A New Evolution of the Theory of State Sovereignty in the Digital Age

Editor’s Note

编者按

With the rapid development of information technology and the widespread application of the internet, cyberspace has become a new type of territory closely interwoven with a country’s physical territory and an important arena for global governance. This transformation has also driven a profound evolution of traditional state sovereignty theory, giving rise to the concept of “cyber sovereignty,” which has increasingly attracted widespread attention from the international community. General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized “respecting cyber sovereignty” and advocated for building a community with a shared future in cyberspace, highlighting the major strategic significance of safeguarding cyber sovereignty for national development and security. This edition has specially invited experts and scholars from relevant fields to discuss topics including the scientific connotation and practical boundaries of cyber sovereignty, the differences and connections between cyber sovereignty and traditional state sovereignty, new problems and challenges facing the safeguarding of cyber sovereignty, and the positions and countermeasures China should adopt.

随着信息技术的高速发展与互联网的广泛应用，网络空间已成为与国家现实疆域紧密交织的新型疆域和全球治理的重要领域。这一变革也推动了传统国家主权理论的深刻演进，“网络主权”理念由此兴起，并日益获得国际社会广泛关注。习近平总书记多次强调“尊重网络主权”，倡导构建网络空间命运共同体，凸显了维护网络主权对国家发展和安全的重大战略意义。本版特邀相关领域专家学者，围绕网络主权的科学内涵与实践边界、网络主权与传统国家主权的区别与联系、维护网络主权面临的新问题新挑战，以及中国应持有的立场和应对策略等议题展开研讨。

Participants in the Discussion

与谈人

Huang Zhixiong, Professor, Wuhan University School of Law; Director, Institute of Cyber Governance

黄志雄 武汉大学法学院教授、网络治理研究院院长

Han Na, Professor, School of National Security, People’s Public Security University of China; Executive Director, Research Base for International Cyberspace Governance

韩娜 中国人民公安大学国家安全学院教授、网络空间国际治理研究基地执行主任

Lu Chuanying, Vice Dean, School of Political Science and International Relations, Tongji University; Researcher, Institute of Marxism

鲁传颖 同济大学政治与国际关系学院副院长、马克思主义研究院研究员

Xu Yuan, Professor, School of Education, Beijing Institute of Technology

徐源 北京理工大学教育学院教授

Moderator

主持人

Ji Wenya and Wang Jin, Reporters for this newspaper

本报记者 冀文亚 王琎

1. Cyber Sovereignty Is an Extension of State Sovereignty in Cyberspace

1.网络主权是国家主权在网络空间的延伸

Moderator: The outcome document released at the 2023 World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit, *Cyber Sovereignty: Theory and Practice (Version 4.0)*, provides a relatively clear explanation of the connotation of cyber sovereignty: “The supreme internal authority and independent external authority that a state, based on national sovereignty, enjoys over cyber facilities, cyber entities, cyber activities, and related cyber data and information within its territory.” As a new form of sovereignty, how should the core connotation of cyber sovereignty be defined? What are its differences from and connections with traditional state sovereignty?

主持人：2023年世界互联网大会乌镇峰会发布的成果文件《网络主权：理论与实践（4.0版）》对网络主权的内涵有一个比较清晰的阐释：“一国基于国家主权对本国境内的网络设施、网络主体、网络行为及相关网络数据和信息等所享有的对内最高权和对外独立权。”作为新型主权形态的网络主权，其核心内涵应如何界定？与传统国家主权有着怎样的区别和联系？

Huang Zhixiong: Traditional state sovereignty is formed on the basis of a state’s control over specific territory in the physical world, whereas cyberspace has both close connections with and obvious differences from the physical world. As a natural extension of state sovereignty in cyberspace, cyber sovereignty is essentially a product of the long-standing principle of state sovereignty being “grafted” onto virtual cyberspace.

