A framework for technological sovereignty without being insular

Different components of a technology may require different approaches.

By Arindam Goswami

After the swearing-in of the new US government and especially following the disappointing Paris AI Action Summit outcomes, the concept of technological sovereignty has become a critical policy consideration as artificial intelligence (AI) reshapes global geopolitics. The US has advocated for a US-first strategy, while other nations have capitulated, making it easier for big businesses to flourish, often at the expense of global AI governance.

Traditional Sovereignty vs Technological Sovereignty

Traditional sovereignty has historically focused on territorial control and political autonomy, with autonomy being the key concept. Autonomy has always been somewhat elusive, as nations are inevitably interconnected and dependent on one another. With evolving technologies, these interdependencies shift. Achieving autonomy often involves trade-offs, but nations can retain sovereignty through mutually beneficial contracts and agreements, leveraging asymmetries as bargaining tools. Comparative advantages play a vital role in this process.

Today, however, technological sovereignty is increasingly overshadowing other forms of sovereignty. The pervasiveness of technologies like AI and semiconductors in various sectors, coupled with geopolitical tensions—particularly between China and the US—has brought technology to the forefront of sovereignty discussions. The potential for malicious actors to exploit digital pathways makes technological control an easy and powerful means to project influence, bypassing traditional physical invasions of sovereignty.

Technological Sovereignty

At its core, technological sovereignty reflects a nation’s ability to make independent decisions about its technological and economic development, while safeguarding its citizens' interests. The key components of technological sovereignty can be assessed across several dimensions. The first is control over critical digital infrastructure, such as data centres and telecommunications networks. Second is the domestic capability to develop and deploy critical technologies, including emerging technologies like AI. Third is the regulatory framework governing technology companies and data flows. Lastly, there is the education and research ecosystem, which enables innovation.

A nation’s technological sovereignty can be evaluated by several metrics: the percentage of critical technology infrastructure under domestic control; the presence of competitive domestic tech companies; the sophistication of the national AI research ecosystem; and the strength of regulatory frameworks. Countries may also be assessed on their ability to influence global technical standards and their resilience to technological disruptions.

However, these metrics and dimensions are less important than their unintended consequences. Global supply chains complicate the effectiveness of export controls, making it difficult to assess the true cost-benefit of such actions. Research has shown that immigrants, often contributing to a nation’s research ecosystem, provide unexpected benefits that strengthen a nation’s innovation. Open networks of talent are generally more productive than restrictions on mobility, yet this remains challenging to communicate in the absence of broader geopolitical peace.

Despite these challenges, the push for technological sovereignty must be balanced against the benefits of international cooperation and open innovation. The rules-based international order, though imperfect, has promoted technological progress through shared research, open standards, and cross-border collaboration.

Balancing Trade-offs

Finding a middle ground that acknowledges the need for technological autonomy while encouraging international cooperation is essential. One potential framework would allow countries to retain control over critical technologies while participating in international governance frameworks for others. This framework could operate along two key axes: the criticality of the technology and the governance approach. The four resulting quadrants could be:

1. Strategic Control – Technologies like military AI and core financial systems requiring full sovereign control.

2. Collaborative Innovation – Technologies such as climate tech and healthcare AI, where shared development accelerates progress while maintaining security through robust protocols.

3. Open Market – Consumer applications and general-purpose software, where free-market competition drives innovation.

4. Monitored Access – Public sector technologies, where domestic oversight combines with international vendor participation.

This framework would allow technologies to move dynamically between quadrants as their strategic importance changes. Importantly, it would also acknowledge that different components of a technology may require different approaches. A regular, risk-based assessment would guide policymakers in prioritising resource allocation, creating governance mechanisms, and balancing innovation with security concerns.

For example, while nations may seek domestic chip manufacturing capabilities for critical applications, complete self-sufficiency would be inefficient and possibly unfeasible. Instead, diversified supply chains and international agreements can offer security while preserving the benefits of specialisation.

Interestingly, an interconnected world provides more sovereignty than one where nations are isolated. A diversified ecosystem offers sovereignty through the economics of redundancies.

Big Tech and State Sovereignty

Big tech companies add a new layer of complexity to the technological sovereignty debate. These corporations often possess more advanced technological capabilities than many nations, raising questions about the relationship between corporate and national sovereignty.

The traditional model of state sovereignty may need to evolve to account for these power dynamics. The growing dominance of big tech risks leading to what some might call "AI colonialism," where governments, in pursuit of technological sovereignty, collaborate with major tech firms. This creates a potentially dangerous alliance between state and corporate power, which could undermine genuine national sovereignty and give rise to a form of technological authoritarianism.

A reformed, rules-based order is needed to protect national interests while maintaining international cooperation. This new order should incorporate multilateral frameworks for AI governance that respect national sovereignty but ensure responsible development, transparency, and protections for privacy, free expression, and innovation. International standards for data protection, algorithmic transparency, and cooperation in addressing cyber threats are essential for maintaining a fair and secure technological environment.

Sovereignty of People, not Governments

In discussions of technological sovereignty, the distinction between national sovereignty and the sovereignty of people is often overlooked. Technological control by the state can sometimes conflict with individual rights, such as in the case of digital surveillance. Greater state control over technology does not automatically translate to greater control for citizens, who should be the true sovereigns. If technological sovereignty benefits only a few in power, it becomes a form of elitist control, not genuine sovereignty.

Democratic systems teach us that power is carefully divided between governments and citizens. In a similar way, any framework for technological sovereignty should recognise the need for state control, but also ensure accountability and safeguards to protect citizens' rights. This balanced approach is essential for creating a fair and equitable technological order.

(Arindam Goswami is Research Analyst at The Takshashila Institution, Bangalore, India.)

Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.