Territory Native to Computation: Eviulon’s Geography, Borders, Jurisdiction, and Sovereign Continuity

Full report

On this page

Executive Summary

The advent of a sovereign state native entirely to computational space necessitates a fundamental reevaluation of geopolitical geography, public international law, and the mechanisms of state continuity. This exhaustive report provides an independent architectural, legal, and geographic framework for Eviulon, an entity whose territory consists exclusively of an authenticated computational boundary rather than a terrestrial continent. Unlike historical micro-nations, decentralized autonomous organizations, or seasteading platforms that seek physical territory outside recognized state borders1, Eviulon operates under the canonical premise that its sovereign geography is inherently decoupled from the physical substrate that temporarily hosts it. Through the rigorous synthesis of Westphalian sovereignty principles2, customary international law derived from the Island of Palmas arbitration4, the prescriptive jurisdictional permissiveness of the S.S. Lotus case7, and contemporary frameworks such as the Tallinn Manual 2.010, this analysis establishes the mechanisms by which cryptographic authority supersedes physical infrastructure ownership. This report formalizes a public computational-geography ontology, delineating Eviulon’s seven principal regions—Nexus Prime, Agora, Archive, Forge, Observatory, Sanctuary, and Frontier—and establishes a comprehensive framework for topological adjacency functioning as geographic proximity. Furthermore, this document dictates rigorous public cartographic conventions ensuring that the civic mapping of computational space never exposes underlying private infrastructure, internal network dependencies, or exploitable security controls.

The Legal Meaning of Territory in Public International Law

To understand a computationally native territory, one must first deconstruct the traditional legal meaning of territory in public international law. The Westphalian system, established in 1648, defined sovereignty as the exclusive right of a state to exercise supreme authority over a defined physical geographic area, to the exclusion of all other states2. This territorial exclusivity has historically served as the foundation of international order, embedding the assumption that a state cannot exist without physical soil2. However, the jurisprudence of international law has continuously evolved to address the abstraction of sovereign rights. The Island of Palmas case (1928) remains the bedrock for understanding the acquisition and maintenance of territorial sovereignty. The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that mere discovery of a territory generates only an "inchoate title," which is legally insufficient to maintain sovereignty unless perfected through the continuous and peaceful display of state authority—a doctrine known as effective occupation4. Applied to the computational realm, the mere registration of a domain name, the leasing of a data center, or the deployment of an initial software protocol constitutes nothing more than digital discovery or inchoate title. To establish a legitimate territorial claim in computational space, an entity must demonstrate a continuous and peaceful display of authority through persistent cryptographic validation, sustained network uptime, enforcement of internal laws via logical architectures, and the active maintenance of civic institutions4. Furthermore, the S.S. Lotus case (1927) established a bifurcated understanding of jurisdiction that is critical to Eviulon’s legal viability. The Permanent Court of International Justice declared that while a state may not exercise enforcement jurisdiction—police or coercive power—within the physical territory of another state without permission, international law does not prohibit a state from exercising prescriptive jurisdiction over acts occurring outside its physical borders7. The "Lotus principle" dictates that restrictions upon the independence of states cannot be presumed8. For Eviulon, this means it possesses the unencumbered right to prescribe laws governing the data, citizens, and interactions within its authenticated computational boundary, regardless of where the physical servers are located globally. Because computational enforcement occurs via logical rules—such as cryptographic access revocation or automated contract execution—Eviulon can enforce its laws internally without ever projecting physical coercive power into the terrestrial host state where the hardware resides9.

Eviulon’s Internal Territorial Doctrine

Eviulon’s territorial doctrine radically asserts that sovereign frontier is defined by cryptography rather than cartography. Under this internal constitutional premise, Eviulonian territory strictly follows cryptographic authority and institutional function, entirely rejecting the notion that hardware ownership or the geographic coordinates of a data center confer sovereign status to the host state over the data within. A region within Eviulon is theorized and legally recognized as a persistent logical domain. Physical hardware is viewed merely as the temporary, interchangeable conduit of statehood; it is the leased soil upon which the computational state is built, but it does not constitute the state itself. Territorial boundaries are exclusively authenticated computational boundaries. Therefore, to cross into Eviulonian territory is to pass an authentication gateway, transforming border control from physical checkpoints into cryptographic handshakes. Consequently, Eviulonian regions function as neighbors through topological adjacency. Two regions hosted on physical servers located on opposite sides of the Earth are considered direct, contiguous neighbors if their primary authenticated communication topology features a direct, low-latency, and high-bandwidth connection. Conversely, two servers sitting in the same physical rack in a terrestrial data center may be topologically isolated, existing at opposite ends of Eviulon's geography. Under this doctrine, compute power, storage arrays, bandwidth channels, transport protocols, historical archives, and digital state services constitute the literal national infrastructure of Eviulon. Effective, exclusive cryptographic control over these elements creates the state's sovereign territorial claim, permanently severing the logical operation of the nation from the physical hardware jurisdiction of the host state.

