Introduction: TBD

Sovereignty

Sovereignty has been defined as the exclusive right to exercise supreme political power over a geographic location or territory, a group of people or population, and/or oneself (Tătar & Moiși, 2022). Effective sovereignty implies both the ability to exercise control over a specific territory and population, and the recognition of this exclusive control by external actors. As such, sovereignty can be reduced to three essential components: the spatial (e.g. territory), the personal (e.g. population), and the institutional (e.g. state apparatus).

Rooted in the Westphalian order of 1648, this conception of sovereignty sees nation-states as primary political units (Besson, 2011) whose sovereign power is exercised over defined populations within stable geographical borders by means of a government. Modern liberal democracies remain largely shaped by this conception of sovereignty, where the institution of the nation-state rules supreme. As a result, contemporary political theory and practice mainly operate around the expectation of a one-to-one correspondence between territory, people, and government (Troper, 2012).

However, sovereignty needs to be understood as a historically contingent and politically constructed concept (Troper, 2012). It is exercised in varying degrees by different actors and shaped by shifting political, social, economic and technical developments (Besson, 2011). Hence, as new communication technologies transform the ways we live and interact, the frameworks through which sovereignty is established and exercised must also adapt.

Sovereignty through Network Lens

In the 21st century, the rise of global digital networks transformed the conditions under which sovereignty is constituted. At its core, a network can be understood as a dynamic configuration of interconnected nodes linked by flows of information, value, or resources (Castells, 2004). Unlike hierarchical structures, networks are highly adaptable, distributed, and open-ended structures that evolve through the interactions among their nodes.

As such, networks are socio-technical systems that enable new forms of political agency (Van Dijk, 2020), in that they shape, mediate, and reconfigure social relations, producing novel sites and modes of governance. Today, far from being peripheral to political life, networks are becoming the primary architecture through which power is exercised—controlling flows of meaning, attention, capital, and coordination across time and space.

In the “Network Society”, Manuel Castells (2004) captured this shift, highlighting how the dominant logic is no longer confined to the hierarchical structures of states and corporations, but circulates through distributed, interlinked systems: “The power of flows“ takes precedence over the flows of power” (1996, p. 469). Similarly, David Ronfeldt (1996) suggests that networks are the latest evolutionary form of societal organization. Rather than fully replacing earlier structures like the institutional logics of states and markets, networks coexist with them, layering new forms of coordination atop the old.

This transformation invites a fundamental question: How do networks generate new forms of sovereignty? Rather than adapting old notions of sovereignty to new technical realities, we must ask how networks are generating new forms of political agency in their own right.

1. Definition: Network Sovereignty

Network sovereignty captures the emergence of new forms of sovereignties grounded in network technologies and digital infrastructures. Network sovereigns do not operate within the territorial borders of the nation-state, instead, they exercise political agency within, through, and by virtue of networks. To analyse this emerging concept as both a continuity and a rupture with the Westphalian model, we can revisit the classical triad of sovereignty—space, population, institution—through the lens of networks.

1. Networked Spaces

Traditional sovereignty presupposes a territorially bounded, continuous, and mutually exclusive domain in which each point of land, sea, air, or even outer space can be assigned to a single jurisdiction. Digital networks unsettle this territorial approach, introducing what Castells (2004) terms a space of flows—a global, real-time interaction arena constituted by data routes, cloud infrastructures, and software protocols. This new form of spatial arrangement—operating across time zones and jurisdictions—overlays and reorganises the space of places—rooted in physical proximity and territorial continuity, enabling distant, synchronous, and distributed coordination.

In this topology, sovereignty is not tied to territorial control but to the ability to configure and govern the infrastructures that mediate digital flows. Whoever can design, maintain, or disrupt these flows—whether through routing architectures, content moderation systems, platform interfaces, or cloud-based storage—exerts a new form of power, which Laura DeNardis (2014) describes as infrastructural power: the authority to allow, deny, prioritize, or surveil interactions by shaping the underlying technological stack.

