance on big tech | Open Rights Group, https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/new-report-uk-needs-digital-sovereignty-strategy-to-address-threats-from-reliance-on-big-tech/

12. Tech Giants and Giant Slayers: The case for Digital Sovereignty and the Digital Commons, https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/tech-giants-and-giant-slayers-the-case-for-digital-sovereignty-and-the-digital-commons/

13. This is Europe's chance to stop being a tech passenger \- TechCentral.ie, https://www.techcentral.ie/this-is-europes-chance-to-stop-being-a-tech-passenger/

14. UK's Big Tech Dependence Raises National Security Alarms \- LavX News, https://news.lavx.hu/article/uk-s-big-tech-dependence-raises-national-security-alarms

15. MPs urged to vote for a Digital Sovereignty strategy \- Open Rights Group, https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/mps-urged-to-vote-for-a-digital-sovereignty-strategy/

16. House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee publishes report about LLMs and generative AI \- Society for Computers & Law, https://www.scl.org/13100-house-of-lords-communications-and-digital-committee-publishes-report-about-llms-and-generative-ai/

17. Tech Atmashakti, Not Tech Atmanirbharta: Four Pathways to Technological Sovereignty | India's World, https://indiasworld.in/tech-atmashakti-not-tech-atmanirbharta-four-pathways-to-technological-sovereignty/

18. Seven Regional Blocs Redefining AI Competition Globally \- Punch Newspapers, https://punchng.com/seven-regional-blocs-redefining-ai-competition/

19. German Tech Policy Shows New Ambition \- CEPA, https://cepa.org/article/german-tech-policy-shows-new-ambition/

20. Ukraine Launches AI Factory to Secure Digital Sovereignty \- Data Phoenix, https://dataphoenix.info/ukraine-launches-ai-factory-to-secure-digital-sovereignty/

21. Malaysia wants to be AI-ready by 2030\. First, it has to own its digital future \- GovInsider, https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/malaysia-wants-to-be-ai-ready-by-2030-first-it-has-to-own-its-digital-future

22. Decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN) tokenomics \- Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/blockchain/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2025.1644115/full

23. What Is DePIN? Decentralised Physical Infrastructure Explained \- RedBite, https://www.redbite.com/insights/depin-infrastructure-networks-explained

24. io.net on Solana: The place for DePIN, https://io.net/blog/io-net-on-solana-the-place-for-depin-in-2026-and-beyond

25. What Is DePIN? Why Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks Could Explode in 2026, https://bitcoinfoundation.org/news/defi/what-is-depin/

26. 8 Projects Driving the Growth of DePIN in AI Infrastructure, https://depinspace.co/blog/8-depin-in-ai-projects/

27. 6 use cases for Decentralized Physical Infrastructure (DePIN) \- a16z crypto, https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/6-use-cases-for-depin/

28. The Path to Digital Sovereignty. What is Decentralized Identity? How… | by Guido Sirna | Medium, https://medium.com/@guidosirna/the-path-to-digital-sovereignty-0beb42543172

29. Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs): The Cornerstone of Blockchain-Based Digital Identity, https://onekey.so/blog/ecosystem/decentralized-identifiers-dids-the-cornerstone-of-blockchain-based-digital-identity/

30. Verifiable Credentials, DIDs, and Cybersecurity \- Extrimian, https://extrimian.io/verifiable-credentials-issuing/

31. Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) \- An insight \- doubleSlash Blog, https://blog.doubleslash.de/en/software-technologien/cyber-security/decentralized-identifiers-dids-an-insight/

32. Web Authentication and Decentralized Identity: challenges for a new era of digital trust, https://perspective.orange-business.com/en/web-authentication-and-decentralized-identity-challenges-for-a-new-era-of-digital-trust/

33. ENISA Report – Digital Identity, https://www.enisa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/ENISA%20Report%20-%20Digital%20Identity%20-%20Leveraging%20the%20SSI%20Concept%20to%20Build%20Trust.pdf

34. Demand UK Digital Sovereignty \- Open Rights Group, https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaign/demand-uk-digital-sovereignty/

35. The Prosecution 'Gap' for Attacks on Subsea Cables and Pipelines \- EJIL: Talk\!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-prosecution-gap-for-attacks-on-subsea-cables-and-pipelines/

36. Cutting the Cord: The Legal Regime Protecting Undersea Cables \- Lawfare, https://www.iscpc.org/documents/?id=2888

37. The exclusive economic zone : an instrument of national security? \- Massey Research Online, https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstreams/75c232a9-2279-4949-aee6-e1a6f83648d3/download

38. Unconventional Legal Approaches to Protecting Underwater Infrastructure \- The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, https://hcss.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Unconventional-Legal-Approaches-to-Protecting-Underwater-Infrastructure-HCSS-2025-1.pdf

39. Data as Sovereign Rights and UNCLOS: Protection of Undersea Cables through Legislative Mechanisms \- marsec coe, https://www.marseccoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240627\_P4\_4.pdf

40. Protecting Underseas Cables \- Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/protecting-underseas-cables/

41. International law doesn't adequately protect undersea cables. That must change., https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/hybrid-warfare-project/international-law-doesnt-adequately-protect-undersea-cables-that-must-change/

42. Conventional Jurisdictional Approaches to Protecting Submarine Cables and Pipelines | International & Comparative Law Quarterly, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/conventional-jurisdictional-approaches-to-protecting-submarine-cables-and-pipelines/B237CF8C5BEDEA5C41D3750A3ECF5CE9

43. How Hackers of Submarine Cables May Be Held Liable Under the Law of the Sea, https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/how-hackers-submarine-cables-may-be-held-liable-under-law-sea

44. Volume 42: September 2019 \- Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science, https://politikon.iapss.org/index.php/politikon/issue/download/43/43

45. World Internet Conference and China's Promotion of Cyber Sovereignty \- ELTE, https://ojs.elte.hu/eltelj/article/download/9896/8247

46. (PDF) Contesting the Digital World Order: China's National Role Strategy in Changing the Norms of Global Internet Governance \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335845973\_Contesting\_the\_Digital\_World\_Order\_China's\_National\_Role\_Strategy\_in\_Changing\_the\_Norms\_of\_Global\_Internet\_Governance

47. Critical Epistemologies of Global Politics \- EUR Research Information Portal, https://pure.eur.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/47327309/Critical-Epistemologies-of-Global-Politics.pdf

48. ELTE LJ | 2024/2 \- REAL-J, https://real-j.mtak.hu/27846/7/ELJ\_2024\_2.pdf