@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} } @misc{Flonk, author = {Flonk, Danielle}, title = {Book Review: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power}, series = {Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies}, journal = {Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies}, doi = {10.1177/1354856520918721}, 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} } @phdthesis{Flonk, author = {Flonk, Dani{\"e}lle}, title = {Content control contestations: How and why internet governance norms emerge and develop}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-4203}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-42030}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {147}, abstract = {In the early days of the internet, it was often assumed that the internet would develop into a free and open technology. However, governments have proven to be able to govern the internet, control its content, and develop international content control norms. This dissertation looks at content control from an international norms perspective and asks: How and why do international content control norms emerge and develop? I adopt an analytical eclecticist approach that combines elements from comparative politics and international relations. There are three aspects to this eclectic theory of content control. First, states subscribe to content control norms, which can range from liberal to illiberal norms. States cooperate in the area of content control and promote content control norms. Second, states support content control norms to a different extent because of the democratic or authoritarian values they subscribe to and their internal decision-making procedures, which can lead to conflict. Third, regional and international organizations affect the norm promotion strategies of states. I use both qualitative methods (case studies, content analysis) and quantitative methods (negative binomial hurdle model) to answer the research question. In order to answer the how part of the research question, I analyze two aspects of content control norm development. First, I assess the broader conflicts over norms and institutions in internet governance. I show that these conflicts are dependent on the identities of the actors involved. Second, I analyze the strategies that autocratic states use to push for specific content control norms. I show that institutional structures create opportunities and constraints to their norm promotion strategies. In order to answer the why part of the research question, I zoom in even further by comparing content control practices between democratic and authoritarian regimes. I show that democracies also control content, but mainly security-related content. Hence, content control practices are dependent on the regime type identity of actors and the type of content targeted. This dissertation shows that existing global internet governance models are contested and countermodels are emerging. These developments point towards the beginning of the end of the open and liberal internet order as we know it.}, language = {en} }