Networked space dissolves the direct link between geography and authority that structured the Westphalian state system. Networks span across the globe and—unlike geographical regions—their boundaries are not fixed: they are often modular, overlapping (subject to multiple regimes), and selectively permeable (allowing differentiated access). As such, they dissolve the traditional logic of sovereignty: power is now exercised through the control of digital infrastructures rather than control over bounded territory. Thus, network architectures—not maps—become the primary medium through which spatial authority is asserted, contested, and lost.

2. Networked Population

Traditional sovereignty regards citizens as residents of a nation-state, recorded by census and governed by territorial jurisdiction. This link between people and place has long underpinned the legitimacy of sovereign power, as governing a territory meant governing those inhabiting a defined space.

In networked environments, populations are held together by relational connectivity rather than physical proximity. They are constituted by individuals who may reside across multiple geographies but are linked through continuous digitally mediated relationships. What defines closeness is not location on a map but position in a social graph, where proximity is ultimately a function of relationality: two actors are “close” because they are linked by flows of information, attention, va in lue, or resources (Wittel, 2001). Similarly, identity becomes fluid and relational rather than defined by place of birth or residency. Thus, in these social formations, belonging is performative rather than inherited, constituted through ongoing interaction and contribution within the network (boyd, 2010). To be part of a networked population is to be continually engaged as a node in a socio-technical system.

One defining characteristic of networked populations is their plural and overlapping affiliations. Individuals simultaneously inhabit multiple networks: one might be simultaneously a member of a transnational movement, a contributor to a global open-source project, a participant in a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). These affiliations operate under distinct governance logics, different norms, and expectations. This leads to a condition of multi-positionality, in which individuals are subject to various—and often conflicting—forms of allegiance and authority (boyd, 2010).

All this profoundly impacts the nature of sovereignty: sovereign power over networked populations does not depend on geography but upon the capacity to shape and govern the infrastructures of social interaction. Sovereignty, in this sense, becomes a matter of relational design: structuring the flows of engagement and determining the conditions under which collective life is made legible and actionable in networked spaces. In sum, networked populations represent a shift from territorial subjects to relational actors, whose political identity is defined not by where they are located, but by how and with whom they interact.

3. Networked Institutions

The third pillar of sovereignty relates to institutional capacity—the ability to establish rules, enforce decisions, and maintain legitimacy over time. In the Westphalian model, institutional power is vested in the apparatus of the state, typically subdivided into the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers. State institutions historically exercise centralised authority over defined territories and bounded populations, ensuring internal legitimacy and external diplomatic recognition.

If territory and population mutate under network conditions, institutions must also evolve. Digital networks are subject to regulation from traditional institutions; but they are also increasingly capable of building native governance systems that reflect their distributed, modular, and protocolized logics.

Yet, in terms of governance, networked institutions are still in early stages of development. They are either consolidated but proprietary (e.g. run by corporations), flexible but fragile (e.g. based on informal norms and practices), or fully experimental (e.g. using new technological frameworks). Regardless of their characteristics, they all come with unresolved issues when it comes to effectiveness, scalability, and legitimacy.

The main challenge—and opportunity—lies in designing institutions capable of legitimizing and operationalizing sovereignty within networked digital systems. This means moving away from traditional territorial forms of authority toward new institutional grammars that reflect the realities of digital life: decentralized, participatory, interoperable, and adaptive. As we move further into a networked society, the question is not whether sovereignty will persist, but what forms it will take, who will exercise it, and how its legitimacy will be constituted.

Definition of Networked Sovereignty

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 Network Sovereignty is (i) a networked assemblage – materially, digitally or hybrid – (ii) with a capacity to formulate, interpret and enforce a set of governance functions (iii) across a distributed constituency (iv) with minimal interference by external authorities.

Functional Sovereignty

Functional sovereignty describes a paradigm shift in sovereign authority from territorially bounded states toward entities that effectively manage specific governance functions—such as welfare, finance, or security—irrespective of geographic borders. Originally introduced by Willem Riphagen in 1975, the concept delineates sovereignty by discrete governance tasks, not territorial jurisdiction. This means that sovereign authority can be exercised by different entities over distinct societal domains, services, and populations, even within the same geographic space. For instance, entity A may hold sovereignty over social welfare, entity B over financial systems, and entity C over security services. The shift is from a jurisdiction over territories to a jurisdiction over governance functions.

