(Libertarian) decentralised Web3 map: in search of a post-Westphalian territory

By Prof Dr Igor Calzada, Ikerbasque, the University of the Basque Country | Cardiff University | Decentralization Research Centre

Nation-states have existed since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia (Fassbender, 2011). In fact, Europe can be credited with inventing the nation-state when the principle of fixed territorial integrity and sovereignty was established in this treaty, marking a significant milestone in global governance (Agnew, 2017).

Arendt (1949) made a distinction between nation and state as she traced the rise of statelessness to the decline of the nation-state. She defined the nation as the culture, language, and shared history of the dominant group living in a specific territory, while the state referred to the legal status of individuals residing in that territory and their rights as citizens. Benedict Anderson’s (1983) concept of “imagined communities” builds on Arendt’s distinction, emphasizing that the nation is not a naturally or historically existing entity, but rather a socially constructed one. It is created and imagined by its members through shared narratives, symbols, and rituals. This understanding of the nation as a constructed identity correlates with Hobbes’ (1651) view in Leviathan, where the state arises as a result of a social contract aimed at maintaining order and protecting the lives of individuals within a defined territory. However, Bob Jessop’s (1990) analysis complicates this relationship by highlighting the state’s role as a strategic actor that continually adapts to evolving socio-economic conditions. This suggests that the nation-state is not a static entity, but one that undergoes constant rescaling and restructuring. Kenichi Ohmae (1995) further explores this dynamic, arguing that globalization threatens the existence of the nation-state as economic forces transcend national borders, undermining traditional state sovereignty (Dasgupta, 2018, Koster et al., 2017, Grant, 2018). Scholars like Neil Brenner (2009) and Michael Keating (2020) delve deeper into this rescaling, examining how global and local forces interact to bring about a reconfiguration of state functions and the emergence of new forms of city-regional governance that challenge the Westphalian model of territorial sovereignty (Archer, 2012, Calzada, 2015, FreeSociety, 2018).

From the time of the origins of the modern nation-state, tension arose between the nation and the state regarding the determination of “true” members of a nation. The question was whether individuals living in a (digital) territory should be recognized as citizens with legal rights or excluded as non-citizens. Arendt concluded that there was a lack of effective international or state mechanisms to protect the rights of stateless citizens or minorities. Consequently, nation- states became homogeneous entities with uniform attributes that are familiar today. This included the establishment of nation-state monopolies, such as defence, taxation (Masso, et al. 2024, Gangadharan, 2022, Kotka et al., 2015, Singh, 2019), and law enforcement, which granted governments significant control over the nation’s destiny. In exchange for this authority, a moral promise was made to promote the development of both citizens and the nation, both on a spiritual and material level.

Nowadays, dominant Big Tech firms known as dataopolies (Stucke, 2022, Lehdonvirta, 2022), have assumed functions traditionally associated with nation-states, such as surveillance and cartography. This shift has led to the deterritorialization of digital citizenship. However, contrary to libertarian techno beliefs (Singh, 2019, Srinivasan, 2022), it does not result in the dismantlement of state sovereign structures and dynamics (Amoore, 2016, Calzada, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). The implications of this datafied state developments are significant (Data & Society, 2023), as it raises concerns about data privacy, access, flows, borders, ownership, sovereignty, donation, cooperation, self-determination, trust, ethics, digital rights, AI transparency, algorithmic automation, and ultimately democratic accountability for digital citizenship. Consequently, the current interpretation of the so-called Westphalian nation-state may be transformed.

Alongside these trends, the process of datafication has led to the rescaling of nation-states, thereby undermining their previously privileged position as the sole natural platform and geographic expression of technopolitical power. This rescaling reflects a broader shift in which nation-states are no longer the uncontested arbiters of sovereignty and governance, as digital platforms and city-regional dynamics begin to play more prominent roles. Despite an extensive body of literature on state rescaling, there is a dearth of attempts to further explore the role of nation-states in datafied societies. Consequently, the rescaling process is profoundly reshaping nation-states themselves through various city-regional dynamics that directly impact global institutions and their functional sovereignty (Amin & Thrift, 2016, Calzada, 2015, 2024, Pasquale, 2017, 2018).