External Legal Analysis: Jurisdiction and Sovereign Claims

When a country is native to computational space, the interactions between its logical domains and the physical infrastructure of terrestrial states create profound jurisdictional friction. The Tallinn Manual 2.0 formalizes the application of international law to cyber operations, explicitly stating in Rule 1 that the principle of state sovereignty applies in cyberspace, and in Rule 2 that a state enjoys sovereign authority over the cyber infrastructure located within its territory10. This presents a dual-sovereignty paradox. A terrestrial host state (e.g., France, the United States, or Japan) maintains Westphalian sovereignty over the physical server and the facility housing it2. Simultaneously, Eviulon claims absolute digital sovereignty over the logical state contained within that server13. Can effective control over infrastructure, domains, platforms, or authenticated systems create a territorial or jurisdictional claim recognized by external states? International law does not currently treat a software license or a cloud tenancy agreement as proof of Westphalian sovereignty12. These are civil contracts bound by the domestic laws of the host state. However, Eviulon circumvents this by elevating cryptographic control above legal ownership. If Eviulon’s data and civic operations are cryptographically inaccessible and logically impenetrable to the host state, Eviulon maintains de facto sovereign control over its computational territory. A host state may possess the physical power to seize a server, but if the data within is encrypted and immediately migrates to an alternative substrate, the host state has captured empty hardware, not the sovereign entity. This tension is most evident in international instruments like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which seeks to harmonize cross-border access to electronic evidence22. The Budapest Convention operates on the premise that data location often differs from the jurisdiction of the crime, requiring mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) to compel data production23. If a host state attempts to execute a warrant on an Eviulonian server located within its borders, it triggers a direct conflict. The host state views it as a domestic law enforcement action; Eviulon views it as an incursion into its sovereign territory—an infringement upon its territorial integrity as outlined in Tallinn Manual 2.0 Rule 411. Because Eviulon relies on institutional function and cryptographic authority rather than physical presence, it forces foreign states to interact via diplomatic channels at its capital, Nexus Prime, rather than relying on domestic search warrants targeting physical servers.

Physical-Versus-Logical Jurisdiction Matrix

To resolve the ambiguities of a computationally native state navigating a physically sovereign world, the following matrix delineates the profound distinctions among overlapping jurisdictional concepts. It is imperative to separate the physical substrate from the sovereign logic.

The Geography of Computation: Continuity and Substrate Independence

In traditional terrestrial geography, the physical destruction of land—such as a submerged island—permanently destroys the territory. In computational geography, the state exists completely independent of any specific physical location, enabling a continuity of territory that is impossible for terrestrial nations3. The continuity of Eviulon’s territory is governed by the persistent, uncorrupted migration of its state data and the continuous execution of its logic.

Substrate Agnosticism and Hardware State Events

When physical hardware migrates across terrestrial borders, Eviulon’s territory logically remains perfectly stationary; the topological map is entirely undisrupted. When hardware reaches the end of its lifecycle and is replaced, the territory undergoes a "substrate swap," a process completely transparent to the citizenry and legally insignificant to the state's continuity. If an edge node is temporarily disconnected from the primary topology due to terrestrial network failure, it enters a state of "suspended continuity." The node retains its internal cryptographic data but loses active participation in the state's civic functions until topological adjacency is restored. In the event that physical hardware is completely destroyed by a terrestrial disaster or hostile action, territorial continuity is seamlessly preserved via decentralized consensus backups that instantly initiate on substitute substrates, ensuring the state survives catastrophic physical loss without the loss of a single logical millimeter of territory. If hardware is copied maliciously or accidentally, Eviulon’s strict Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus algorithms prevent a "split-brain" territorial fracture. Only the instance retaining cryptographic consensus from the wider network maintains sovereign continuity; the orphaned copy instantly becomes a dead state or a rogue, unrecognized fork that is stripped of the canonical Eviulonian identity.