黄志雄：传统的国家主权是以国家对现实世界特定领土的控制为基础形成的，而网络空间与现实世界既有密切联系，又有明显差异。作为国家主权在网络空间的自然延伸，网络主权本质上是历史久远的国家主权原则“嫁接”到虚拟网络空间的产物。

On the one hand, cyber sovereignty, together with territorial sovereignty established in the agricultural era and territorial sea and airspace sovereignty established in the industrial era, are different forms through which sovereign states exercise supreme authority, and they share an inherent continuity. From the perspective of international law, the above types of sovereignty can all be clarified from the aspects of a sovereign state’s right of independence, right of equality, right of jurisdiction (including legislative regulatory power, administrative management power, judicial jurisdiction, etc., which can be further divided into personal jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, and protective jurisdiction based on specific jurisdictional grounds), and right of defense. On the other hand, cyber sovereignty also has significant differences from other types of sovereignty, mainly reflected in the following: First, the combination of the virtual and the real. Unlike other types of sovereignty, which are based on a state’s exercise of control over physical space, the cyberspace in which cyber sovereignty is exercised includes both tangible cyber facilities and cyber entities and their cyber activities, as well as intangible, highly mobile cyber data and information. Second, layered differentiation. Unlike the high degree of uniformity in the sovereignty exercised by states over their own territory, territorial sea, and airspace, the sovereign rights exercised by a state at different layers of cyberspace, such as the physical layer, logical layer, application layer, and social layer, exhibit considerable differences. Third, rapid evolution. Unlike the relative stability of states’ territorial, territorial sea, and airspace sovereignty once established, cyber sovereignty, as a new type of sovereignty developed under the influence of the internet and information and communication technologies, evolves rapidly with the continuous development of related technologies.

一方面，网络主权与农业时代确立的领土主权、工业时代确立的领海和领空主权同属主权国家行使最高权威的不同形态，有着内在的一脉相承之处。从国际法角度看，上述几种主权都可以从主权国家的独立权、平等权、管辖权（包括立法规制权、行政管理权、司法管辖权等，按照具体的管辖依据又可以分为属人管辖权、属地管辖权和保护性管辖权等）和防卫权等几个方面加以明确。另一方面，网络主权与其他几种主权也有着显著区别，主要体现为：一是虚实结合性，即不同于其他几类主权是基于国家对物理空间行使控制而产生的主权，行使网络主权的网络空间既包括有形的网络设施、网络主体及其开展的网络活动，也包括无形的、高度流动性的网络数据和信息。二是分层差异性，即不同于各国在本国领土、领海和领空行使的主权有着高度统一性，国家在网络空间的物理层、逻辑层、应用层和社会层等分层行使的主权权利存在较大差异。三是快速演进性，即不同于各国领土、领海和领空主权一旦确立后具有较大稳定性，网络主权作为一种在互联网和信息通信技术影响下发展起来的新型主权，会随着相关技术的不断发展而快速演进。

Han Na: Sovereignty is the core category of state power. Since the establishment of the Westphalian system, the form of traditional sovereignty theory and practice, which relies on clearly demarcated territorial boundaries and well-defined rights, has remained stable for a long time. Entering the internet era, the characteristics of cyberspace, such as openness, immediacy, and information sharing, have broken the existing operational logic of traditional sovereignty, becoming a key variable in reshaping the connotation and practice of sovereignty. Consequently, cyber sovereignty has become an important part of the reconstruction of the state power system.

韩娜：主权是国家权力的核心范畴，自威斯特伐利亚体系确立以来，传统主权理论与实践所依托的领土疆域边界清晰、权属明确的形态长期保持稳定；进入互联网时代后，网络空间兼具的开放性、即时性与信息共享等特征，打破了传统主权的既有运行逻辑，成为重塑主权内涵与实践的关键变量，网络主权也由此成为国家权力体系重构的重要内容。

In terms of its connotation and characteristics, in addition to the combination of the virtual and the real, layered differentiation, and rapid evolution mentioned above, cyber sovereignty is also reflected in a dual logic combining hardness and softness: On the one hand, a “hard dimension” characterized by the establishment of rules and boundaries is formed around cross-border data flows, platform access, etc., used to define the jurisdictional scope of data sovereignty and digital markets. On the other hand, through the regulation of algorithmic mechanisms, platform rules, and the public discourse ecosystem, a “soft dimension” characterized by value shaping and order guidance is formed. Together, these constitute the connotation of a state’s sovereignty in the digital order.