In summary, the Westphalian system, established in the seventeenth century to define state sovereignty, has formed the basis of the modern international order. However, it is now facing increasing challenges from globalization, technological advancements, and the rise of transnational governance. Some scholars argue that we are entering a post-Westphalian era, in which the traditional boundaries of state sovereignty are being redefined (Magnusson, 2011; Milward, 1992; Rotberg, 2003; Scott, 1998; Scott et al., 2001; Valverde, 2011; Vergerio, 2021; Vihalemm & Masso, 2002). As emerging technologies become integrated into state functions, governance and sovereignty are being transformed, with data governance playing a crucial role. This raises issues concerning data sovereignty, transparency, and power dynamics between the state, citizens, and data monopolies. Alongside the ongoing rescaling processes of nation-states influenced by cities and regions (Bartlett, 2017; Jonas & Wilson, 2018), a new era of digital citizenship is emerging due to heightened datafication dynamics, particularly accentuated during the pandemic (Bignami et al., 2022; Isin & Ruppert, 2015; Bray, 2020).

However, striking a balance between ontological and methodological research tools that could provide us with a necessary merge in establishing technopolitical and city-regional joint assemblages seems necessary.

The rescaling of nation-states into city-regions is a common topic of debate in political geography and regional studies (Calzada, 2024c), but not in digital geography. The transformation of nation-states has been influenced by digital citizenship, although it is not clear how this rescaling occurs. It is important to not overlook the territorial dimension, as (global) citizenship is influenced by material and contextual living conditions. This is something that libertarians often fail to consider, as they tend to only examine this phenomenon from their own context. It is important to have a nuanced and critical interpretation of this diverse phenomenon. It is not necessary for emerging digital citizenship regimes to be rooted in a specific territory, as each digital citizen may have their own interpretation of what territory means to them. However, as Jessop argued, nation-states and their city-regions are in a state of flux, influenced by the flow of liquid citizenship and exposed to the increasing noise of algorithms.

As emerging digital citizenship regimes evolve alongside the post-Westphalian shift, the concept of citizenship itself is being redefined. Traditional notions of belonging tied to physical territories are giving way to more fluid, decentralized forms of identity and community, facilitated by the rise of digital nomadism (Cook, 2022, D’Andrea, 2006, Kannisto, 2016) and e-diaspora platforms (i.e., www.hanhemen.eus/en/). Particularly, these blockchain-driven platforms enable individuals to maintain their cultural and social ties across borders while engaging in global economic activities, effectively bypassing the constraints of nation-state sovereignty and preserving data privacy through P2P interactions (Calzada, 2023a, 2023b). Actually, the e-diaspora platform seems to be the most feasible manner to start building digital nations that do not necessarily require becoming a new country, as Balaji Srinivasan, tactically and simplistically argued, hiding an ultraliberal globalistic intention to instrumentalize the creation of new states (only) for those who can afford it . Actually, datafied states also seem to be at stake, which in itself shows us that creating new (nation-)states cannot be an idealistic exercise that relies on the liquidity of the digital layer. Network sovereignties seem to be aware of the technopolitical dimension as an opportunity by probably (unconsciously) bypassing the city-regional/territorial dimension. Nations, whatever imagined communities we refer to, require being based on shared cultural, value-driven, and community-based attributes, which is essentially what network states entirely overlook (Srinivasan, 2022).

Instrumentalizing a (globalistic) state resonates not only with the economic elitism that underpins many libertarian ideals but also with a disregard for the complex social and cultural fabric that has historically defined nationhood. Such an approach overlooks the importance of rooted, community-driven governance and the deep-seated connections between people and their physical and cultural environments. By focusing solely on the digital layer and the creation of states for those who can afford to participate, this vision risks exacerbating inequalities and creating exclusive enclaves or sovereign digital islands rather than inclusive communities. In contrast, a more holistic understanding of network sovereignties would recognize the necessity of grounding digital advancements in the realities of human experience, ensuring that the development of digital nations is inclusive, equitable, and reflective of the diverse values and needs of their participants (Calzada, 2018, De Filippi et al., 2024). Only then can these emerging forms of governance truly contribute to reimagining the future of global citizenship in a way that honors both the digital and the tangible aspects of our interconnected world.