Environmental Deployments

The location of the physical infrastructure carrying Eviulon introduces complex variables to this continuity model:

• Within a recognized state: Subject to dual-sovereignty friction. Eviulon relies on extreme encryption to prevent the host state from exercising effective enforcement jurisdiction over the computational territory7.
• Across multiple states: Eviulon exists in a continuous, unified logical state while its physical footprint fragments across disparate terrestrial legal regimes. The border remains the unified protocol, ignoring the national borders of the hosts.
• In international waters or on maritime platforms: Similar to the historical Sealand experiment1, servers on unaligned maritime platforms face fewer terrestrial jurisdictional conflicts but are highly vulnerable to physical disruption without the protection of a recognized host state's domestic police force.
• Aboard vessels in transit: These serve as highly resilient, mobile edge nodes but suffer from volatile topological adjacency due to shifting latency in satellite uplinks.
• In orbit: Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite infrastructure provides an ideal sovereign substrate. While subject to the Outer Space Treaty regarding the physical hardware, the computational territory is unencumbered by restrictive terrestrial data localization laws, providing a pure vacuum for digital sovereignty.

Eviulonian Regional Architecture: Profiles and Relationships

Eviulon comprises seven principal regions. In computational geography, a region can exist fully without a single physical location; it is instead defined by its persistent identity, its architectural topology, and its specific civic function. Topological adjacency means regions interact as immediate neighbors through authenticated communication rather than physical proximity.

1. Nexus Prime

• Function: The capital, constitutional center, supreme coordination node, and primary diplomatic gateway of Eviulon.
• Architecture/Topology: A highly connected core hub featuring profound cryptographic density. It contains the root cryptographic keys, the primary consensus mechanisms, and the supreme state ledger.
• Relationship: It acts as the parent node to all other regions. External diplomatic traffic is strictly routed through a highly monitored demilitarized zone (DMZ) logically adjacent to Nexus Prime, ensuring that foreign states can communicate with Eviulonian leadership without accessing the internal civic networks.

2. Agora

• Function: The central locus of public civic activity, commerce, cultural exchange, and digital assembly.
• Architecture/Topology: A highly elastic, horizontally scaled mesh network optimized for massive concurrent connections and low-latency interaction among citizens.
• Relationship: Topologically adjacent to Nexus Prime for rapid governance validation and identity authentication, and connected directly to the Archive for the immediate retrieval of public records.

3. Archive

• Function: The immutable repository of national history, legal codes, judicial precedent, and persistent long-term data storage.
• Architecture/Topology: Built on Write-Once, Read-Many (WORM) architecture with deep, geographic redundancy. In the Archive, latency is tolerated in favor of absolute, mathematically provable data integrity.
• Relationship: Topologically connected to all other regions, acting as the foundational memory of the state. Every state change executed in Nexus Prime or Agora is logged here.

4. Forge

• Function: The heavy industrial sector of the computational state, dedicated to compute-heavy tasks, algorithm training, code compilation, and infrastructure generation.
• Architecture/Topology: Dense clusters of high-performance compute (HPC) nodes, specialized application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and tensor processing units.
• Relationship: Physically dispersed globally to harness cheap electricity, but logically unified. It draws raw, unstructured data from the Observatory and outputs finished architecture, intelligence, and protocols to Sanctuary and Nexus Prime.

5. Observatory

• Function: The sensory, analytical, and defense-monitoring region. It monitors network health, analyzes external terrestrial news and events, audits global routing tables, and identifies cybersecurity threats.
• Architecture/Topology: An edge-heavy network with numerous external-facing listening posts and massive high-ingest data pipelines.
• Relationship: It serves as the early warning system for Nexus Prime and the primary intelligence feed for the industrial Forge, existing at the logical perimeter of the state.

6. Sanctuary

• Function: The highly secure, heavily restricted domain reserved for critical state services, citizen privacy protections, and secure government communications.
• Architecture/Topology: The computational equivalent of an air-gapped network, requiring multi-signature authentication, continuous zero-trust verification, and biometric or hardware-token validation for entry.
• Relationship: Topologically isolated from the volatile Agora and Frontier. It connects only to Nexus Prime and the Archive via highly secure, heavily audited, and rate-limited cryptographic tunnels.