Unlike traditional Westphalian sovereignty, where a state consolidates diverse governance powers—defense, currency, law enforcement, social services—within a clear territorial domain, functional sovereignty divides and distributes these powers according to an actor’s capacity to perform them effectively. Consequently, functional sovereignty emerges from control over de facto systems of collective action while territorial sovereignty is grounded in de jure claims over constitutional pedigree and territorial borders. These two concepts define a spectrum between what is legally and diplomatically recognized as sovereign, regardless of reality, and what is practiced in reality, regardless of legal or diplomatic recognition.

Recent elaborations by scholars like Frank Pasquale (2017) and Liav Orgad (2018) have contextualized this concept within the digital age: they highlight how networked entities such as global digital platforms or cloud communities increasingly manage governance tasks traditionally associated with nation-states. Examples such as Bitcoin’s role in decentralized finance, the authority exercised by Meta and X in moderating online speech, and initiatives like Worldcoin in the realm of digital identity verification exemplify a broader trend: sovereign authority is becoming "unbundled" from states and reassigned to the actors most capable of performing specific governance functions. This shift creates a patchwork of overlapping, task-specific jurisdictions, where individuals simultaneously inhabit multiple regulatory environments that are increasingly structured by digital networks. In this new order, sovereign authority is no longer anchored in territorial control alone; instead it manifests wherever governance functions—such as payments, speech regulation, identity proofing, and security—are effectively exercised across a dispersed constituency.

Role & Implications for Network Sovereignties

Functional sovereignty is the conceptual hinge of network sovereignties. When authority is unbundled and reassigned by function, digital networks can credibly claim sovereign prerogatives—even in the absence of traditional instruments of statehood like constitutions or the monopoly on violence—because they deliver effective governance services. This transformation produces a complex patchwork of overlapping jurisdictions in which users live under multiple, task-specific rule-sets, raising acute questions about democratic accountability, due process, legitimacy, and conflict resolution beyond the state.

Internal and external governance functions

At their core, Network Sovereignties strive to be "functionally sovereign". They derive their authority not from formal legal recognition—whether domestic or international—nor from coercive capacity, but from the actual performance of governance functions. These governance functions can be grouped into internal and external domains:

• Internal functional sovereignty relates to the governance of a network's own members: establishing rules, adjudicating disputes, managing resources, and maintaining security within the network.
• External functional sovereignty pertains to a network's interactions with the outside world: setting conditions for participation, asserting identity and jurisdiction across borders, and negotiating relations with other sovereign entities, including states.

Thus, functional sovereignty provides the conceptual scaffolding for understanding how new forms of authority emerge and operate within the increasingly networked political landscape of the digital age.

Internal Governance Functions

• Rule Creation: They establish and modify governance frameworks.
  • Examples include the Hanseatic League assemblies or Hansetags formalizing trade laws; rabbinical councils interpreting Talmudic law in Jewish diasporas; the United Nations drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Bitcoin’s BIP process evolving protocol rules; and Cabin’s “do-ocracy” governance system.
• Enforcement: They implement governance frameworks and maintain internal order.
  • Examples include Medieval craft guilds conducting inspections and imposing fines for quality violations; Sufi orders enforcing behavioral codes among members; the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body enforcing trade rules; automated liquidation of undercollateralized loans by smart contracts on Aave or Compound protocols; and Prospera’s private arbitration courts enforcing contracts.
• Membership: They define and manage rules of entry and exit.
  • Examples include tribal initiation rites in the Iroquois Confederacy; religious sacraments regulating inclusion in early modern churches; Amnesty International’s eligibility requirements for onboarding new national nodes; token-gated participation and reputation scores in DAOs; and Zuzalu’s invitation-based access through social trust.
• Resource Management: They control and distribute collective resources
  • Examples include Mesopotamian irrigation consortia allocating water through councils; monastic orders managing communal landholdings; the World Health Organization managing global vaccine resource allocation; and ReFi DAO’s grant pools funding regenerative local economies.
• Dispute Resolution: They adjudicate conflicts among its members.
  • Examples include Romani Kris courts adjudicating disputes through customary law; merchant courts resolving commercial conflicts under the lex mercatoria; members of the Rome Statute system cooperating with the International Criminal Court in the prosecution of international crimes; DAOs like Proof of Humanity relying on blockchain-based dispute resolution protocols like Kleros.
• Knowledge Production: They create shared frameworks of understanding that guide how the community interprets reality.
  • Examples include Islamic madrasas producing legal-scientific consensus; Enlightenment-era Masonic lodges diffusing rationalist, humanist worldviews through structured debate and ritual; and Wikipedia’s community-driven content governance, standard-setting, and epistemic norm formation.
• Cultural Preservation: They maintain, transmit, and renew the collective traditions, rituals, symbols, and practices that embody group identity and ensure continuity across generations
  • Examples include Tuareg epic poetry (tisiway) and ritual practices embedding honor, hospitality, and ecological stewardship norms; UNESCO’s crafting and legal recognition of World Heritage Sites and Intangible Cultural Heritage lists; Gitcoin’s cultivation of “regen” identity myths and lore to sustain a cohesive regenerative finance community.

