Preface

The Shifting Landscape of Sovereignty

We are living through a profound transformation in how we understand, enact, and experience sovereignty in our networked age. Historically, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) positioned the nation-state as sovereignty’s primary vessel, anchoring political power in territorial borders and centralized authority. This model defined modern political order for centuries: states claimed a monopoly on legitimate force within their territories, forged national identities, and built institutional infrastructures to govern populations. While the Westphalian paradigm enabled unprecedented societal organization, it simultaneously entrenched oppressive hierarchies, fueled colonial expansion, and systematically marginalized minorities.

Today, the Westphalian sovereignty model shows signs of strain. The 21st century confronts what some term a “polycrisis”; an entanglement of global threats that transgress national borders and defy simple, state-centric solutions (Morin & Kern 1999). The interplay of multiple crises—from global pandemics, to cascading economic shocks and a rapidly intensifying climate emergency—reveal how even coordinated nation-states struggle to maintain effective governance. Although nationalism and geopolitical expansionism have resurfaced, these forces cannot mask a deeper structural shift: nation-states are no longer the sole—or even primary—locus of sovereignty.

In the gaps of this old world order, new sovereign actors are emerging. These new actors are not merely stepping into institutional voids left by faltering states; they are actively building alternative systems of coordination rooted in the technological, social, and cultural shifts of recent decades. Materially, advances in computing, cryptography, and artificial intelligence have dramatically lowered the costs of coordination and enabled novel forms of governance at scale and without traditional intermediaries like governments or banks. Socially, the rise of translocal communities and open-source collaboration has expanded the imagination of who can govern and how. Culturally, a growing disillusionment with centralized authority has fueled new worldviews—crypto-libertarianism, solarpunk mutualism, pluralist cosmopolitanism—that legitimize governance outside or beyond the state. Together, these forces give rise to new Network Sovereignties, reconfiguring what it means to rule, belong, and coordinate in the 21st century.

At the heart of these shifts lies a compelling question: How can communities harness network technologies to define, organize, and sustain themselves beyond territorial jurisdictions? And, conversely, what new expressions of sovereignty arise from digital networks—whether alongside or entirely outside the confines of the nation-state?

Network Sovereignties: New and Old

A Network Sovereignty is (i) a digitally or materially networked entity (ii) maintains a shared rule-making framework, (iii) possesses the capacity to implement and enforce those rules, and (iv) thereby performs a substantive set of internal and/or external governance functions (v) with minimal interference by any other authority.

A Dialectical Relationship

At the heart of these systems lies a fundamental tension between two forces: networks and sovereignty. Each conditions the other: networks reshape the flows of power, while sovereignty shapes the architectures and trajectories of networks.

1. Networks are complex, adaptive systems where nodes—whether physical, social, or technological—connect through meaningful relationships. These connections, built on shared values, interests, or practices, enable collective action and generate emergent properties beyond the capacities of individual nodes (Galloway & Thacker, 2007).
2. Sovereignty is the capacity for self-governance: the ability to make and enforce rules over a particular space and population. Although traditionally associated with nation-states, sovereignty is the quality of any entity that exercises governance functions with relative autonomy (Pasquale, 2016). Crucially, sovereignty does not imply isolation; sovereign entities often strengthen themselves through relationships with others, balancing independence and interdependence (Sabel, 2020).

The interplay between them is political and dialectical: each continuously transforms the conditions and possibilities of the other.

• Networks reshape how sovereign power circulates. Where sovereign power once traveled on roads and bureaucracies, since the advent of the Internet it flows through protocols, platforms, and algorithms. Control the network, and you influence the channels through which power moves (Pohle & Thiel, 2021).
• Sovereignty shapes the political logic and structure of networks. Self-governance can concentrate power at the center or diffuse it across peripheries; it can open participation or erect exclusionary barriers. Sovereign intent imprints itself into the very design of networks, determining who can act, how resources are allocated, and how norms are enforced. In this sense, every network carries political DNA encoded into its architecture (Winner, 1980).

Unlike traditional sovereignty, which is anchored in territorial jurisdiction and the monopoly of the use of force, these networks can span across physical and digital realms.. What makes them truly sovereign rather than just loosely connected groups is their institutional depth: they don't just connect, they govern. Through their own infrastructures, they perform core sovereign tasks like rule-making, identity verification, dispute resolution, and resource management, often without relying on nation-states. In other words: they are not legal but “functionally” sovereign (Pasquale 2016).

Despite its apparent futuristic connotations, the concept of Network Sovereignties has deep historical roots. Medieval guilds and trading leagues once bypassed feudal strictures, devising their own codes and dispute-resolution processes. Religious diasporas spanned empires, fostering allegiance to spiritual homes rather than earthly monarchs. Even after being artificially divided by the borders of nascent nation-states, many tribes across the Middle East or South East Asia have successfully maintained parallel governance systems. Today, we are witnessing a renaissance of such autonomous networks, but with a crucial difference. While medieval traders relied on paper ledgers and physical couriers, contemporary communities leverage digital technologies such as cloud computing, blockchain networks, and artificial intelligence to coordinate at unprecedented speed and scale. These technologies enable experiments that seemed far-fetched a decade ago.

One of the most prominent articulations comes from Balaji Srinivasan’s The Network State (2022), which envisions blockchain-based communities that crowdsource funding to acquire physical territory, and eventually seek diplomatic recognition. These “start-up societies” combine crypto-libertarian values with the fast iteration cycles of Silicon Valley’s tech companies—mirroring the ethos of agile software development, but applied to political governance. One testbed for governance innovation aiming to apply Network State principles is Próspera, established in 2017 on Roatán Island, Honduras, as a privately governed charter city operating under the ZEDE (Zone for Employment and Economic Development) framework. It offers businesses and residents a high degree of autonomy, including the ability to select regulatory frameworks from various countries or create their own, aiming to foster innovation and attract foreign investment.

