@techreport{Obendiek, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {Take back control? Digital sovereignty and a vision for Europe}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-3934}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-39344}, pages = {15}, abstract = {Digital sovereignty has been the buzzword of recent policy debates on digitalization, regulatory policies, and geostrategic positioning in the EU. This policy brief suggests that while the lofty concept of digital overeignty is flawed, the debate points to a key weakness in digital policy: The EU's current approach lacks consistency and vision. The EU needs lasting guiding principles for its regulatory, economic, and normative digital future that form the baseline for any kind of digital decision-making. The EU's commitment to regulation needs to be backed up by heavy public investment. This should establish conditions that foster the development of digital infrastructure, innovation systems, and tools that reflect European values and human rights. Rather than trying to catch up by excluding the outside, the EU should play to its strengths and entrench its position as a normative champion on the global level.}, language = {en} } @article{FlonkJachtenfuchsObendiek, author = {Flonk, Danielle and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?}, series = {Global Constitutionalism}, volume = {9}, journal = {Global Constitutionalism}, number = {2}, issn = {2045-3817}, doi = {10.1017/S2045381720000167}, pages = {364 -- 386}, abstract = {We analyse conflicts over norms and institutions in internet governance. In this emerging field, dispute settlement is less institutionalised and conflicts take place at a foundational level. Internet governance features two competing spheres of authority characterised by fundamentally diverging social purposes: A more consolidated liberal sphere emphasises a limited role of the state, private and multistakeholder governance and freedom of speech. A sovereigntist challenger sphere emphasises state control, intergovernmentalism and push against the preponderance of Western institutions and private actors. We trace the activation and evolution of conflict between these spheres with regard to norms and institutions in four instances: the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), the fifth session of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) and the Budapest Convention of the Council of Europe. We observe intense norm collisions, and strategic attempts at competitive regime creation and regime shifting towards intergovernmental structures by the sovereigntist sphere. Despite these aggressive attempts at creating new institutions and norms, the existing internet governance order is still in place. Hence, authority conflicts in global internet governance do not necessarily lead to fragmentation.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Obendiek, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {Take back control? Digital sovereignty and a vision for Europe}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-45401}, pages = {15}, abstract = {Digital sovereignty has been the buzzword of recent policy debates on digitalization, regulatory policies, and geostrategic positioning in the EU. This policy brief suggests that while the lofty concept of digital sovereignty is flawed, the debate points to a key weakness in digital policy: The EU's current approach lacks consistency and vision. The EU needs lasting guiding principles for its regulatory, economic, and normative digital future that form the baseline for any kind of digital decision-making. The EU's commitment to regulation needs to be backed up by heavy public investment. This should establish conditions that foster the development of digital infrastructure, innovation systems, and tools that reflect European values and human rights. Rather than trying to catch up by excluding the outside, the EU should play to its strengths and entrench its position as a normative champion on the global level.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Obendiek, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {The Risks of Conceptualizing Data as a Silver Bullet in the COVID-19 Pandemic}, abstract = {Suggesting that wide-ranging access to personal data will fix the shortcomings in the liberal countries' pandemic response has significant drawbacks, as Anke Obendiek analyses in her blog post. On the one hand, this idea risks playing into a corporate narrative that advocates technological responses to any social problem - despite limited success. On the other hand, it ignores that, as public actors choose to delegate their responsibilities to private tech companies, increased data access is likely to undermine accountability principles.}, language = {en} } @article{Obendiek, author = {Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {What Are We Actually Talking About? Conceptualizing Data as a Governable Object in Overlapping Jurisdictions}, series = {International Studies Quarterly}, volume = {66}, journal = {International Studies Quarterly}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqab080}, abstract = {Data form an increasingly essential element of contemporary politics, as both public and private actors extend claims of their legitimate control in diverse areas including health, security, and trade. This paper investigates data governance as a site of fundamental normative and political ordering processes that unfold in light of ever-increasing inter- and transnational linkages. Drawing on the concept of jurisdictional conflicts, the paper traces the evolution of data governance in three cases of transatlantic conflicts as diverging definitional claims over data. The paper argues that these conflicts reveal varying conceptualizations of data linked to four distinct visions of the social world. First, a conceptualization of data as an individual rights issue links human rights with the promotion of sovereignty to a vision of data governance as local liberalism. Second, proponents of a security partnership promote global security cooperation based on the conceptualization of data as a neutral instrument. Third, a conceptualization of data as an economic resource is linked to a vision of the digital economy that endorses progress and innovation with limited regulation. Fourth, a conceptualization of data as a collective resource links the values of universal rights and global rules to a vision of global protection.}, language = {en} } @book{Obendiek, author = {Obendiek, Anke}, title = {Data Governance: Value Orders and Jurisdictional Conflicts}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, isbn = {9780192870193}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {304}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Obendiek, author = {Obendiek, Anke S.}, title = {Data Disputes: Jurisdictional Conflicts and the Common Good in the Field of Data Governance}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-37960}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {305}, language = {en} } @article{FlonkJachtenfuchsObendiek, author = {Flonk, Dani{\"e}lle and Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Obendiek, Anke}, title = {Controlling internet content in the EU: towards digital sovereignty}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2024.2309179}, abstract = {We analyse the rhetoric and reality of EU digital sovereignty by looking at content control. The control of online content is central to sovereignty because it relates to fundamental freedoms and democratic competition. Our main data source is the unique International Organizations in Global Internet Governance (IO-GIG) dataset which contains internet policy output documents across international institutions and issue areas between 1995 and 2021. By assessing policy output, we show structural trends in content control output in volume, bindingness, and orientation. By analysing policy discourse, we show the evolution of frames on content control over time. We find evidence for a comprehensive but still ongoing trend towards digital sovereignty in policy output and a shift from prioritising free access to the public order in discourse.}, language = {en} }