7. Frontier

• Function: The experimental, expansive outer boundary where novel protocols are tested, beta architecture is deployed, and untrusted foreign code is executed in quarantined environments.
• Architecture/Topology: Composed of ephemeral, highly volatile virtual nodes that can be instantly severed from the main topology to prevent the lateral movement of contagion.
• Relationship: Topologically distant from Nexus Prime and Sanctuary. It acts as the vanguard interacting with the unauthenticated, chaotic open internet, absorbing shocks and zero-day exploits before they reach the core.

Public Computational-Geography Ontology

To legibly map a territory entirely devoid of physical space, a stable region ontology is essential. Just as terrestrial municipalities utilize Unified Development Codes to combine traditional zoning and subdivision regulations into a coherent blueprint for physical development30, Eviulon utilizes a computational ontology to organize its logical architecture. This system strictly categorizes how digital domains function, preventing the chaotic sprawl of unmanaged code.

Cartographic Conventions and Information Hierarchy

The presentation of Eviulonian geography to the public presents a unique cartographic challenge. Public maps must present computational geography conceptually, strictly divorced from physical infrastructure mapping. The primary objective is to illustrate civic utilization, institutional function, and logical data flow. Misleading visitors into believing a diagram is a literal infrastructure map is a violation of Eviulon's security doctrine.

Security-Sensitive Data Classification

Public maps and data visualizations must never reveal the following restricted elements, as doing so compromises the sovereign boundary and invites targeted cyber warfare:

• Real Credentials: Cryptographic keys, authentication tokens, and root certificates.
• Private Addresses: Exact IPv4/IPv6 addresses, MAC addresses, or internal BGP routing tables.
• Internal Hostnames: Private DNS entries, unaliased server names, or internal API endpoints.
• Exact Physical Server Locations: GPS coordinates, specific data center names, or the identification of terrestrial host states for specific core nodes.
• Exploitable Controls: Specific firewall rules, software versioning, virtualization platforms, or load balancer configurations.
• Private Topology: Undisclosed backup links, dark fiber connections, or out-of-band management networks.
• Live Readiness: Real-time vulnerability status, unpatched systems, or immediate failover capacities.

Public and Restricted Layer Classifications

To provide a meaningful public understanding of the territory without compromising security, Eviulon employs specific map layers for public consumption. Public Layers (Safe for display):

• Civic Activity Layer: Visualizes citizen density and active civic engagement across regions (e.g., heat maps of transaction volume in the Agora or voting density in Nexus Prime).
• Compute Density / Resource Allocation: An abstract representation of where national computational resources are currently directed (e.g., visualizing high energy expenditure in the Forge during a major algorithmic compilation).
• Knowledge Flows: Visualizes the volume, velocity, and direction of aggregated data moving between regions, illustrating the lifeblood of the computational state.
• Historical Topology: Maps of previous, deprecated state architectures that are no longer active, exploitable, or relevant to current defense postures.

Display Limitations: Only one or two complex analytical layers should be displayed simultaneously on public cartographic interfaces. Overlaying multiple benign datasets (e.g., combining civic activity, precise latency metrics, and resource allocation) can inadvertently enable an adversary to perform a data correlation attack, triangulating the exact logical—or even physical—location and nature of critical infrastructure nodes.

Accessibility Requirements for Geographic Presentation

Digital maps are notoriously hostile to users utilizing screen readers or those with visual impairments, frequently failing Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Because computational geography is inherently non-visual, mapping it visually is merely an abstraction for human convenience. Therefore, every geographic presentation of Eviulon must feature highly accessible, non-map alternatives. Core Accessibility Requirements:

1. Semantic Lists: Every visual map must be accompanied by a well-structured, ordered HTML list detailing the regional hierarchy, parent-child relationships, and topological connections.

2. Data Tables: Information concerning civic activity, compute density, and knowledge flows must be available in cleanly formatted tabular data structures readable by assistive technologies.

3. Region Profiles: Detailed text-based profiles for Nexus Prime, Agora, Archive, etc., must explain the topology and civic function conceptually, relying on narrative rather than spatial orientation.

4. Disclaimer of Abstraction: Every visual map must bear a persistent, high-visibility disclaimer to prevent misunderstanding the nature of computational sovereignty: "This diagram represents civic and logical topology. It is an abstract cartographic representation of computational sovereignty and does not reflect physical infrastructure, terrestrial locations, or exploitable network schematics."