External Governance Functions

• Collective Representation: They act as a unified body in relation to external sovereign powers.
  • Examples include the Iroquois Confederacy negotiating treaties with European powers; the Catholic Church operating as a transnational diplomatic actor through the Holy See; the European Union acting as a unified diplomatic actor in trade and climate agreements; and DAOs lobbying regulators or issuing public statements as unified entities.
• Boundary Defense: They protect collective interests from external threats.
  • Examples include fortified medieval trading cities defending against feudal encroachment; early modern diasporic communities securing legal privileges in host states; NATO defending collective member sovereignty; and decentralized protocols deploying DDoS protections and anti-Sybil tools.
• Resource Exchange: They manage interactions with external systems.
  • Examples include trade regulation across city-states in ancient Greece; Armenian merchant networks coordinating commerce across imperial borders; Tuareg facilitating trans-Saharan trade; and token bridges and interoperability layers managing value and data flows between blockchain networks.
• External Recognition: They build legitimacy with other entities.
  • Examples include Medieval religious orders receiving papal or imperial charters; the Vatican engaging in diplomatic recognition by nation-states; the International Committee of the Red Cross formally recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a neutral sovereign humanitarian actor; Romani communities achieving partial recognition under European human rights law; and DAOs being legally incorporated in domestic jurisdictions.

Not all forms of collective organization constitute a Network Sovereignty. Many human groups (e.g., book clubs, fandoms, volunteer collectives, or even coworking spaces) may coordinate action and share norms, but they lack the internal complexity, durability, and infrastructural depth to perform sovereign functions. What distinguishes Network Sovereignties is not mere collaboration, but the institutionalization of authority: they formalize decision-making, enforce boundaries, and manage resources in ways that persist independently of any single node.

In short, Network Sovereignties do not just gather people: they govern them. They generate normative orders that are actionable, enforceable, and recognized internally (and sometimes externally). This capacity for self-rule is what separates a subreddit from a DAO or a mutual aid WhatsApp group from a digital activist network with its own membership rules, treasury, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Stack: An Analytical Framework for Network Sovereignties

While earlier chapters defined the core principles of network sovereignty, this chapter introduces a new diagnostic grammar: the Stack. Adapted from network theory, the Stack offers a structured yet flexible model for analyzing how sovereign power is enacted in distributed systems. Rather than assuming stable hierarchies or fixed institutional forms, it views sovereignty as an emergent property—the outcome of interactions among diverse elements across multiple domains.

In this model, sovereignty is conceptualized as a composite assemblage distributed across five interdependent layers. Each layer represents a distinct yet interconnected domain in which power is exercised, mediated, and challenged. These layers do not function in isolation; they are entangled, dynamic, and often recursive—shaping and reshaping one another over time.

