We analyse conflicts over norms and institutions in internet governance. In this emerging field, dispute settlement is less institutionalised and conflicts take place at a foundational level. Internet governance features two competing spheres of authority characterised by fundamentally diverging social purposes: A more consolidated liberal sphere emphasises a limited role of the state, private and multistakeholder governance and freedom of speech. A sovereigntist challenger sphere emphasises state control, intergovernmentalism and push against the preponderance of Western institutions and private actors. We trace the activation and evolution of conflict between these spheres with regard to norms and institutions in four instances: the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), the fifth session of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) and the Budapest Convention of the Council of Europe. We observe intense norm collisions, and strategic attempts at competitive regime creation and regime shifting towards intergovernmental structures by the sovereigntist sphere. Despite these aggressive attempts at creating new institutions and norms, the existing internet governance order is still in place. Hence, authority conflicts in global internet governance do not necessarily lead to fragmentation.

Data form an increasingly essential element of contemporary politics, as both public and private actors extend claims of their legitimate control in diverse areas including health, security, and trade. This paper investigates data governance as a site of fundamental normative and political ordering processes that unfold in light of ever-increasing inter- and transnational linkages. Drawing on the concept of jurisdictional conflicts, the paper traces the evolution of data governance in three cases of transatlantic conflicts as diverging definitional claims over data. The paper argues that these conflicts reveal varying conceptualizations of data linked to four distinct visions of the social world. First, a conceptualization of data as an individual rights issue links human rights with the promotion of sovereignty to a vision of data governance as local liberalism. Second, proponents of a security partnership promote global security cooperation based on the conceptualization of data as a neutral instrument. Third, a conceptualization of data as an economic resource is linked to a vision of the digital economy that endorses progress and innovation with limited regulation. Fourth, a conceptualization of data as a collective resource links the values of universal rights and global rules to a vision of global protection.

No abstract

This book investigates the governance of digital data as a site of fundamental normative and political ordering processes that unfold in light of ever-increasing inter- and transnational linkages. Data governance is characterized by frequent jurisdictional overlap: regulatory efforts in one jurisdiction are likely to affect the conduct of others. How do different actors resolve overlapping claims? Existing literature has identified the impact of institutional processes and power struggles but has underestimated—and undertheorized—prevailing normative differences. This book argues that actors in the field are united by the perception of common stakes but clash about their conflicting visions of what data governance should achieve or avoid and, in fact, what data actually are. Theoretically, it combines Bourdieusian field theory with the concept of value orders drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot. Based on the analysis of five key conflicts in data governance between the EU, the US, and private companies, the book proposes four distinct normative visions of data governance. These visions articulate calls for action depending on their conceptualizations of data as a governable object and the moral justifications for their governance. First, the idea of liberal protection links human rights with the promotion of sovereignty. Second, proponents of a security partnership promote global security cooperation. Third, a vision of the digital economy endorses progress and innovation. Fourth, a vision of global cooperation emphasizes globally interoperable standards of data governance. In sum, this book offers a novel account of how actors negotiate normative differences in a central policy field.

This chapter traces a jurisdictional conflict between the EU, the US, and the Belgian cooperative SWIFT in the context of counterterrorist financing. It outlines how the vision of data governance as a security partnership became entrenched over time, increasingly prioritizing transnational security cooperation rather than individual rights. Despite significant disruptions by the European Parliament, the conflict demonstrates how composite objects such as transparency and review mechanisms contributed to the stabilization of compromise between security goals and human rights requirements. It also demonstrates how interlinkages with the broader field of financial data sharing, including anti-money laundering, have stabilized hierarchization processes in the field.