Digital/sovereignty and European security integration: an introduction

This article furthers the debate between European Studies and Critical Security Studies by demonstrating how European Union (EU) single market integration functions as a security practice in the area of cybersecurity. It explores how the EU has rendered digitisation as a security concern and cybersecurity emerged as an object of EU governance by developing an analytical approach based on problematisation. Situating the problematisation approach in the genealogical tradition of Foucault, it argues that it provides us with an analytical toolbox enabling inquiry into the conditions that make contemporary security problems possible, powerful and changeable. Tracing EU security problematisations of digitisation over four decades, it shows how the single market has come to function as a security practice and stresses the political implications of it. The final part of the article re‐problematises the findings to afford insights into how they can be rethought at the intersection of European Studies and Critical Security Studies.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Re-problematising Eu Cybersecurity: Analytical Challenges Fo...mentioning

confidence: 97%

Problematising EU Cybersecurity: Exploring How the Single Market Functions as a Security Practice

Liebetrau

2023

“…In recent years, the EU, whilst resisting the ‘authoritarian model’, has started to relate sovereignty to information flows and technology in cyberspace, seeking to increase control under the flag of digital or technological sovereignty. This new mission can be seen as the EU's way of repositioning itself as a security actor despite lacking control over more traditional security forces like the military and the police (Bellanova et al 2022).…”

Section: Sovereignty Between Authority and Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Search of Digital Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy: Normative Power Europe to the Test of Its Geopolitical Ambitions

Broeders

Cristiano

Kaminska

2023

This article analyses the recent use of European Union (EU) terminology of digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy, aiming to identify tensions between policy considerations of fundamental rights, free market principles and geopolitical concerns. These tensions are rooted in the disparity between the EU's considerable economic and regulatory power in digital matters and its limited mandate and capabilities in foreign policy. The article also explores the translation of the notions of digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy into EU policy. It identifies three important trends in the geopoliticisation of the EU agenda on digital technologies: (1) the instrumental use of ‘classic’ internal market policies to exert geopolitical influence; (2) the imposition of foreign policy imperatives on national markets; and (3) new ‘hybrid’ digital policies that combine internal market concerns, fundamental rights and geopolitical concerns. Ultimately, digital sovereignty has inherent tensions with the EU's normative power in digital issues and may also result in a strategic cacophony.

“…These results correspond with findings in studies that centre on EU communications about digital policy that have introduced concepts like digital sovereignty. Studies on digital sovereignty have analysed its discursive dimensions (Bellanova et al, 2022; Pohle and Thiel, 2020) and argue that the concept can also assert European values (Roberts et al, 2021). According to Floridi (2020), the concept should be best understood as control of the digital sphere and its different layers, such as data, software, protocols, infrastructure and the like.…”

Section: The Eu Dsm Policy and The Move To Digital Sovereigntymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, I contribute to the emerging literature on EU digital policy by analysing key elements of the DSM (Kalyanpur and Newman, 2019; Laurer and Seidl, 2021; Newman, 2020) and to that on policy changes that are accompanying the EU's new rhetoric in terms of digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy (Bellanova et al, 2022; Floridi, 2020; Pohle and Thiel, 2020; Schmitz and Seidl, 2022). I demonstrate that policy aims have been broadened to include further objectives in addition to competitiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Market Liberalism to Public Intervention: Digital Sovereignty and Changing European Union Digital Single Market Governance

Heidebrecht

2023

Against the backdrop of the ever‐increasing importance of digital services, the European Union (EU) is promoting deepening of its digital single market (DSM). Whilst the single market has often been portrayed as the Trojan horse of neoliberalism, recent rhetoric on digital sovereignty indicates a desire for more control over the digital sphere. A historical case study of key elements of the DSM, namely digital services regulation and data protection, shows that EU governance has become less market‐liberal and more public‐interventionist. In response to challenges associated with the digital economy, policy goals have been broadened to include further objectives in addition to competitiveness. Stakeholders and public authorities rather than business actors have become more important in governance processes, and more market‐correcting instruments have been introduced. These reforms have been made by adding more interventionist elements and also by redirecting the role of the European Commission to overseeing very large online platforms.