<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>3592</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>364</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>386</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-09-24</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists?</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Global Constitutionalism</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1017/S2045381720000167</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">2045-3817</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Danielle Flonk</author>
    <submitter>Louisa Finke</submitter>
    <author>Markus Jachtenfuchs</author>
    <author>Anke S. Obendiek</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>contested multilateralism</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>internet governance</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>norm collisions</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>sovereignty</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Jacques Delors Centre</collection>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Publications PhD Researchers</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3934</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>15</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>workingpaper</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2021-05-12</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Take back control? Digital sovereignty and a vision for Europe</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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&#13;
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.</abstract>
    <identifier type="doi">10.48462/opus4-3934</identifier>
    <identifier type="url">https://www.delorscentre.eu/de/publikationen/detail/publication/take-back-control-digital-sovereignty-and-a-vision-for-europe</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-39344</identifier>
    <enrichment key="SeriesUncollect">JDC / Policy Paper</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Anke S. Obendiek</author>
    <submitter>Andrea Derichs-Carlin</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Jacques Delors Centre</collection>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Policy Papers</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/files/3934/210511_Obendiek_Digital-Sovereignty.pdf</file>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3796</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>305</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>doctoralthesis</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2021-03-26</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>2020-11-16</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Data Disputes: Jurisdictional Conflicts and the Common Good in the Field of Data Governance</title>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-37960</identifier>
    <note>Shelf mark: 2021D006 + 2021D006+1</note>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <advisor>Markus Jachtenfuchs</advisor>
    <author>Anke S. Obendiek</author>
    <submitter>Christopher Landes</submitter>
    <advisor>Frédéric Mérand</advisor>
    <advisor>Tine Hanrieder</advisor>
    <series>
      <title>Dissertations submitted to the Hertie School</title>
      <number>06/2021</number>
    </series>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Jacques Delors Centre</collection>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Publications PhD Researchers</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
    <thesisGrantor>Hertie School</thesisGrantor>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4540</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>15</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>workingpaper</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2022-10-28</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Take back control? Digital  sovereignty and a vision for Europe</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <identifier type="url">https://www.delorscentre.eu/de/publikationen/detail/publication/take-back-control-digital-sovereignty-and-a-vision-for-europe</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-45401</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Anke S. Obendiek</author>
    <submitter>Margaud Caille</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>digital sovereignty</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>digital future</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>geopolitics</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Policy Papers</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/files/4540/Policy-Paper_Obendiek.pdf</file>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4541</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>workingpaper</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation>SCRIPTS Cluster of Excellence</contributingCorporation>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2022-10-28</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The Risks of Conceptualizing Data as a Silver Bullet in the COVID-19 Pandemic</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <identifier type="url">https://www.scripts-berlin.eu/blog/Blog-31-The-risks-of-conceptualizing-data-as-a-silver-bullet-in-the-COVID-19-pandemic/index.html</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Anke S. Obendiek</author>
    <submitter>Margaud Caille</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Jacques Delors Centre</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4546</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2022</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>66</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2022-10-28</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">What Are We Actually Talking About? Conceptualizing Data as a Governable Object in Overlapping Jurisdictions</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Studies Quarterly</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/isq/sqab080</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Anke S. Obendiek</author>
    <submitter>Margaud Caille</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Jacques Delors Centre</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
</export-example>