就其内涵和特征而言，除了上面提到的虚实结合性、分层差异性和快速演进性之外，网络主权还体现为一种刚柔相济的双重逻辑：一方面，围绕数据跨境流动、平台准入等形成以规则与边界确立为特征的“硬性维度”，用于界定数据主权与数字市场的管辖范围；另一方面，通过对算法机制、平台规则与公共话语生态的规范，形成以价值塑造与秩序引导为特征的“软性维度”。二者共同构成国家在数字秩序中的主权内涵。

Lu Chuanying: Cyber sovereignty is an extension of traditional sovereignty theory and practice in cyberspace. The state remains the most core actor in the international system, and traditional sovereignty theory and practice are indispensable for the security, development, and stability of cyberspace. At the same time, cyber sovereignty is, to a large extent, structurally influenced by new technologies represented by big data and artificial intelligence. The tension between traditional sovereignty concepts and digital technology gives cyber sovereignty new characteristics compared with traditional sovereignty. First, cyber sovereignty is dynamic. While a state constructs cyber sovereignty by formulating laws and regulations, digital technology is also constantly deconstructing this form of sovereignty, and the two continuously reshape the boundaries of cyber sovereignty through interaction. Second, cyber sovereignty is differentiated. Although countries have now reached a consensus on the existence of cyber sovereignty, there are different practices in the specific exercise of this sovereignty. China, the European Union, the United States, and other different countries and actors hold quite different views on cyber sovereignty. Although these different understandings involve conflicts and contradictions, they also drive the international community’s understanding of cyber sovereignty to deepen continuously. Finally, cyber sovereignty is balanced. Cyberspace has an important impact on key areas related to national welfare and the people’s livelihood. Exercising sovereignty in cyberspace requires weighing the impacts on multiple dimensions and fields, such as national security, economic development, and social stability, and constantly exploring ways to promote national security, development, and stability through cyber sovereignty.

鲁传颖：网络主权是传统主权理论与实践在网络空间的延伸，国家依旧是国际体系中最核心的行为体，传统主权理论和实践对于网络空间安全、发展、稳定不可或缺。与此同时，网络主权在很大程度上又受到以大数据、人工智能为代表的新技术的结构性影响。传统主权观念与数字技术之间的张力，使得网络主权与传统主权相比有了新特点。首先，网络主权具有动态性。国家通过制定法律法规构建网络主权的同时，数字技术也在不断解构这一主权形态，两者在互动中不断重塑网络主权的边界。其次，网络主权具有差异性。尽管目前各国对于网络主权的存在已经形成共识，但在具体行使这一主权的过程中却存在不同做法。中国、欧盟、美国等不同国家和行为体对待网络主权的看法就存在着较大差异。这种不同理解虽然存在冲突和矛盾，但也推动着国际社会对网络主权的理解不断加深。最后，网络主权具有均衡性。网络空间对关系国计民生的重要领域具有重要影响，行使网络空间主权需要权衡国家安全、经济发展和社会稳定等多个维度、多个领域的影响，不断探索以网络主权促进国家安全、发展和稳定。

Xu Yuan: Cyber sovereignty can also be understood from the following dimensions. From the boundary dimension, it takes “critical infrastructure + data control nodes” as its boundary, enjoying exclusive supreme control rights within the country’s cyber territory. From the content dimension, data is regarded as a national basic strategic resource, and the state enjoys jurisdiction over the generation, storage, processing, and outbound transfer of data within its territory. From the governance dimension, the state exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over digital behaviors of its citizens and legal persons, generated anywhere, that have significant security or public interest implications, and enjoys regulatory power over large platforms, cloud services, domain name registries, etc., operating within its territory. From the technical dimension, the state has the right to formulate technical standards, security protocols, encryption algorithms, etc., to ensure the trustworthiness and controllability of key software and hardware.

徐源：还可以从以下几个维度理解网络主权。从边界维度看，其以“关键基础设施+数据控制节点”为边界，在本国网络疆域享有排他性最高控制权；从内容维度看，数据被视为国家基础性战略资源，国家对境内数据的产生、存储、处理、出境享有管辖权；从治理维度看，国家对本国公民、法人在任何地点产生的具有重要安全或公共利益的数字行为行使立法与司法管辖权，对境内运营的大型平台、云服务、域名注册机构等享有监管权；从技术维度看，国家有权制定技术标准、安全协议、加密算法等，确保关键软硬件可信、可控。

It can be seen from this that the exercise of cyber sovereignty mainly relies on technical governance and legal regulation. Therefore, the discussion on the connotation of cyber sovereignty should focus on the following aspects: First, legislative jurisdiction, meaning the state addresses cybersecurity risks and challenges by formulating domestic laws and regulations on cybersecurity, data governance, and cyber content regulation. Second, administrative jurisdiction, meaning the state supervises and enforces laws against cyber entities and their behaviors within its territory, including combating cybercrime, handling illegal content, and allocating key technical resources. Third, the right to equal governance, reflected in the independence and autonomy of states to choose their own paths for cyber technology development and management models, as well as the right of states to participate equally in the formulation of international rules and standards in global cyberspace governance. Fourth, the right to defense and self-defense, meaning a state can establish a cybersecurity defense system, cyber threat early warning, and emergency response mechanisms, and take necessary, reasonable, and internationally lawful self-defense measures against cyber attacks originating from abroad to protect critical information infrastructure, etc.