A post-Westphalian shift stemming from a libertarian P2P Web3 ethos is attempting to reimagine digital futures and thus challenging the traditional Westphalian model. As such, a counter-reaction against data-opolies is fueling a (global) movement around Web3 decentralized technologies (Edelman, 2022), which advocates decentralization, challenging in a blurred fashion the traditional nation-state structure (Calzada, 2024b). The rise of P2P networks fosters then a new political ethos grounded in decentralization and individual(istic) sovereignty, paradoxically claiming community (national) advancements.

Several platforms have been emerging in this realm: (i) Cabin, (ii) Afropolitan, (iii) Edge City, (iv) Embassy Network, (v) Regen Network, (vi) Burning Man Foundation, (vii) HanHemen e- Diaspora (Calzada, 2023a, 2023b), (vii) e-Estonia residence programme (Masso et al., 2024), and (viii) Social Solver platform.

Furthermore, the convergence of AI and data governance in this context raises new paradigms and platforms questioning the power, the role, and the function of nation-states themselves. Three paradigms can be distinguished:

  1. Network States (Srinivasan, 2022): Digitally-native, decentralized communities that establish their own governance and social contracts, transcending traditional nation- state boundaries through the use of blockchain and other Web3 technologies to create new forms of collective identity and sovereignty.
    1. Crypto-libertarian worldview and market-driven governance through financialization of social relationships.
    2. Critical of statism and highly techno-solutionist.
    3. Aim: To create new countries from scratch (Singh, 2019).
  1. Network Sovereignties/Co-ordinations/Network Nations (De Filippi, 2024): Emerging forms of decentralized governance where communities assert collective sovereignty through blockchain networks and decentralized technologies, challenging the traditional, centralized authority of nation-states by creating fluid, transnational digital
    1. Commons-centric worldwide and based on public goods (Ostrom, 1990; Fritsch et al., 2021)
    2. Critical of market radicalism and
    3. Aim: To allow digital nations to be established using blockchain, not necessarily becoming a state.
  2. Algorithmic Nations (Calzada, 2018, 2022d, Calzada & Bustard, 2022): New political entities where governance and citizenship are increasingly mediated and shaped by algorithms, data-driven technologies, and digital platforms, leading to a reconfiguration of nation-state sovereignty and the emergence of techno-political and city-regional governance structures that operate beyond traditional territorial boundaries.
    1. Transnational worldwide by allowing self-determination of existing communities and groups, culturally-rooted although not necessarily dependent on physical land but necessarily on community development.
    2. Critical to market radicalism and statism by allowing transnational co- operativism and emancipatory by design, as the third way to cooperate with other algorithmic nations.
    3. Aim: Either to empower (i) existing national communities, (ii) indigenous/native communities (Utrata, 2024), (iii) e-diaspora associations/settlements or to allow emerging digital citizenship regimes embodied through digital nomadism to flourish to self-organize themselves and, if desired, creating or not a state (Carroll et al., 2019; Catalan DAO, 2022, Jimenez & Garai-Artetxe, 2023, Kukutai & Cormack, 2020, Lynch, 2020, Noveck, 2017, Poblet, 2018, Senor & Singer, 2011, Walter et al., 2021).

Unlike Network States, which aim to create entirely new countries driven by a crypto-libertarian ethos, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations may not only coexist but also complement each other. Stemming from an Arendtian inspiration, Algorithmic Nations emphasize the emancipatory potential for existing communities, such as indigenous groups and e-diasporas, to achieve self-determination and sovereignty through data-driven governance for minorities. This culturally rooted approach aligns with the commons-centric focus of Network Sovereignties, creating a synergistic relationship that empowers communities to decide their own political futures, whether that involves establishing a new state or simply asserting their digital rights and autonomy. Together, these paradigms offer a nuanced pathway toward sovereignty that respects both individual and collective agency. Whereas Network Sovereignties focused on a commons-centric worldview, Algorithmic Nations evolving from the current circumstances, attempt to offer an emancipatory Arendtian pathway for those that collectively aim to reinforce a (digital) nation, or even become a (pluri- national) state that embraces digital justice and an internationalist worldview driven by solidarity. Rights should be secured all the time through an emancipatory worldview to allow such a commons worldview to flourish.

