{"id":26258,"date":"2025-09-29T17:19:47","date_gmt":"2025-09-29T15:19:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=26258"},"modified":"2025-09-29T17:19:47","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T15:19:47","slug":"call-for-reflections-digital-empires","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/call-for-reflections-digital-empires\/","title":{"rendered":"Call for reflecti\u00d6ns on \u201cDigital Empires\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since the start of the second Trump presidency, the geopolitical tensions surrounding the regulation of the digital sphere have reached new heights. European regulation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), is described as an instrument of censorship<\/a> by the Vice President of the United States. This piece of legislation was recently also portrayed <\/a>as a “threat to American free speech and innovation”. In the same vein, antitrust law is labelled as an anti-American measure<\/a> that requires a \u201cstrong\u201d answer in the form of punitive tariffs. Reportedly<\/a>, the enforcement of the DSA and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is the most controversial \u2013 and still unresolved \u2013 issue in the trade negotiations between the EU and the US. EU Commission President von der Leyen<\/em> even used the opportunity of her State of the Union speech<\/a> to refer explicitly to digital regulation when she emphasized that Europe sets its \u201cown standards [\u2026 and] regulations\u201d, and that it \u201cwill always decide for itself\u201d.<\/p>\n

In addition to the massive criticism of European regulation, the use of digital technologies tomonitor, suppress and persecute the people in the US is another hallmark of the current Trump administration.\u00a0 It is in particular the collection and merging of data about all American citizens and, especially, immigrants in one central database which has been classified as an \u201cAI coup<\/a>\u201d paving the way to a \u201cnew fascism<\/a>\u201d. Thus, it is a very distinct business-friendly and increasingly anti-democratic model of the digital transformation which unfolds in the US.<\/p>\n

While the EU and the US are engaging in this battle for the regulatory dominance in the digital sphere with increasingly different models of digital governance, China is becoming more and more powerful. Be it in the production <\/a>of chips and semiconductors, the \u201cDigital Silk Road<\/a>\u201d as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, or the development of AI systems such as DeepSeek<\/a>, China has demonstrated how the export of infrastructure can leverage influence over foreign actors. This further reflects <\/a>Chinese government\u2019s desire to emerge as the “world\u2019s leading technology superpower”.<\/p>\n

It is precisely the conflict between these three stakeholders, China, the US, and the EU, which Anu Bradford <\/em>describes extensively in her highly-acclaimed 2023 book Digital Empires<\/a>. She sketches the global landscape of digital governance through the lens of three \u201cempires\u201d, describing their distinct approaches to digital regulation: the United States (US) with a market-driven, China with a state-driven, and the European Union (EU) with a rights-driven approach. Each of these \u201cempires\u201d engages in \u201chorizontal battles\u201d (with each other) and \u201cvertical battles\u201d (with the tech companies). Now, roughly two years after its publication, we decided to enter into a cooperation<\/a> with the open access Zeitschrift f\u00fcr ausl\u00e4ndisches \u00f6ffentliches Recht und V\u00f6lkerrecht (Za\u00f6RV)\/Heidelberg Journal of International Law (HJIL) to jointly review Bradford\u2019s assumptions, analyses, and conclusions. The aim of this cooperation is to re-read \u201cDigital Empires\u201d in the light of the developments of the last two years, to apply its analytical lens to current situations, and also identify potential weaknesses and gaps.<\/p>\n

To this end, we combine a \u201ctraditional\u201d book review symposium in the Za\u00f6RV with our own reflecti\u00d6ns<\/a> format. The latter allows for quick publication and direct interaction with your peers\u2019 thoughts and comments, encouraging formats beyond the usual (and also very much welcome) form of written texts. For example, we explicitly invite audio and video contributions, e.g. recorded comments or conversations. Furthermore, its open-ended character allows for the publication of reviews not only from a particular moment in time, but on an ongoing basis. Hereby, Bradford\u2019s analytical framework can be tested against new use cases and developments.<\/p>\n

The kick-off of this conversation is taking place in the most recent issue of the Za\u00f6RV, where Stefania di Stefano<\/em><\/a>, Amnon Reichman<\/em> and Kai Purnhagen<\/em><\/a>, and Erik Tuchtfeld<\/em><\/a>, reviewed Anu Bradford\u2019s piece from three different perspectives, followed by a response from her<\/a>. Each of the three reviews has a different focus:<\/p>\n

Stefania di Stefano<\/em> analyzes the strategic use of horizontal and vertical battles by technology companies for their own benefit, in particular in light of the recent alignment with the deregulatory approach of the second Trump administration. Using Meta as a case study, she shows how the company has for a long time actively endorsed public regulation, with Mark Zuckerberg stating <\/a>explicitly that he does not think \u201cprivate companies should be making so many important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values\u201d. This, however, has changed radically in the past months. By now, he labels such regulation as \u201claws institutionalising censorship\u201d. This strategy, she argues, weakens both the EU\u2019s rights-driven and the US\u2019 market-driven approach and supports, ultimately, China\u2019s state-driven strategy.<\/p>\n

Erik Tuchtfeld<\/em> contrasts Bradford\u2019s rather optimistic outlook in 2023, as she envisaged further alignment of the European and the US approach, with the authoritarian shift of the past months. Not least against the backdrop of this worrisome development, he argues for more attention to regulatory developments beyond the \u201cthree empires\u201d, in particular for developments in the Global South, and points, as examples, to Brazil\u2019s efforts to subjugate X (formerly Twitter) to its own regulatory framework and India\u2019s pioneering project of developing digital public infrastructure to reduce dependencies on Big Tech.<\/p>\n

Lastly, Amnon Reichman<\/em> and Kai Purnhagen<\/em> emphasize the challenges the EU\u2019s right-based approach is facing at the moment. Due to the costs and uncertainty of regulation and the increasing competition between different regional markets, it is mandatory to convince citizens and companies of the added value of the \u201cEuropean way\u201d. This could be, for example, the legal protection against the extraction of (personal) data by US companies, a practice they label as \u201cdata colonialism\u201d. The very same regulations are, however, increasingly under pressure because they unfold effects beyond European borders and, thus, could be labelled as a \u201cnew form of colonialism – not centred on data extraction, but rather on the imposition of legal frameworks\u201d.<\/p>\n

We\u2019d like to invite further contributions that pick up on the themes which are already raised in these reviews, or address novel questions, bringing additional perspectives to the table. Possible questions for further reviews include but not limited to:<\/p>\n