由此可知，行使网络主权主要依赖的是技术治理和法律规制。因此，对网络主权内涵的讨论，应重点把握以下几个方面：一是立法管辖权，即国家通过制定关于网络安全、数据治理、网络内容规范的国内法律法规，应对网络安全风险挑战；二是行政管辖权，即国家对境内网络主体及其行为实施监督执法，包括网络犯罪打击、违法违规内容处置、关键技术资源分配等；三是平等治理权，体现为各国拥有选择网络技术开发、发展道路与管理模式的独立性与自主权，同时各国在全球网络空间治理中有权平等参与国际规则与标准制定；四是防御自卫权，指一国可以建立网络安全防御体系、网络威胁预警和应急响应机制，对来自境外的网络攻击采取必要、合理且符合国际法的自卫措施，保护关键信息基础设施等。

2. Iterative Technological Development Is Increasingly Expanding the Boundaries of Cyber Sovereignty

2.技术迭代发展正日益拓展网络主权边界

Moderator: With the accelerated breakthroughs in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, global technological competition has made cyberspace a key arena for great-power games. Please discuss how the development of emerging technologies is affecting international competition in cyberspace. What impact does this development trend have on the connotation and extension of cyber sovereignty?

主持人：随着人工智能等新兴技术的加速突破，全球科技竞争使网络空间成为大国博弈的关键领域。请谈谈新兴技术发展是如何影响网络空间国际竞争的？这一发展趋势又对网络主权的内涵与外延带来何种影响？

Lu Chuanying: At present, new-generation information technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain have brought new changes to international competition in cyberspace. First, technological power has become a key factor intensifying geopolitical games. Because digital technologies possess both universal and strategic characteristics, their impact on national security, development, and stability has become more prominent. For example, the country that first achieves general-purpose artificial intelligence may overturn the existing international power structure, leading to increasingly fierce competition among countries over AI technology. Second, technology has become more concentrated, widening the digital divide. The development of digital technologies requires substantial funding and talent, which prevents many countries from participating in this competition. The resulting expansion of the digital divide will further exacerbate global inequality. Third, the synergy between government, technology, and industrial innovation has become more pronounced. In the process of digital technology innovation, the government plays a strategic guiding role, while the technology community and industrial sectors play specific driving roles. The rapid iteration and high intensity of competition in digital technologies require the government to better play a coordinating role. Against this backdrop, emphasizing "cyber sovereignty" is extremely important—only by mutually respecting cyber sovereignty can a benign competitive landscape be constructed, which also helps strengthen global governance and bridge the digital divide.

鲁传颖：当前，人工智能、区块链等新一代信息技术给网络空间的国际竞争带来了新变化。一是技术权力成为地缘政治博弈加剧的关键因素。由于数字技术兼具通用性、战略性特征，使得其对国家安全、发展、稳定的影响更加突出。例如，率先实现通用人工智能的国家将可能颠覆现有国际力量格局，各国对于人工智能技术的竞争由此日趋白热化。二是技术更加集中，导致数字鸿沟扩大。数字技术发展需要大量资金、人才，这导致大量国家无法参与其竞争，而由此带来的数字鸿沟的扩大，又将进一步加剧全球不平等格局。三是政府—技术—产业创新协同的作用更加明显。在数字技术创新过程中，政府发挥着战略引领作用，技术社群和产业部门发挥着具体推动作用。数字技术迭代速度快、竞争烈度强的特征，要求政府更好发挥协同作用。在此背景下，对“网络主权”的强调显得极为重要——只有彼此尊重网络主权，才能够构建良性竞争格局，也有助于加强全球治理、弥合数字鸿沟。

Xu Yuan: Currently, countries are racing to seize technological high ground, investing heavily in frontier fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum information, and 5G/6G communications, competing for the power to set international standards and dominate the global patent landscape. The three elements of computing power, algorithms, and data have become core indicators of competition in comprehensive national power—computing power is the "engine" of the digital economy, algorithms are the "brain" of the intelligent society, and data is the "new oil." Countries have elevated these three elements to a strategic level affecting national security and development, both accelerating the construction of domestic ecosystems and engaging in complex games through means such as cross-border flow rules and localization storage requirements. At the same time, the intelligent upgrading of cyber attacks continuously strengthens strategic deterrence. State-level cyber attacks can cause instantaneous paralyzing effects on critical infrastructure, financial systems, and even social operations, while the difficulty of attack attribution increases and the threshold for attacks lowers, leading to rising strategic uncertainty.