Against this backdrop, however, debates around sovereignty are still stuck in the Westphalian mindset. In order to challenge these assumptions, the SOAM Residence programme has been established around Network Sovereignties with the guidance and participation of an interesting group of scholars and changemakers. Additionally, the Research Workshop and Public Conference organized by the BlockchainGov ERC project, creatively led by Dr. Primavera De Filippi, during the Edge Esmeralda event in Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California, titled ‘Exploring Coordi-Nations & Network Sovereignties’, fostered fruitful interaction among a community of entrepreneurs, activists, and scholars. This event established an interesting Web3 ecosystem of non-state stakeholders who advocate for the use of emerging and decentralized technologies such as blockchain, DAOs (Dupont, 2017), and data cooperatives (Calzada 2023a). Furthermore, the role played by the Decentralization Research Centre is key in connecting with flagship projects including Project Liberty and MetaGov. The author had the great opportunity to carry out this international fieldwork research, which is being shared through this blog and will be presented at the Royal Geographic Society RGS-IBG Annual International Conference in London, specifically on the topic Digital Territories related to the Regional Futures ERC project led by Professor Ayona Datta. Additionally, further results will be disseminated in the Summer School AI4SI: Artificial Intelligence for Social Innovation? Beyond the Noise of Datafication and Algorithms, which the author is directing. This Summer School aims to stimulate challenging debates on the role of Web3, AI, and decentralized technologies including blockchain, DAOs, and data co-operatives in re-interpreting state technopolitical structures and digital dynamics by intertwining the Global South and the Global North necessary alliances to achieve a better fit for the inclusion of digital justice in the global governance realm.

In conclusion, as we navigate the intersection of technological innovation and global governance, the libertarian decentralized Web3 ethos offers a provocative vision of post- Westphalian futures, yet it is one that warrants critical scrutiny given that it might be a map in search of territory (Korzybski, 1933). The rescaling of nation-states and the emergence of network states reflect a growing trend towards decentralization, but this shift also risks reinforcing ultra-liberal ideologies that prioritize individualism and market-driven solutions over collective well-being and the view of the commons. Libertarianism seems unable to observe the state as anything but control-obsessed and rent-seeking dysfunctional Leviathan. While decentralized technologies have the potential to empower individuals and communities, they also pose significant dangers by potentially deepening inequalities, echo-chambers, and eroding the social and cultural foundations that have traditionally bound nations together. The vision of network states, driven by a libertarian ethos, often overlooks the importance of inclusive, community-driven governance and risks creating exclusive digital enclaves for the wealthy and privileged (Mannan & Schneider, 2021). To reimagine digital futures in a way that truly benefits all global citizens, it is essential to challenge these narratives and advocate for a more equitable and holistic approach to digital governance—one that recognizes the value of solidarity, digital justice, and the diverse needs of global communities through network nations or algorithmic nations. And thus, the Web3 ethos relatively requires a territory, a hybrid one, beyond global citizenship flatness and embracing a vast diversity and richness in a spiky world full of culture, life, and good vibes without denying how states and nations play out their techno-political action and how their political economy could be fairly transformed (Polanyi, 2001). Although being realistic in terms of acknowledging the historic path-dependency and to reshuffle it without losing perspective being trapped in wishful thinking (DuPont, 2023, Morozov, 2022). The post-Westphalian digital futures we seek should not merely reflect the ambitions of the few but must be rooted in the collective aspirations and rights of the many. And yet, the Web3 global ecosystem seems to be a map in search of territory.