Not all models pursue top-down or venture-backed strategies. Some advocate for Network Cities, a more distributed, community-first approach to networked governance. These projects create global networks of interconnected hubs for experimentation, collaboration, and cohabitation, blending physical presence with digital infrastructure. One example is Cabin, which began as a creators’ residency in a cabin outside Austin and has since evolved into a polycentric Network City—a federation of local neighborhoods and online contributors collectively experimenting with bottom-up sovereignty. Cabin’s model blends onchain coordination (through a DAO and token-based governance) with place-based, intergenerational community building, where each neighborhood exercises autonomy over housing, resource sharing, and collective rituals.

Yet others propose Network Nations (De Filippi, Beer, Cossar, 2025)—translocal political communities operating across digital and physical spaces yet unbounded by traditional jurisdiction that engage in a form of distributed nation-building. A compelling example is ReFi DAO, advancing the regenerative finance movement by enabling communities to build local regenerative economies using Web3 tools. It has evolved from a founder-led startup hub into a global coordination layer, supporting over 75 events and 300 entrepreneurs. Since 2023, it has developed a mesh of Local Nodes or physical communities experimenting with regeneration interlinked through digital infrastructure. Its Regen CoordiNATION weaves together aligned networks, like Green Pill and Regens Unite.

Together, these experiments illuminate the plurality of approaches emerging under the umbrella of new Network Sovereignties. Some are hierarchical, others peer-to-peer. Some seek state-like recognition, others avoid it entirely. What they share is a desire to reimagine how we organize, manage resources, and distribute authority in a hyperconnected world.

Introducing the Blog Series: Purpose and Structure

Against this backdrop, the SOAM–BlockchainGov Residency Program convened a diverse group of scholars, activists, technologists, and entrepreneurs to explore the evolving idea of Network Sovereignties. From May to October 2024, the cohort engaged in online and offline workshops aimed at examining three key angles:

1. Conceptual – Building new theoretical frameworks for understanding how Network Sovereignties, both historical and contemporary, emerge, function, and transform over time.
2. Empirical – Analyzing existing case studies that illustrate different modes of network-based governance, both in digital and physical contexts.
3. Speculative – Probing future scenarios and governance prototypes for the proliferation of more resilient and empowering Network Sovereignties.

The result of this residency is the blog series “Network Sovereignties: Decoding Emerging Protocols of Power.” This series does not pretend to offer final solutions. Rather, it is a provocation—a set of reflections designed to spark conversation, invite critique, and encourage collective experimentation.

Our essays apply socio-technical spatialities as a lens to explore how communities practice sovereignty in today’s age. We hope to shine a light on how various forms of “territoriality”—from physical spaces to digital platforms and hybrid realms—reshape identity, coordination, and empowerment.

Overview of Essays

Rethinking Land and Urban Governance

• In Network Sovereignties as Commons, Clara Gromanches examines Catalonia's Fundació Emprius, where networked communities are pioneering new collective land stewardship forms beyond private property and state control. She suggests local experiments could scale into global alternatives for managing shared resources.
• In Cities as Network Sovereignties, Rithikha Rajamohan speculates on how cities can revolutionize governance through networked financial systems. Urban communities can build power through increased economic interdependence, from participatory budgeting to cross-border city alliances.

New Spaces of Power and Meaning

• In Part I, titled Territories of Meaning, Johan Ahlm Michalove shows how digital networks create new forms of belonging and collective identity. In Part II, he focuses on Dimes Square, where a tightly networked, online-offline enclave in lower Manhattan cultivated a self-referential ‘semioscape’ through cultural production, insider norms, and ambient meaning.
• In Re:Mapping Power, Virginia Zangs and Judd Smith expose how traditional digital cartography reinforces power imbalances and advocate for a shift towards Peer2Peer (P2P) systems to empower communities through decentralized, trust-based network sovereignties.

Translocal Territories

• The series concludes with Network Nations, where Primavera De Filippi and Felix Beer present Network Nations as translocal political communities that operate across digital and physical spaces unbounded by traditional territorial authority. These communities mutualize resources, self-govern, and act collectively through shared infrastructures that allow them to function with functional sovereignty. Rather than abandoning territory, Network Nations reimagine it—drawing from the rootedness of local practices while scaling through global networks.

Forward Look

The seeds of future governance are already sprouting. In peripheral spaces, new theories and practices of network sovereignty are being tested and forged. Yet this future is not guaranteed. It is unevenly distributed, fraught with risk, and still very much under construction. We are also seeing shadows witnessing the rise of corporate-dominated enclaves, libertarian “exit” projects, and fragmented techno-utopias. Without care, this could lead to new forms of exploitation, what some call digital feudalism, where sovereignty is privatized and participation reduced to terms of service.

Our invitation to you, as a reader, is to see these essays as part of a larger puzzle. We encourage you to consider how these ideas play out in your own context—whether you are a scholar, designer, technologist, activist, or simply a curious observer. As crises intensify and the bounds of Westphalian status quo grow ever more apparent, let us explore how we can bootstrap an intellectual field, worldly praxis and cultural scene around network sovereignties.

The task before us is not only to imagine new sovereign futures but to operationalize them—intentionally, experimentally, and reflexively. This is not a future to predict. It is one to build—layer by layer, protocol by protocol, space by space.

The question is no longer if these futures will emerge, but how we will shape them—responsibly, equitably, and wisely. By experimenting, iterating, and reflecting together, we can forge a form of sovereignty that meets the complexities of our interdependent world—a sovereignty that is rooted in the values we choose to uphold.

Let’s begin!