徐源：当前，各国竞相抢占技术制高点，在人工智能、量子信息、5G/6G通信等前沿领域投入巨资，争夺国际标准制定权与全球专利版图主导权。算力、算法、数据三大要素则成为综合国力竞争的核心指标——算力是数字经济的“发动机”，算法是智能社会的“大脑”，数据是“新石油”，各国纷纷将这三大要素提升至影响国家安全与发展的战略高度，既加速本土生态构建，又通过跨境流动规则、本地化存储要求等手段展开复杂博弈。与此同时，网络攻击的智能化升级不断强化战略威慑，国家级网络攻击能够对关键基础设施、金融体系乃至社会运行造成瞬时瘫痪性影响，且攻击溯源难度加大、攻击门槛降低，导致战略不确定性上升。

Against the backdrop of accelerating technological iteration, the connotation and extension of cyber sovereignty are also expanding. This is manifested as follows: First, sovereign states attempt to extend jurisdiction downward into technical architectures and codes, and upward to data and virtual entities beyond physical space. States achieve substantive control over virtual space by reviewing algorithms, setting technical standards, or requiring critical infrastructure to use domestically produced and controllable technologies. Second, technological confrontation means the boundaries of cyber sovereignty no longer remain static. A country can use technologies such as firewalls, encrypted communications, and domestic substitution to build "digital walls" within virtual space, strengthening domestic information governance; technologies such as satellite internet, quantum communications, and anonymous networks provide means to bypass the technical boundaries of other countries. Third, different countries, based on their own technological capabilities and governance philosophies, construct vastly different rules for cyberspace.

在技术加速迭代的时代背景下，网络主权的内涵与外延也在拓展。这表现为：其一，主权国家试图将管辖权向下深入技术架构和代码，向上延伸到物理空间之外的数据和虚拟实体。国家通过审查算法、设置技术标准或要求关键基础设施使用国产可控技术，以实现对虚拟空间的实质性控制。其二，技术对抗使网络主权的边界不再保持静止。一国可利用防火墙、加密通信、国产替代等技术，在虚拟空间内部构筑“数字围墙”，强化境内信息治理；卫星互联网、量子通信、匿名网络等技术，则为绕过别国技术边界提供了可能。三是不同国家基于自身技术能力和治理理念，构建了迥异的网络空间规则。

Han Na: Today's competition in cyberspace has escalated from simple cyber attacks and defense to systemic competition centered on algorithms, computing power, data, and model ecosystems, mainly manifested in three aspects: First, the competitive frontier is expanding rapidly. The focus of competition has shifted from control over tangible physical infrastructure to control over intangible data resources, the formulation of algorithm rules, and the struggle for dominance over underlying technical standards. Second, the power structure is becoming dispersed. Large technology companies, relying on their technological monopolies and data advantages, have gained enormous discursive power in cyberspace governance, challenging the traditional "state-centric" order. Third, the form of confrontation is being reshaped. The empowerment of artificial intelligence has transformed offensive and defensive games in cyberspace from point-to-point confrontation to systematic competition, further intensifying cyber competition between countries and amplifying cybersecurity risks. The application of technologies such as intelligent cyber attacks blurs the boundary between war and peace, making cyberspace a frontier of great-power games.

韩娜：今天的网络空间竞争，已从单纯的网络攻击与防御，升级为围绕算法、算力、数据和模型生态的体系性竞争，主要表现在三个方面：一是竞争疆域极速拓展。竞争焦点从有形的物理基础设施控制，转向无形的数据资源掌控、算法规则制定和底层技术标准主导权争夺。二是权力结构分散。大型科技公司凭借其技术垄断、数据优势，在网络空间治理中获得巨大话语权，挑战传统的“国家中心主义”秩序。三是对抗形态重塑。人工智能赋能使网络空间的攻防博弈从单点对抗转向体系化较量，进一步加剧了国家间的网络竞争，放大了网络安全风险，而网络攻击智能化等技术应用则模糊了战争与和平的界限，使网络空间成为大国博弈前沿。