 

To cite this publication:

  1. Calzada, I. (2024) (Libertarian) Decentralized Web3 Map: In Search of a Post-Westphalian Territory. Global Governance Programme EUI. ERC Blockchain Gov. Available at: https://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.eu/new-network-sovereignties-the-rise-of-non-territorial-states/ Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/105281/zenodo.13370991 SSRN DOI: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4937294
  2. Ikerbasque (Basque Foundation for Science) and the University of the Basque Country [Spain]
  3. Cardiff University, WISERD [UK]
  4. Decentralization Research Centre [Canada]

REFERENCES

  1. DOI:10.1080/13621025.2022.2026565.
  • Calzada, I. (2022b). Emerging Digital Citizenship Regimes: Pandemic, Algorithmic, Liquid, Metropolitan, and Stateless Citizenships. Citizenship Studies 27(2), 160-188. DOI:10.1080/13621025.2021.2012312.
  • Calzada, I. (2022c). Emerging Digital Citizenship Regimes: Postpandemic Technopolitical Democracies. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, Emerald Points Series. ISBN: 9781803823324. DOI:10.1108/9781803823317.
  • Calzada, I. (2022d). Postpandemic Technopolitical Democracy: Algorithmic Nations, Data Sovereignty, Digital Rights, and Data Cooperatives. In Zabalo, J., Filibi, I., & Escacedo, L. (Ed) Made-to-Measure Future(s) for Democracy? Views from the Basque Atalaia. Cham: Springer. ISBN: 978-3-031-08607-6. Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08608-3. DOI: 10.1007/978-3- 031-08608-3_6. pp. 97-117.
  • Calzada, I. (2018). Algorithmic Nations: Seeing Like a City-Regional and Techno-Political Conceptual Assemblage. Regional                             Studies,          Regional          Science 5(1):         267-289. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2018.1507754.
  • Calzada, I. (2015). Benchmarking Future City-Regions beyond Nation-States. Regional Studies Regional Science 2(1): 350-361. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2015.1046908.
  • Carroll, S. R., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., & Martinez, A. (2019). Indigenous data governance: Strategies from United States native nations. Data Science Journal, 18(1), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-031
  • Catalan DAO. (2022). Manifest de la CatalanDAO v1. Web. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://catalandao.cat/
  • Cook, D. (2022). Breaking the Contract: Digital Nomads and the State. Critique of Anthropology, 42(3), 304-323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X221120172
  • D’Andrea, A. (2006). Neo‐Nomadism: A Theory of Post‐Identitarian Mobility in the Global Age.
  • Mobilities, 1(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100500489148
  • Dasgupta, R. (2018). The demise of the nation state. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta
  • Data & Society (2023). Keywords of the Datafied State. Retrieved from https://datasociety.net/library/keywords-of-the-datafied-state/
  • De Filippi, P., Mannan, M., & Reijers, W. (2020). Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenge of governance. Technology in Society, 62(101284), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101284.
  • De Filippi, P., Reijers, W., & Mannan, M. (2024). Blockchain Governance. Boston: MIT Press. Koster, M., Jaffe, R., & de Koning, A. (2017). Citizenship Agendas In and Beyond the Nation-State:
  • (En)countering Framings of the Good Citizen. Oxon: Routledge.
  • DuPont, Q. (2023). A Progressive Web3: From Social Coproduction to Digital Polycentric Governance (January 9,                                      2023).                  Available                   at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4320959 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4320959
  • DuPont, Q. (2017). Experiments in algorithmic governance: A history and ethnography of ‘The DAO,’ a failed decentralized autonomous organization. In Malcolm Campbell-Verduyn, Bitcoin and Beyond: Cyptocurrencies, Blockchains, and Global Governance. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Edelman, G. (2022). The Web3 Movement’s Quest to Build a ‘Can’t Be Evil’. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/web3-paradise-crypto-arcade/
  • Fassbender, B. (2011). Peace of Westphalia (1648). Oxford Public International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e739
  • FreeSociety (2018). We are purchasing sovereignty from a government to create the world’s first Free Society. Retrieved May 23, 2018, from www.freesociety.com
  • Fritsch, F., Emmett, J., Friedman, E., Kranjc, R., Manski, S., Zargham, M. & Bauwens, M. (2021). Challenges and Approaches to Scaling the Global Commons. Frontiers in Blockchain. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/blockchain/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2021.578721/full
  • Gangadharan, S. P. (2022). The Nation as an Algorithm: Making and Unmaking Digital States. Media and Communication, 10(1), 17-30.
  • Grant, M. L. (2018). Can the Nation State Survive? Retrieved May 8, 2018, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/twt/can-nation-state-survive
  • Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan, or the matter, forme, and power of a commonwealth ecclesiasticall and civil. London: Andrew Crooke.
  • Isin, E. & Ruppert, E. (2015). Being Digital Citizens. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Jessop, B. (1990). State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place. Cambridge: Polity Press. Jiménez, A., & Garai-Artetxe, E. (2023). The Catalan Digital Republic: Between Nation Branding and
