This article discusses the background and implications of the European Union's concept of digital sovereignty. It points out that due to the unique legal nature of the EU and the ambiguity of the concept of sovereignty, the EU had not previously used the term "sovereignty" to refer to its own power. However, the development of digital technology has prompted the EU to propose the concept of digital sovereignty. In July 2020, a European Parliament document formally introduced the concept of digital sovereignty, defining it as Europe's capacity for independent action in the digital world, which encompasses both protective and offensive functions. Through this concept, the EU combines traditional sovereignty theory with political interests to express its geopolitical vision. This article aims to analyze the institutional construction and practical pathways of digital sovereignty, as well as its applicability and development within traditional sovereignty theory.

1. The Two-Dimensional Institutional Construction of Digital Sovereignty

This section elaborates on the EU's two-dimensional institutional construction strategy for building digital sovereignty. Internally, the EU is committed to integrating the internal market and creating a digital single market. By enacting regulations such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, it aims to foster a trustworthy and fair competitive environment. Simultaneously, laws like the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Governance Act safeguard data rights and promote data flow. Additionally, measures such as investment screening and tax policies protect local enterprises and promote technological research and development. Externally, the EU constructs systems to defend against external threats. It strengthens cybersecurity through the Cybersecurity Act and other measures to resist digital aggression. Initiatives like the Gaia-X project build independent digital infrastructure to reduce asymmetric dependence. Furthermore, through digital diplomacy and other means, the EU promotes its digital rules to expand its influence. These measures reflect the EU's strategic determination in the digital domain, but they also exhibit protectionist tendencies and weaknesses in digital technology dependence.

2. Real-World Challenges in Implementing the Digital Sovereignty System

This section delves into the multiple challenges the EU faces in implementing its digital sovereignty system. On one hand, the EU's protectionist policies sharply conflict with the needs for the free development of the digital market. This protectionist inclination not only restricts the development of the digital single market but also triggers diplomatic tensions and may even lead to the fragmentation of digital space. Moreover, excessive protectionism could foster hegemony and threaten democracy and fundamental human rights. On the other hand, the EU's dependence on digital technology clashes with its goal of pursuing institutional hegemony. Due to long-term insufficient investment in research and development, the EU finds itself at a disadvantage in global digital competition, which limits the construction of its digital single market and affects cybersecurity. Although the EU attempts to enhance its competitiveness through institutional design, the inadequacy of its technological prowess casts doubt on the advancement of its rules, making it difficult to effectively challenge U.S. technological hegemony. These challenges indicate that the EU faces complex obstacles in building digital sovereignty and must seek a balance between protectionism and free markets, and between technological dependence and institutional hegemony.

3. Addressing Challenges and Adjusting Strategies

This section discusses the EU's strategic adjustments in response to challenges during the construction of digital sovereignty. On one hand, the EU seeks a rebalancing between market protection and freedom. Through legislation like the Digital Markets Act, it restricts the monopolistic practices of large digital platforms, protects local enterprises, and strengthens the dominant role of public authority in digital governance. At the same time, it considers the interests of private entities, promoting public-private cooperation under the concept of regulatory mercantilism to maintain fairness and security in the digital single market. On the other hand, the EU enhances its soft power by increasing investment in digital technology, developing digital education, and leveraging its institutional strengths. It uses extraterritorial jurisdiction rules, the Brussels Effect, and soft law to elevate its global influence. Additionally, it actively engages in digital diplomacy and shifts its perspectives on relations with the U.S. and China to achieve digital sovereignty goals and foster new prospects for international cooperation.

4. The Development of Traditional Sovereignty Principles by EU Countermeasures

This section explores how the EU's construction of digital sovereignty extends and develops traditional sovereignty principles. On one hand, EU digital sovereignty inherits the essence of traditional sovereignty, emphasizing internal self-determination and external equality. Through the localization of digital resources and the weaponization of digital institutions, sovereignty principles are manifested in the digital domain. The EU demonstrates both active and passive jurisdiction in the digital field, protecting its legal order through rule-making, regulatory enforcement, and judicial processes. Simultaneously, it emphasizes the importance of control in digital space to ensure autonomy. On the other hand, the practice of EU digital sovereignty promotes a paradigm shift beyond traditional sovereignty, transcending the territorial limitations of sovereignty principles and entering an era of "post-territorial sovereignty," where digital space becomes a new arena for geopolitical competition. Furthermore, the functional transformation of sovereignty principles is reflected in the EU's digital sovereignty practice, with sovereign powers shared and cooperated upon among states, international organizations, and private entities, forming a public-private cooperative governance model that effectively realizes sovereign functions.

5. Conclusion

This section summarizes the significance and impact of the EU's construction of digital sovereignty, emphasizing its role in safeguarding power claims in digital competition, enriching the connotation of sovereignty principles, and promoting the diversification of global digital governance. It calls for member states to cooperate in building digital sovereignty.