On this basis, the boundaries of cyber sovereignty are being reshaped. In terms of power structure, the "algorithmic power" generated by artificial intelligence challenges the traditional state-centric view of sovereignty. Tech giants have greater power in areas such as computing power infrastructure, data production and management, and algorithm design and application. States urgently need to strengthen regulation from aspects such as laws, regulations, and ethics to ensure the safe development of technology within the framework of state power. In terms of security paradigm, technological breakthroughs such as quantum computing and AI offensive and defensive capabilities blur the defensive boundaries between physical space and virtual space, exacerbating security dilemmas in cyberspace. This shifts sovereignty maintenance from static boundary control to dynamic risk adaptation, requiring the forward deployment of cyber defense and deep embedding of technology. At the same time, the development of technologies such as quantum communications provides possibilities for states to build robust technological barriers for cyber sovereignty, helping to strengthen controllability over their own cyberspace.

在此基础上，网络主权的边界被重塑。在权力结构上，人工智能催生的“算法权力”挑战以国家为中心的传统主权观，科技巨头在算力基础设施、数据生产与管理、算法设计与应用等方面拥有更大权利，国家亟须从法律法规、伦理等方面加强监管，以保证科技在国家权力框架下安全发展；在安全范式上，量子计算、人工智能攻防等技术突破模糊了物理空间与虚拟空间的防御边界，加剧了网络空间的安全困境，使主权维护从静态边界管控转向动态风险适应，这就要求网络防御前置和技术深度嵌入。同时，量子通信等技术的发展，为国家筑牢网络主权技术屏障提供了可能，有助于强化对本国网络空间的可控性。

Huang Zhixiong: Digital power not only expands the traditional boundaries of state power but also reshapes the international power structure by empowering private actors such as digital enterprises and hacker organizations, thereby profoundly affecting international competition in cyberspace. The following trends deserve attention: First, pan-securitization, reflected in the deep application of emerging technologies in areas such as critical infrastructure protection, intelligence, and military affairs, making the impact of related technologies on national security a primary concern for all countries. Some countries even go so far as to pursue "decoupling and severing supply chains" for this purpose. Second, camp formation, reflected in the increasingly clear differentiation of camps around the development and application of emerging technologies. For example, in recent years, the U.S. government has promoted the establishment of the "Alliance for the Future of the Internet," [2]2 The Alliance for the Future of the Internet is a U.S.-led initiative announced in 2022, aimed at establishing a set of principles for an "open, free, global, interoperable, reliable and secure" internet, often seen as a counterweight to Chinese and Russian approaches to internet governance. pulling and coercing its allies and other countries to "choose sides," inciting camp confrontation in cyberspace. Third, de-regulation, meaning that against the backdrop of intensifying geopolitical competition among major powers, an increasing number of countries believe that the threat of competitors gaining an advantage in relevant technological fields far outweighs the inherent risks of the technology itself, and thus lack the willingness to regulate related risks through domestic and international law. For example, negotiations on banning lethal autonomous weapon systems have been ongoing for years but have always been "much thunder but little rain"; [3]3 "Much thunder but little rain" (雷声大雨点小) is a Chinese idiom meaning that there is a lot of talk but little action. the European Union, which previously advocated strict regulation of AI risks, has proposed suspending the implementation of relevant provisions of the Artificial Intelligence Act. [4]4 The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act, proposed in 2021, is a comprehensive legal framework for regulating AI based on risk levels. In 2023, some EU member states and lawmakers raised concerns about its potential impact on competitiveness, leading to calls for a pause or revision.

黄志雄：数字权力不仅拓展了国家的传统权力边界，还通过赋能数字企业、黑客组织等私人行为体重塑了国际权力格局，进而深刻影响了网络空间国际竞争。以下几个趋势值得关注：一是泛安全化，体现为新兴技术在关键基础设施保护、情报、军事等领域的深度应用，使得相关技术对国家安全的影响成为各国首要关切，一些国家甚至不惜为此大搞“脱钩断链”。二是阵营化，体现为围绕新兴技术开发和应用的阵营分化日益明显，如近年来美国政府推动组建“互联网未来联盟”，拉拢、胁迫其盟友和其他国家“选边站队”，挑动网络空间阵营对抗。三是去监管化，即在大国地缘政治竞争不断加剧背景下，越来越多国家认为竞争对手在相关技术领域占据优势的威胁远大于技术本身的内在风险，因而缺乏通过国内法和国际法对相关风险加以监管的意愿。如禁止致命性自主武器系统的谈判虽历时多年却始终“雷声大雨点小”；此前主张对人工智能风险加以严格监管的欧盟提出要暂停实施《人工智能法案》相关规定。

