On the Way to BRICS+ Digital Sovereignty: Opportunities and Challenges of a New Era
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2024-11-3-54-69
Abstract
A new era for BRICS has begun with the desire of new countries to join BRICS. This expansion, the BRICS+, poses several challenges and opportunities for the renewed alliance, particularly concerning the digital sovereignty of the countries. On the one hand, the leading five BRICS nations have the potential to achieve digital sovereignty, earning the moniker “the hawks of digital sovereignty.” On the other hand, expanding BRICS membership to countries with varying levels of digitalization raises issues for the alliance. These include improving national legislation on digital sovereignty and defining actions to foster cooperation within BRICS+. This article aims to design a theoretical legal model for BRICS+ digital sovereignty, outlining its pillars and offering recommendations for achieving digital sovereignty within BRICS+. The comparative legal method, used to analyze regulations in digitalization and digital sovereignty among BRICS+ member countries, ensures a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape. Retrospective analysis, which studied the development of BRICS+ regulations in these areas, provides a historical context. The systematic method, which examined legal tools and instruments that contribute to achieving digital sovereignty, ensures a thorough exploration. The content analysis allowed for the interpretation of news articles and social media sources related to BRICS+ digital sovereignty, adds a contemporary perspective. The authors conclude that achieving digital sovereignty for BRICS+ is possible and offer several recommendations for collaboration, including developing a BRICS+ digital sovereignty memorandum, launching a BRICS+ regulatory sandbox, and deploying a BRICS+ sovereign cloud. These recommendations can inform BRICS+ policy-making, contribute to the limited literature in this field, and serve as a basis for future research on BRICS+ digital sovereignty.
About the Authors
E. Gromova
National Research University South Ural State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elizaveta Gromova – Associate Professor, Department of Business, Competition and Ecological Law
78 Lenina Ave., Chelyabinsk, 454082
D. Brantes Ferreira
Kazan Innovative University named after V.G. Timiryasov; AMBRA University (Orlando, USA)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daniel Brantes Ferreira – Senior Researcher, Institute of Digital Technologies and Law; Professor
42 Moskovskaya St., Kazan, 420111
References
1. Abouahmed A. et al. Personal Data Protection in the United Arab Emirates and the European Union Regulations, 13(1) Journal of Governance & Regulation 195 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv13i1art17
2. Becerra M. & Waisbord S.R. The Curious Absence of Cybernationalism in Latin America: Lessons for the Study of Digital Sovereignty and Governance, 6(1-4) Communication and the Public 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/205704732110467
3. Budnitsky S. & Jia L. Branding Internet Sovereignty: Digital Media and the Chinese– Russian Cyberalliance, 21(5) European Journal of Cultural Studies 594 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549417751151
4. Chander A. & Sun H. Sovereignty 2.0 (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3904949
5. Crespi F. et al. European Technological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy, 56(6) Review of European Economic Policy 348 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6
6. Cyman D. et al. Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in BRICS and the European Union, 8(1) BRICS Law Journal 86 (2021). https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2021-8-1-86-115
7. Elms D. Digital Sovereignty: Protectionism or Autonomy (2021).
8. Fabiano N. Digital Sovereignty Between “Accountability” and the Value of Personal Data, 5(3) Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal 270 (2020). https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050335
9. Ferreira D.B. & Gromova E.A. Hyperrealistic Jurisprudence: The Digital Age and the (Un)Certainty of Judge Analytics, 36 International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 2261 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10015-0
10. Ferreira D.B. & Severo L. Multiparty Mediation as Solution for Urban Conflicts: ACase Analysis from Brazil, 8(3) BRICS Law Journal 5 (2021). https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2021-8-3-5-29
11. Ferreira D.B. et al. Arbitration Chambers and Trust in Technology Provider: Impacts of Trust in Technology Intermediated Dispute Resolution Proceedings, 68 Technology in Society 101872 (2022).
12. Grimm D. Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept (2015). Gromova E. & Ivanc T. Regulatory Sandboxes (Experimental Legal Regimes) for Digital Innovations in BRICS, 7(2) BRICS Law Journal 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2020-7-2-10-36
13. Gromova E.A. & Ferreira D.B. Tools to Stimulate Blockchain: Application of Regulatory Sandboxes, Special Economic Zones, and Public Private Partnerships, 2(1) International Journal of Law in Changing World 17 (2023). https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v2i1.48
14. Gromova E.A. et al. ChatGPT and Other Intelligent Chatbots: Legal, Ethical and Dispute Resolution Concerns, 5(10) Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution 153 (2023). https://doi.org/10.52028/rbadr.v5i10
15. Heller K.J. In Defense of Pure Sovereignty in Cyberspace, 97 International Law Studies 1432 (2021).
16. Min J. & Luca B. Contesting Digital Sovereignty: Untangling a Complex and Multi-faceted Concept, in Jiang M. & Belli L. (eds.), Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries: How the Global South and Emerging Power Alliances Are Reshaping Digital Governance (2024).
17. Mueller M.L. Against Sovereignty in Cyberspace, 22(4) International Studies Review 779 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz044
18. Orji U.J. Cybersecurity Law and Regulation (2012).
19. Pohle J. & Thiel T. Digital Sovereignty, 9(4) Internet Policy Review (2020). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532
20. Posch R. Digital Sovereignty and IT-Security for a Prosperous Society, in Werthner H. & Van Harmelen F. (eds.), Informatics in the Future: Proceedings of the 11th European Computer Science Summit (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55735-9_7
21. Prasad R. Bodies and Data: The Digital Sovereignty of the Indian State, AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research (2021). https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12016
22. Roberts H. et al. Safeguarding European Values with Digital Sovereignty: An Analysis of Statements and Policies, 10(3) Internet Policy Review (2021). https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575
23. Robles-Carrillo M. Sovereignty vs. Digital Sovereignty, 1(3) Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 673 (2023). https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.29
24. Ruohonen J. The Treachery of Images in the Digital Sovereignty Debate, 31 Minds and Machines 439 (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.02724
25. Solhchi M.A. & Baghbanno F. Artificial Intelligence and its Role in the Development of the Future of Arbitration, 2(2) International Journal of Law in Changing World 56 (2023). https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v2i2.56
26. Swan M. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy (2015).
27. Yilma K.M. Comment: Some Remarks on Ethiopia’s New Cybercrime Legislation, 10(2) Mizan Law Review 448 (2016).
28. Zeng J. et al. China’s Solution to Global Cyber Governance: Unpacking the Domestic Discourse of “Internet Sovereignty,” 45(3) Politics & Policy 432 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12202
29. Zetzsche D. et al. Regulating a Revolution: From Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation, 23(1) Journal of Corporate & Financial Law 31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3018534
Review
For citations:
Gromova E., Brantes Ferreira D. On the Way to BRICS+ Digital Sovereignty: Opportunities and Challenges of a New Era. BRICS Law Journal. 2024;11(3):54-69. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2024-11-3-54-69
Views:
612
Email this article 