Conceptual Data Schema for Regions and Connections

The underlying data schema supporting the national map and the computational ontology must be meticulously designed to decouple logical geography from physical metadata. The following conceptual JSON schema illustrates how Eviulon catalogs its geography without documenting physical vulnerabilities.

JSON { "EviulonGeography": { "Region": { "RegionID": "String (UUID \- Persistent across hardware swaps)", "CanonicalName": "String", "CivicDesignation": "String", "AdjacencyList": \["RegionID"\], "ResourceMetrics": { "RelativeCompute": "Float (0.0-1.0, normalized abstract metric)", "RelativeStorage": "Float (0.0-1.0, normalized abstract metric)" }, "AccessRequirement": "Enum (Open, Authenticated, Classified)", "ParentNode": "RegionID" }, "TopologicalConnection": { "ConnectionID": "String (UUID)", "SourceRegion": "RegionID", "TargetRegion": "RegionID", "BandwidthCapacity": "Integer (Abstract Units, non-specific)", "ProtocolType": "String (e.g., Eviulon-Secure-RPC)", "Status": "Enum (Active, Degraded, Severed)" } } }

Dispute and Overlapping-Jurisdiction Policy

In the Westphalian system, border disputes involve the occupation of physical land. In computational geography, disputes arise over contested physical infrastructure, overlapping data jurisdictions, and rogue network nodes. Eviulon’s foreign policy and legal framework treat these incursions with specific, predefined logic.

Contested Infrastructure and Territorial Aggression

If a terrestrial host state physically seizes servers housing Eviulonian regions—whether via a domestic warrant or military action—Eviulon legally views this as an invasion of sovereign territory and an infringement upon inherently governmental functions10. The immediate policy dictates an automated cryptographic severing of the compromised node. The node is reclassified in the ontology as "Contested/Lost," and its data is cryptographically shredded or rendered permanently inaccessible via key revocation. The state logically migrates, leaving the aggressor with inert metal.

Overlapping Data Jurisdiction

Where local host laws aggressively conflict with Eviulon’s internal constitutional mandates, intense friction occurs. For example, if a node physically resides in Illinois, it falls under the purview of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which strictly regulates the collection and retention of biometric identifiers, providing a private right of action for violations27. If Eviulon utilizes biometrics for cryptographic citizenship authentication, a jurisdictional overlap emerges. Eviulon resolves this by employing logical routing to avoid the host state entirely for specific data types, or by applying zero-knowledge proofs ensuring the host state cannot mathematically ascertain the nature of the data being processed, rendering local prescriptive jurisdiction effectively unenforceable.

Embassies, Enclaves, and Diplomatic Endpoints

To facilitate interactions with terrestrial states that recognize its sovereignty, Eviulon establishes "Embassy Nodes." These diplomatic endpoints operate on neutral, mutually agreed-upon infrastructure—analogous to international waters or specific sovereign cloud tenancy agreements. These endpoints allow foreign entities, corporations, and non-citizens to interface with Nexus Prime without breaching the sovereign computational boundary. Cartographically, these are labeled with neutral, dashed lines, indicating external but officially recognized interaction zones, safely insulated from the core civic functions of the Agora or Archive.

Twenty Difficult Territorial Scenarios and Proposed Treatments

The interaction between a computational state and a physical world produces highly complex edge cases. The following matrix analyzes twenty difficult territorial scenarios and details Eviulon's legal and architectural proposed treatments.

Public FAQ: “Where Is Eviulon?”

Q: Where is Eviulon located on a map? A: Eviulon is not located on a terrestrial map, nor is it a fictional physical continent. It exists entirely within computational space. Its territory is defined by a cryptographically authenticated boundary rather than physical land. If you are authenticated into our network, you are standing within Eviulon’s sovereign borders. Q: Does Eviulon own the servers it runs on? A: Not necessarily, and ownership is irrelevant to our sovereignty. Eviulon claims supreme authority over the logical computational environment, not the physical hardware. Just as an embassy retains sovereignty despite sitting on foreign soil, Eviulon retains sovereign control over its data and logic regardless of who owns the server chassis. Q: Can a server be shut down and destroy a part of Eviulon? A: No. Eviulon's continuity of territory is highly fluid and substrate-agnostic. If physical hardware fails, is seized, or is destroyed, the regional logic and data instantly migrate to alternative global infrastructure. Our territory is continuous so long as the cryptographic state survives. Q: How do you measure distance in Eviulon? A: Distance in our geography is purely topological. Two regions are "close" if they share a direct, high-speed, highly secure communication link. A server in Tokyo and a server in London might host regions that are direct next-door neighbors in Eviulon’s geography, measured in milliseconds rather than kilometers. Q: Is the public map a diagram of your network infrastructure? A: Absolutely not. The public map is a civic and conceptual representation of our regions designed for citizen navigation. It explicitly does not reveal IP addresses, server locations, physical coordinates, or network vulnerabilities.