The above trends reshape the boundaries of cyber sovereignty in multiple ways. First, the development of emerging technologies increasingly challenges the territorial attributes of cyber sovereignty. For example, data is increasingly stored in the "cloud" and server locations are selected through algorithms, making it difficult for countries to invoke territorial sovereignty and the principle of territoriality to exercise jurisdiction over relevant data, or to counter cross-border data access by other countries. Second, emerging technologies give rise to new forms of cyber sovereignty, such as the concept of "data sovereignty" emerging with the development of artificial intelligence. Third, emerging technologies may pose new challenges to cyber sovereignty. For example, the development of satellite internet raises issues such as how to fairly and reasonably allocate radio frequency and satellite orbit resources, and how to address challenges to other countries' cyber sovereignty posed by satellite internet bypassing national terrestrial regulation.

上述趋势从多方面重塑网络主权的边界。其一，新兴技术的发展使网络主权的地域属性日益受到冲击，如数据越来越多地存储于“云端”并通过算法选择服务器位置，使各国难以援引领土主权和属地原则行使对相关数据的管辖权，以及对抗其他国家的跨境数据调取。二是新兴技术衍生出网络主权的新形态，如随着人工智能的发展提出“数据主权”的概念。三是新兴技术可能使网络主权面临新的挑战，如卫星互联网的发展带来如何公平合理地分配无线电频率和卫星轨道资源、如何应对因卫星互联网绕开地面国家监管而对他国网络主权构成挑战等问题。

3. International Governance of Cyberspace Urgently Needs to Escape the "Glass House Dilemma" [5]5 The "glass house dilemma" (玻璃房困境) refers to a situation where actors in cyberspace are transparent and vulnerable to observation and attack, yet lack effective mechanisms for cooperation and trust-building, making governance difficult.

3.网络空间国际治理亟须走出“玻璃房困境”

Moderator: Artificial intelligence is integrating into cyberspace with unprecedented depth, and its technological changes are generating systemic new security risks, posing major challenges to the traditional governance system based on sovereign states. Please discuss what unprecedented problems these new AI-driven cybersecurity situations bring to the international governance of cyberspace. At the same time, what profound impact will these governance challenges have on the principle of cyber sovereignty?

主持人：人工智能以前所未有的深度融入网络空间，其技术变革正衍生出系统性的新安全风险，对以主权国家为基础的传统治理体系构成了重大挑战。请谈谈当前这些由人工智能驱动的网络安全新形势，给网络空间国际治理带来了哪些前所未有的问题？同时，这些治理挑战又将对网络主权原则产生何种深刻影响？

Han Na: In the era of artificial intelligence, the challenges faced by cybersecurity are all-encompassing. At the level of endogenous security, issues such as defects in the model algorithm itself, data poisoning, adversarial samples, and the inexplicability of “black-box” decision-making mean that artificial intelligence systems themselves face security problems. At the level of application-derived security, disinformation manipulation driven by artificial intelligence can alter group cognition, erode the foundation of social trust, making the cognitive domain a new focus of great-power competition; it may also amplify social biases, challenging existing ethical and legal orders. At the same time, massive amounts of personal information and critical infrastructure data face threats of illegal theft and misuse during cross-border flows, and AI’s deep analytical capabilities further magnify the harmful consequences after data breaches.

韩娜：人工智能时代，网络安全所面临的挑战是全方位的。在内生安全层面，模型算法本身的缺陷、数据污染、对抗样本及“黑箱”决策不可解释性等问题，使人工智能系统自身面临安全问题。在应用衍生层面，人工智能驱动的虚假信息操纵可以改变群体认知，侵蚀社会信任基础，使认知域成为大国博弈新焦点，同时也可能放大社会偏见，挑战现有伦理与法律秩序；同时，海量个人信息与关键基础设施数据在跨境流动中，面临被非法窃取、滥用的威胁，而人工智能对数据的深度分析能力，进一步放大了数据泄露后的危害后果。

These new challenges manifest in the international governance of cyberspace in the following aspects: First, the lag in governance rules becomes prominent. Existing international cyberspace governance rules are mostly formulated based on traditional network technology architectures, making it difficult to adapt to the development speed of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, leading to difficulties in attributing responsibility and pursuing accountability for cross-border cybersecurity incidents. Second, the division of rights and responsibilities among governance actors is blurred. The transnational nature of cyberspace and the complexity of technology lead to frequent jurisdictional conflicts between states, with some countries evading their own governance responsibilities under the pretext of “cyber freedom.” Finally, the imbalance in governance capacity is exacerbated. Developed countries, leveraging their technological advantages, hold the dominant power in cybersecurity governance, while developing countries, due to technological shortcomings, face the dual dilemma of the “digital divide” and the “security divide,” making it difficult for them to participate equally in global cybersecurity governance.