1. Semantic Layer: The shared assumptions, principles, and values that shape collective meaning and legitimacy—structuring how authority is perceived, justified, and contested within the network.
2. Governance Layer: The mechanisms—formal or informal—by which decisions are made, authority is distributed, and rules are created, modified, or enforced within the network.
3. Protocol Layer: The guidelines and procedures that structure and operationalise interactions within the network.
4. Infrastructure Layer: The technical systems – both physical and digital – that shape the connectivity between the nodes—enabling or constraining how power circulates across the network.
5. Material Layer: The ecological substrate – including land, energy, or minerals – that grounds the network’s sovereignty and delimit its capacity to endure, expand, or assert control.

Finally, agents—both human and non-human—move across all layers, assembling, sustaining, or disrupting configurations of sovereign power. These agents might be people, organizations, algorithms, or hybrid entities like DAOs. In this view, sovereignty is not a static attribute but a dynamic process of assembly, constantly negotiated across actors and domains.

So far, we have explored what Network Sovereignties are, the conditions that enable their emergence, the governance functions they perform, and the different configurations they take. Before we dive into a deeper historical analysis of how Network Sovereignties have evolved across eras, it is useful to introduce a common analytical lens.

We propose thinking of every Network Sovereignty as composed of distinct but interdependent layers, what we call “The Stack.” This framework allows us to compare very different forms of sovereign networks, from ancient to contemporary times, by examining how they build collective power through ideas, infrastructures, and social relations.

1. Ideology: The shared assumptions, principles, and values through which members interpret reality and define what the network considers good, important, or sacred.
2. Governance: The systems for making, implementing, and enforcing collective decisions, both within the network and in its external relations.
3. Hard infrastructure: The physical and technological systems enable the network’s operations, from physical meeting spaces to digital communication tools.
4. Soft infrastructure: The cultural protocols, shared languages, rituals, and informal practices that coordinate behavior and sustain group identity.
5. Social fabric: The web of actors, relationships, and collective capacities that binds the network together and enables cooperative action.

ILLUSTRATION

Cartography of Network Sovereignties: Mapping Network Sovereignties: Conceptual Axes

The Sovereign Stack provides a diagnostic grammar for understanding how sovereignty is enacted across layered domains. But to navigate the variety of networked sovereign forms, we also need a cartographic lens—a way of mapping how these assemblages vary along multiple dimensions without reducing them to binaries.

Instead of treating axes like centralized vs. decentralized or open vs. closed as dichotomies, this cartography recognizes each axis as a gradient or field of possibilities. Most network sovereignties inhabit hybrid zones—emerging through recursive processes, shifting their composition over time, and adapting to context and conflict. The following conceptual axes help map their dynamic characteristics.

Emergence: Top-down vs. Bottom-up

It is tempting to assume that Network Sovereignties are naturally bottom-up and democratic. In reality, they emerge through varied pathways. Some, like the Iroquois Confederacy, grew bottom-up, as autonomous nodes gradually aligned around shared purposes, values, or needs, building increasingly organized coordination. Others, like the Catholic Church, were top-down, with central authorities deliberately designing and extending governance structures across distributed networks. In most cases, emergence is hybrid: bottom-up coordination initially forms, later structured or formalized through leadership and institutionalization.

Distribution of Power: Centralised vs. Decentralized

As they mature, Network Sovereignties adopt governance structures that vary along a spectrum of power distribution. Some are centralized, with decision-making concentrated in a dominant node, as in the case of cloud platforms like Amazon Web Services (AWS). Others are decentralized, concentrating authority across several major hubs, like the NGO network Amnesty International. Contrarily, distributed networks like BitTorrent’s file-sharing protocol disperse authority across a mesh of peer nodes without central points of control (Baran, 1964). Polycentricity describes a different dynamic: the coexistence of multiple, independent centers of authority that coordinate, compete, or coexist based on shared norms rather than hierarchical control. Examples include the European Union, where member states retain sovereign authority while participating in shared rule systems (Ostrom et al., 1961; Ostrom, 1972).