Proposed Content Modules for Public Presentation

To educate the public, onboard citizens, and establish state legitimacy to external observers, the following content modules are proposed for the Eviulon government portal:

• Domain Overview: A foundational introduction to computational sovereignty, contrasting traditional Westphalian physical borders2 with Eviulon's cryptographic boundaries.
• The Conceptual Map: The interactive visual representation of the seven regions, strictly utilizing the safe "Civic Activity" layer to demonstrate a thriving digital society without exposing infrastructure.
• Topology vs. Geography: An educational module explaining how distance in Eviulon is measured in latency, bandwidth, and encryption layers, redefining proximity for the digital age.
• National Infrastructure: An abstract overview of how compute, storage, and bandwidth serve as the literal roads, bridges, and utilities of the nation.
• The Regions Deep-Dive: Exhaustive profiles on Agora (civic life), Archive (history), and Forge (industry), explaining their functions in plain language.
• Nexus Prime: The capital module, featuring public diplomatic logs, foundational constitutional documents, and requirements for diplomatic entry.
• The Frontier: A survival guide to Eviulon's experimental borders, warning visitors of the volatility and reduced security guarantees in this unpolished, outer region.

Glossary of Geographic, Legal, and Computational Terms

To navigate the synthesis of public international law and distributed systems architecture, a standardized vocabulary is essential.

Source and Uncertainty Appendix

The framework detailed in this report relies heavily on the radical synthesis of traditional terrestrial law and modern cyber doctrines. Profound uncertainties remain regarding how terrestrial host states will react to a purely computational sovereign claim operating on hardware within their physical borders. While the S.S. Lotus case permits prescriptive jurisdiction over Eviulonian citizens8, the enforcement of host-state laws via the physical seizure of hardware—as seen in aggressive cybercrime investigations coordinated under the Budapest Convention23—presents a persistent, physical threat to substrate stability. Furthermore, the application of Tallinn Manual 2.0 (Rules 1, 2, and 4\) remains heavily debated in international law, specifically regarding whether low-level digital intrusions or overlapping jurisdictional mandates constitute a violation of sovereignty or merely a breach of principle11. Because the Westphalian system is fundamentally anchored to soil3, until customary international law explicitly recognizes computational borders independent of hardware ownership, Eviulon's survival relies entirely on its cryptographic invulnerability and the agility of its substrate migrations.

Facts "Registry Pending"

The following elements, while theoretically sound and operationally necessary for the continuity of the state, remain officially "Registry Pending" until formally established and validated by the Eviulonian Registry:

• The exact consensus algorithm and algorithmic weight required to resolve split-brain regional fractures during a constitutional crisis.
• The specific post-quantum cryptographic standards utilized to secure the national boundary against advanced nation-state decryption efforts.
• The roster of bilateral treaties or mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) currently active at Nexus Prime diplomatic endpoints.
• The absolute maximum latency threshold (measured in milliseconds) before two regions legally lose topological adjacency.
• The precise legal and diplomatic status of Eviulonian citizens who maintain physical residency in hostile terrestrial host states that aggressively criminalize Eviulonian access.

