From Territorial to Information Sovereignty: The Evolution of Statehood in International Law

The principle of sovereignty has historically functioned as the cornerstone of international law, beginning with the Peace of Westphalia (1648) [1], which enshrined the territorial integrity and political independence of states as fundamental values. Later, these principles were codified in the UN Charter (1945), which reinforced sovereignty through the doctrines of non-intervention and jurisdictional equality. For centuries, the state’s control over territory and population remained the defining characteristic of sovereignty. However, the rapid expansion of cyberspace and the emergence of the global information order have fundamentally disrupted this traditional paradigm. Digital interconnectedness erodes the classical model of territorial control, as demonstrated by transnational cyber phenomena such as the 2007 cyberattacks against Estonia and the jurisdictional controversy in United States v. Microsoft Ireland. In parallel, Ukrainian scholars emphasize that sovereignty today cannot be fully realized without protecting information infrastructure, cultural autonomy, and resilience to hybrid threats. The purpose of this article is to examine how sovereignty has evolved from its territorial origins to encompass digital and informational dimensions, to assess the existing doctrinal and normative gaps, and to propose a coherent conceptualization of “information sovereignty” in international law. The methods are historical-legal and comparative to trace the evolution of sovereignty and assess its informational dimension. Case selection was guided by three criteria: (1) relevance to sovereignty disputes in cyberspace and information flows (e.g., Estonia cyberattacks, Microsoft Ireland case); (2) diversity of models from different regions (China’s cyber sovereignty, the EU’s digital sovereignty via GDPR, Russia’s information space doctrine, and Ukraine’s hybrid warfare experience); and (3) normative significance, focusing on cases that shaped international legal debate (e.g., Tallinn Manual, GDPR). Analysis combined doctrinal interpretation of legal sources (UN Charter, Montevideo Convention, Tallinn Manual) with comparative case analysis, examining how states balance information security, human rights, and global governance. This dual method ensures both theoretical coherence and practical relevance. The results of the study indicate that while there are existing models of sovereignty in the digital age—such as “cyber sovereignty” in China, “digital sovereignty” in the European Union, and “information space sovereignty” in Russia and Ukraine—there is still no unified doctrine of “information sovereignty” that would integrate territorial principles with the requirements of information security and transnational data governance. This doctrinal fragmentation creates significant gaps in international law, particularly concerning cross-border data flows, state responsibility for cyber operations, and the balance between sovereignty and global communication freedoms. The conclusions emphasize the urgent need for multilateral dialogue and the development of an international normative framework on information sovereignty. Such a framework should reconcile state authority with the realities of digital globalization, providing mechanisms for cooperation, conflict prevention, and the protection of both security and fundamental human rights in cyberspace. The article argues that information sovereignty should not be seen as a restrictive or isolationist principle but rather as an adaptive evolution of classical sovereignty, capable of ensuring stability, resilience, and legitimacy in the information age.