Membership Rules: Open vs. closed

Another key question is how easy—or difficult—it is to join these networks. Open networks welcome almost anyone to participate. They prioritize scale and accessibility but often at the cost of coherence, trust density, and resilience against manipulation. Examples include open-source projects, permissionless blockchain communities, and most social media platform ecosystems. Closed networks carefully select their members. Entry may depend on criteria such as ethnicity, religion, invitation, specific skills, shared beliefs, or payment. Religious communities, professional guilds, and private online forums typically operate this way. Although smaller in size, closed networks often foster stronger bonds and a clearer sense of shared purpose (Lashley, 2025).

Relationship to Technology: Tech-centric vs. Community-centric

This axis draws social innovation and technological innovation as an approach to self-governance.

Technological innovation should be understood in relation to the co-occurring social innovation.

Legitimacy: Voice vs. Exit

Locality: Physical vs. Digital

Territoriality: Bounded vs. Unbounded

Mode of Exchange: Transactional vs. Mutualistic

Agent Model: Human-mediated vs Machine-mediated

ILLUSTRATION

Conclusion

---

Old introduction

When Balaji Srinivasan published The Network State in 2022, he argued that online communities could use blockchain technologies to coordinate, crowdfund physical territory, and eventually seek diplomatic recognition from existing states. A Network State, as he envisioned it, would be an ideologically unified community led by a founder-CEO, beginning in the digital realm and materializing physically as a dispersed archipelago of territories linked by digital infrastructure. This vision challenged the conventional notion that sovereignty belongs exclusively to nation-states, and reignited longstanding debates around autonomy, technology, and collective action.

The book quickly became a lightning rod within and beyond the Web3 ecosystem. Proponents hailed it as a bold blueprint for exit-based governance in our networked age. Critics questioned its assumptions about community formation and legitimacy (Zargham et. al, 2023). Others warned it could normalize technocratic elitism, where sovereignty becomes a privilege of the ultra-networked and ultra-wealthy (Schneider et. al, 2023). Beyond its supporters and detractors, many began exploring alternative models such as Network Cities (Hillis, 2023) or Network Nations (De Filippi et. al, 2025), rethinking the meaning and relationship between space, people, and institutions (De Filippi & Beer, 2025).

The Network State is just one thread in a deeper historical tapestry. Across centuries, humans have built Network Sovereignties (i.e., networks of self-governance) beyond the reach of kings, empires, and nation-states—from medieval leagues and diasporic communities to mutual aid societies and digital protocols. Today, with blockchain and AI opening new possibilities for coordination at scale, new kinds of self-governing networks are proliferating: Corporate Platform Sovereigns, Digital Statehood initiatives, and Networked Communities that clash, overlap, and reconfigure the old divides between digital and physical, local and global, public and private power (De Filippi & Beer, 2025).

The rise of Network Sovereignties forces urgent questions about power, exclusion, and political possibility. Who gains agency in these new architectures—and who is left behind? What kinds of futures are being encoded into their infrastructures? These networks could become tools for collective liberation or new instruments of control. Understanding and shaping them is not just an intellectual challenge; it is a political imperative.

In this piece, first in the series Network Sovereignties: Decoding Emerging Protocols of Power, we map this emerging terrain by:

• Defining Network Sovereignties and their key components
• Examining the conditions for their emergence
• Analyzing their possible configurations
• Tracing their evolution through key historical periods
• Exploring how new technologies are reshaping sovereign possibilities and how these contrast with traditional nation-state sovereigns.

As new forms of networked sovereign power take shape, the ways we understand, build, and govern them will define the future of human coordination. This is not just an intellectual challenge: it is a political imperative.

Old Section

As we will explore in depth in the section Historical Examples, Network Sovereignties predate the Internet. They have surfaced repeatedly across history, adapting to shifts in technology and society. Some are open and fluid; others tightly controlled. Some distribute power widely; others concentrate it. Some emerge bottom-up; others are imposed top-down. But they all comprise three components:

The institutional layer of Network Sovereignties is actualized through socio-technical infrastructures rather than through the power of the nation-state. This makes Network Sovereignties “functionally sovereign”: their authority stems not from formal legal systems—domestic or international—nor from a monopoly on force, but from the actual performance of governance functions (Pasquale, 2016).

These functions can be divided into internal and external categories. While governance functions are context-dependent, we list some examples below, beginning with those that structure the community from within.