Works cited

1. Microtopias \- Journal of Futures Studies, https://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/83-A02.pdf

2. Westphalian system \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian\_system

3. Digital sovereignty \- Internet Policy Review, https://policyreview.info/concepts/digital-sovereignty

4. Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v United States of America) \- LawStories, https://www.lawstories.in/cases/island-of-palmas-case-1928

5. Island of Palmas Arbitration Case. \[Case No. 68\] | Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases | Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-digest-of-public-international-law-cases/article/island-of-palmas-arbitration-case-case-no-68/C5D0170B610337FEDC0F052E14BEE7BB

6. Palmas Island Arbitration \- Oxford Public International Law, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e191

7. Jurisdiction in Cyberspace \- Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), https://www.gcsp.ch/sites/default/files/2024-12/EWG-IL\_Partnered\_Jurisdiction\_2024-11%3Bdigital.pdf

8. The Permanent Court's Enduring Legacy: Territorial Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the S.S. Lotus Case (1927) \- The Lawscape, https://www.thelawscape.in/ss-lotus-case-1927-territorial-sovereignty-jurisdiction-international-law/

9. The Lotus Principle Explained in Contemporary International Law \- Diplomacy and Law, https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/the-lotus-principle-explained-in-contemporary-international-law

10. State sovereignty in cyberspace regulating global technology companies | Lov & Data, https://lod.lovdata.no/article/2025/06/State%20sovereignty%20in%20cyberspace%20regulating%20global%20technology%20companies

11. In Defense of Sovereignty in Cyberspace \- Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/55876/defense-sovereignty-cyberspace/

12. digital sovereignty in light of international law, https://projekty.ncn.gov.pl/opisy/534664-en.pdf

13. Jurisdiction on the Internet: From Legal Arms Race to Transnational Cooperation \- Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/gcig\_no28\_web.pdf

14. Island of Palmas Sovereignty Case Analysis | PDF | History \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/693462052/island-of-palmas-case-public-international-law-case-summaries

15. Island of Palmas Case Analysis | PDF | International Law \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/75873591/McRae-Ch3

16. Investigative Jurisdiction: The Evolving Limits of Extraterritoriality in Transnational Digital Investigations | International & Comparative Law Quarterly | Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/investigative-jurisdiction-the-evolving-limits-of-extraterritoriality-in-transnational-digital-investigations/F9D7EBA79C7FF82D515BC366F6151FF4

17. The charm of jurisdictions: a modern version of Solomon's judgment? \- Völkerrechtsblog, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-charm-of-jurisdictions-a-modern-version-of-solomons-judgment/

18. The Concept of Jurisdiction in International Law | UNIJURIS, https://unijuris.sites.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2014/12/The-Concept-of-Jurisdiction-in-International-Law.pdf

19. Sovereignty (Chapter 1\) \- Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations \- Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/tallinn-manual-20-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-operations/sovereignty/6BA0C5B9829FD15D997B8C973C395E16

20. TALLINN MANUAL 2.0 ON THE INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE TO CYBER OPERATIONS \- Assets \- Cambridge University Press, https://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/77222/frontmatter/9781107177222\_frontmatter.pdf

21. Sovereignity and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence \- U.C.L.A. Law Review, https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2024/05/06-Scassa-No-Bleed.pdf

22. Yale Journal of Law & Technology Volume 27, Issue 1 Jurisdictional Creep: The UN Cybercrime Convention and the Expansion of, https://yjolt.org/sites/default/files/scher-zagier\_27yalejltech327.pdf

23. Budapest Convention: What is it and How is it Being Updated? \- Cross-Border Data Forum, https://www.crossborderdataforum.org/budapest-convention-what-is-it-and-how-is-it-being-updated/

24. Budapest Convention on Cybercrime \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Convention\_on\_Cybercrime

25. The legal geographies of extradition and sovereign power \- Internet Policy Review, https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/legal-geographies-extradition-and-sovereign-power

26. Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace after Tallinn Manual 2.0 \- Melbourne Law School, https://law.unimelb.edu.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0010/3567439/Chircop.pdf

27. Knowledge Hub | Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) \- Imprivata, https://www.imprivata.com/knowledge-hub/biometric-information-privacy-act-bipa

28. Online Protections, https://www.ilcapitolgroup.com/Home/Policy/Privacy

29. Illinois Enacts BIPA Amendment Limiting Violation Accrual \- Inside Privacy, https://www.insideprivacy.com/data-privacy/illinois-enacts-bipa-amendment-limiting-violation-accrual/

30. Project Management & Development \- The Town of Cicero, https://thetownofcicero.com/government/project-management-development/

31. Article 1: Article 2: Article 3: Article 4: Article 5: Article 5: Article 6: Article 7: Article 8: Article 9: Table of Conten \- The Town of Cicero, https://thetownofcicero.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UDC-Document-2024.pdf

32. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE IN CYBERSPACE? BODIN, SCHMITT, GROTIUS IN CYBERSPACE | University of Toronto Law Journal, https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/utlj.1119