  • Nation Building. Ethnopolitics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2023.2275883
  • Jonas, A. E. B. & Wilson, D. (2018). The Nation-State and The City: Introduction to A Debate. Urban Geography. 1–3.
  • Kannisto, P. (2016). Global Nomads and Extreme Mobilities. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Keating, M. (2020). Beyond the Nation-State: Territory, Solidarity, and Welfare in a Multiscalar Europe. Territory,  Politics, Governance, 9(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1742779
  • Korzybski, A. (1933). A Map Is Not The Territory. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
  • Kotka, T., Vargas, C. I., & Korjus, K. (2015). Estonian e-Residency: Redefining the Nation-State in the Digital Era. Working Paper Series. Oxford: Cyber Studies Programme.
  • Kukutai, T., & Cormack, D. (2020). “Pushing the space”: Data Sovereignty and Self-Determination in Aotearoa NZ. In M. Walter, T. Kukutai, S. R. Carroll, & D. Rodriguez-Lonebear (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty and policy (pp. 21–35). Routledge.
  • Lalka, R. (2024). The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits into Power. Columbia Business School Publishing.
  • Lehdonvirta, V. (2022). Cloud Empires: How Digital Platforms Are Overtaking the State and How We Can Regain Control. Boston: MIT Press.
  • Lynch, C. R. (2020). Contesting Digital Futures: Urban Politics, Alternative Economies, and the Movement for Technological Sovereignty in Barcelona. Antipode, 52(3), 660–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12522
  • Magnusson, W. (2011). Politics of Urbanism: Seeing Like a City. New York: Routledge.
  • Mannan, M. & Schneider, N. (2021). Exit to Community: Strategies for Multi-Stakeholder Ownership in the Platform Economy. Georgetown Law Technology Review 5(1), 1-71.
  • Masso, A., Kasapoglu, T., Tammpuu, P. & Calzada, I. (2024). Datafied Control and Selection of Digital Identity: Estonian e-Residency as ‘Citizenship by Connection’. Zenodo. DOI: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.12666718.
  • Mathew, A. J. (2016). The Myth of the Decentralised Internet. Internet Policy Review, 5(3). https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/myth-decentralised-internet
  • Milward, A. S. (2000). The European Rescue of the Nation-State. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Morozov, E. (2022). Web3: A Map in Search of Territory. Available at: https://the-crypto- syllabus.com/web3-a-map-in-search-of-territory/
  • Noveck, B. S. (2017). Rights-based and tech-driven: Open data, freedom of information, and the future of government transparency. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 19, Article 1. Rotberg, Robert L. (2003). The Failure and Collapse of Nation-States. Princeton: Princeton University
  • Press.
  • Ohmae, K. (1995). The End of the Nation-State: the Rise of Regional Economies. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.
  • Ohlhaver, P., Weyl, E. G. & Buterin, V. (2022), Decentralized Society: Finding Web3’s Soul. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4105763 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4105763
  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pasquale, F. (2018). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  • Pasquale, F. (2017). From Territorial to Functional Sovereignty: The Case of Amazon. Available at: https://lpeproject.org/blog/from-territorial-to-functional-sovereignty-the-case-of-amazon/
  • Poblet, M. (2018). Distributed, Privacy-Enhancing Technologies in the 2017 Catalan Referendum on Independence: New Tactics and Models of Participatory Democracy. First Monday. https://lpeproject.org/blog/from-territorial-to-functional-sovereignty-the-case-of-amazon/
  • Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Scott, A., Agnew, J., Soja, E.W. & Storper, M. (2001). Global City-Regions. In Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policy, edited by A. Scott, 11–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Senor, D., & Singer, S. (2011). Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. London: Random House.
  • Singh, R. (2019). Give Me a Database and I Will Raise the Nation-State. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 42(3), 501-518. Doi: 10.1080/00856401.2019.1602810.
  • Srinivasan, B. (2022). The Network State: How to Start a New Country. www.thenetworkstate.com Stucke, M. (2022) Breaking Away: How to Regain Control Over Our Data, Privacy, and Autonomy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Tucker, A. & Piero de Bellis, G. (2016). Panarchy: Political Theories of Non-Territorial States. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Utrata, A. (2024) Engineering Territory: Space and Colonies in Silicon Valley. American Political Science Review. 2024;118(3):1097-1109. doi:10.1017/S0003055423001156
  • Valverde, M. (2011). Seeing Like a City: The Dialectic of Modern and Premodern Ways of Seeing in Urban Governance. Law & Society Review, 45(2), 277–312.
  • Vergerio,          C.          (2021)          Beyond          the          Nation-State.          Available          at: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/beyond-the-nation-state/
  • Walter, M., Lovett, R., Maher, B., Williamson, B., Prehn, J., Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Lee, V. (2021). Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the Era of Big Data and Open Data. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.141

