DEFINING INFORMATION SOVEREIGNTY: WHAT IS INFORMATION SOVEREIGNTY?

Abstract

This article explores the reconceptualization of sovereignty in the digital era through the emerging paradigm of information sovereignty. Whereas traditional international law associated sovereignty with territory and borders, digitalization has elevated information and data flows to a domain of sovereign authority. The article argues that information sovereignty must be understood as a multidimensional practice involving autonomy, authority, and responsibility: the ability to act independently in cyberspace, the legal competence to regulate information flows, and the normative obligation to balance national interests with human rights and global interdependence.The analysis unfolds in four parts. First, it develops a working definition of information sovereignty by drawing on doctrinal debates in international law, European and Chinese legal frameworks, and Ukrainian scholarly contributions shaped by the realities of hybrid warfare.Second, it examines comparative models of sovereignty in the digital age: China’s cyber sovereignty emphasizing defensive control, the European Union’s rights-based data sovereignty exemplified by the GDPR, and the United States’ market-driven approach. Third, it reflects on normative tensions, particularly the conflict between national security imperatives and universal human rights, and the challenge of reconciling state sovereignty with cyberspace as a global commons. Finally, it proposes a typology of information sovereignty – defensive, economic, and regulatory – that provides analytical clarity to the competing interpretations of sovereignty in the digital domain.The article concludes that information sovereignty should not be understood as a return to absolute territorial control but as a layered practice of governance. For Ukraine, this involves simultaneously defending against disinformation, building domestic digital capacities, and aligning with European regulatory standards. More broadly, the typology highlights that information sovereignty is less a fixed status than an ongoing negotiation between security, economy, and law. Recognizing this dynamic character is essential for designing governance frameworks that preserve both state autonomy and the openness of the global digital order.