Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?

Abstract

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.

Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance

“…Where differences arise out of contending spheres of authority, with different views of the governance goal or common good, conflict will be especially intense (Kreuder-Sonnen & Zürn, 2020). In the cyberspace HIC, for example, some institutions (led by the US and other Western states) favor an open internet governed by multi-stakeholder institutions, while others (led by China and Russia) view an open internet as dangerous and promote strict regulation by states (Flonk et al, 2020).…”

Watering down the wine: European Union regulation of violent right‐wing extremism content and the securitisation of new online spaces

“…Whatever the outcome will be, it is clear that the EU is taking a more active and sovereign stance in regulating VRWE content (Flonk et al, 2023). In simultaneously loosening and broadening approaches when responding to VRWE content, the EU's current approach represents a watering down of policy ideals to assuage reactionary-right European governments.…”

“…These developments also suggest a slow but steady shift from an EU that protects individuals to do something, to an EU that protects individuals from something. These are indicative of wider securitised shifts, due to the expansion and normalisation of a counter‐extremism paradigm and the adoption of a more sovereigntist stand (Flonk et al, 2023).…”

Policy recommendations of international bureaucracies: the importance of country-specificity

“…We aimed to minimize this by targeting respondents working in specific policy areas and asking them to evaluate different international bureaucracies separately. Indeed, past research has shown that international bureaucracies may play different roles depending on the policy area (Flonk et al., 2020; Zelli and van Asselt, 2013) (see Figure 1). Specifically, we use survey data on 15 international bureaucracies active in up to four financial policy areas (monetary policy, tax policy, debt management and banking regulation).…”