Digital sovereignty, particularly in the context of national digital identity systems, is widely understood as the reimagining of state authority within borderless digital infrastructures. National digital identities, which provide verifiable credentials for accessing public services, have become key mechanisms for asserting sovereignty amid geopolitical shifts, technological disruption, and data governance concerns. While broadly defined as state control over data, governance, and enabling technologies (Ivic & Troitiño, 2022), digital sovereignty remains a highly fragmented and contested concept. Rather than a fixed or neutral idea, it is increasingly framed as a fluid political project, strategically deployed to pursue authority over digital infrastructures while still invoking traditional notions of control and self-determination (Prasad, 2022; Ivic & Troitiño, 2022). These conceptual tensions shape the development of national digital identity systems across different political, legal, and technological contexts.

—

Digital sovereignty has emerged throughout academic and political discourse over the past decade as a concept centred on reimagining state authority within borderless digital infrastructures amidst geopolitical shifts, technological disruption and growing concerns over data governance.

However, while notions of sovereignty across the literature is strongly tied to terms such as digital, data, and technology — all implying some degree of control — "their precise meaning and use can diverge significantly" (Prasad, 2022; Couture & Toupin, 2019; Hummel et al., 2021).

At it’s broadest, digital sovereignty is conceptualised through the literature as control over control over data, computing power, and secure connectivity by users, corporations, social and political movements, and national governments (Couture & Toupin, 2019; Floridi, 2020; Hummel, Braun, Tretter, & Dabrock, 2021; Pohle & Thiel, 2020).

At the same time, in the context of nation-states, digital sovereignty is used “a concept loaded with legal and political connotations” (Ivic & Troitiño, 2022), which “defends” nation state identity and values through protectionist measures imposed by national governments on the operation of digital technologies within the state's physical territory, such as data localisation and content filtering (Prasad, 20220; Budnitsky, 2022; Ivic & Troitiño, 2022).

In simple terms, digital sovereignty refers to a state's control over digital resources—like data, technologies, infrastructure, and users' digital lives—within its borders. But this extract argues that it’s more than just control: it’s a complex, ongoing project of asserting power, with deep parallels to how land and people were historically claimed and governed.

While often reduced to questions of control over data, infrastructure, and platforms, digital sovereignty is more accurately seen as a political and strategic project. Its application varies widely depending on national ideologies, governance models, and geopolitical priorities.

Impact of the lack of clarity: This lack of conceptual clarity raises questions about the EU’s specific goals throughout the literature but it does makes it clear that digital sovereignty is intertwined with political systems and ideological persuasions to deploy digital technologies to bolster sovereign power.

difficult for the EU to gain support for and successfully implement ,,a clear policy agenda“.

• How national governments employ the language of digital sovereignty reflects their ideological commitments - It illuminates the reality that governments of all political systems and ideological persuasions deploy digital technologies to bolster sovereign power.
• India’s model frames digital sovereignty as a state project, using data localization and biometric identity (e.g., Aadhaar) to consolidate state power over individuals
• Ivic & Troitiño suggest that Digital sovereignty should not be defined by fixed borders; instead, it should be defined as something that can be held across political communities and spatial networks.” (2022)
• Budnitsky, 2022 goes one step further in offering a definition in response to this ambiguity, conceptualising digital sovereignty more expansively as statecraft in the field of ICTs, including ICT-related official narratives, law and policymaking, education, infrastructure, bureaucracy, diplomacy, and other institutionalized domains in domestic and foreign affairs. This conceptualization transcends the persistent analytical binary of democratic and authoritarian approaches to digital governance. It illuminates the reality that governments of all political systems and ideological persuasions deploy digital technologies to bolster sovereign power.

How it links to digital identity…