 

Funding Acknowlegement:

This research was funded by (i) European Commission, Horizon 2020, H2020-MSCA-COFUND-2020-101034228- WOLFRAM2: Ikerbasque Start Up Fund, 3021.23.EMAJ; (ii) UPV-EHU, Research Groups, IT 1263-19 and IT 1541-22; (iii) Ayuda en Acción NGO, Innovation & Impact Unit, Research Contract: Scientific Direction and Strategic Advisory, Social Innovation Platforms in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (www.socialsolver.org accessed on 1 July 2024) and AI for Social Innovation. Beyond the Noise of Algorithms and Datafication Summer School Scientific Direction, 2-3 September 2024, Donostia-St. Sebastian, Spain (https://www.uik.eus/en/activity/artificial-intelligence-social-innovation-ai4si accessed on 1 July 2024), PT10863; (iv) Presidency of the Basque Government, External Affairs General Secretary, Basque Communities Abroad Direction, Scientific Direction and Strategic Advisory e-Diaspora Platform HanHemen (www.hanhemen.eus/en accessed on 1 July 2024), PT10859; (v) European Commission, Horizon Europe, ENFIELD-European Lighthouse to Manifest Trustworthy and Green AI, HORIZON-CL4-2022-HUMAN-02-02-101120657, https://www.enfield-project.eu/about. Invited Professor at BME, Budapest University of Technology and Economics (Hungary) (https://www.tmit.bme.hu/speechlab?language=en); (vi) Gipuzkoa Province Council, Etorkizuna Eraikiz 2024: AI’s Social Impact in the Historical Province of Gipuzkoa (AI4SI). 2024-LAB2-007-01. www.etorkizunaeraikiz.eus/en/ and https://www.uik.eus/eu/jarduera/adimen-artifiziala-gizarte-berrikuntzarako-ai4si; (vii) Warsaw School of Economics SGH (Poland) by RID LEAD, Regional Excellence Initiative Programme (https://rid.sgh.waw.pl/en/grants-0 and https://www.sgh.waw.pl/knop/en/conferences-and-seminars-organized-by-the-institute-of-enterprise   and https://www.sgh.waw.pl/knop/en/conferences-and-seminars-organized-by-the-institute-of-enterprise; (viii) SOAM Residence Programme: Network Sovereignties (Germany) via BlockchainGov (www.soam.earth); (ix) Decentralization Research Centre (Canada) (www.thedrcenter.org/fellows-and-team/igor-calzada/); (x) The Learned Society of Wales (LSW) 524205; (xi) Fulbright Scholar-In-Residence (S-I-R) Award 2022-23, PS00334379 by the US–UK Fulbright Commission and IIE, US Department of State at the California State University; (xii) the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) ES/S012435/1 “WISERD Civil Society: Changing Perspectives on Civic Stratification/Repair”. Views and opinions expressed however those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect those of these institutions. None of them can be held responsible for them.