这些新挑战在网络空间国际治理中体现为以下方面：首先，治理规则的滞后性凸显。现有国际网络治理规则多基于传统网络技术架构制定，难以适配人工智能等新兴技术的发展速度，导致跨国网络安全事件的责任认定与追责困难。其次，治理主体的权责划分模糊。网络空间的跨国性与技术的复杂性，使得国家间的管辖权冲突频发，部分国家借“网络自由”之名规避自身治理责任。最后，治理能力的失衡问题加剧。发达国家凭借技术优势掌握网络安全治理的主导权，发展中国家则因技术短板面临“数字鸿沟”与“安全鸿沟”的双重困境，难以平等参与全球网络安全治理。

Xu Yuan: The enhancement of computing power, algorithms, and data processing capabilities has driven the rapid evolution of digital technology, but has also intensified the governance deficit in international cyberspace. On the one hand, technological development coexists with governance lag. The iteration speed of artificial intelligence technology is fast, while the formulation of global governance rules and mechanisms often fails to keep pace with technological development. For example, the rapid popularization of generative artificial intelligence has brought problems such as deepfakes and the spread of disinformation, but the international community has yet to form a unified and effective regulatory framework, causing governance measures to struggle to keep up with technological changes in a timely manner. On the other hand, there are conflicts in ethics and values. Different countries and cultures have different ethical standards and values regarding artificial intelligence. For instance, in areas such as privacy protection, freedom of speech, and human rights guarantees, some countries emphasize personal data protection and fundamental rights, while others focus on national security or economic development, making it difficult for the international community to reach a consensus when formulating ethical norms for artificial intelligence.

徐源：算力、算法和数据处理能力的提升，推动了数字技术快速演进，也加剧了国际网络空间的治理赤字。一方面，技术发展与治理滞后共存。人工智能技术迭代速度快，而全球治理规则和机制的制定往往跟不上技术发展。例如，生成式人工智能的快速普及带来深度伪造、虚假信息传播等问题，但国际社会尚未形成统一有效的监管框架，致使治理措施难以及时跟上技术变化。另一方面，伦理与价值观冲突。不同国家和文化对人工智能的伦理标准和价值观存在差异。如在隐私保护、言论自由、人权保障等方面，有的国家强调个人数据保护和基本权利，有的国家注重国家安全或经济发展，这使得国际社会在制定人工智能伦理规范时难以达成共识。

Huang Zhixiong: In addition, this also brings about the so-called “glass house dilemma,” meaning that as countries’ dependence on network technology and cyberspace continues to increase, various risks embedded in network technology are constantly exposed. Countries often find themselves living in “glass houses,” each holding “stones” that can smash the “glass houses” of other countries, but at the same time fearing that their own “glass houses” will be smashed by “stones” from other countries. In particular, the major Western powers, especially the United States, increasingly feel that although the first-mover advantage of the internet has in fact expanded their advantages over other countries (including their ability and willingness to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries), they also face more risks and vulnerabilities due to their greater dependence on network and digital technologies.

黄志雄：除此之外，还带来了所谓的“玻璃房困境”，即随着各国对网络技术和网络空间的依赖性不断增大，内嵌于网络技术的各种风险不断暴露，各国常常因此而发现自己居住在“玻璃房”内，各自手持可以砸碎其他国家“玻璃房”的“石头”，但同时也担心自己的“玻璃房”被来自其他国家的“石头”砸碎。特别是美西方大国越来越感到，尽管互联网的先发优势事实上使其相对其他国家的优势（包括干涉他国内政的能力和意愿）扩大了，但与此同时，它们也由于对网络和数字技术有着更大依赖性而面临更多的风险和弱点。

Under these circumstances, some countries have begun to have a greater need for international legal principles and rules such as sovereignty and non-intervention, which were previously often used to “protect the weak.” Regarding the principle of non-intervention, the United States and the West have shifted from traditional indifference and hostility to reshaping and selectively strengthening it, intending to use this principle to “protect the strong and restrict the weak.” Regarding the principle of sovereignty, there is also controversy within Western countries over whether the principle of cyberspace sovereignty is merely a general principle or a specific rule that can directly constrain specific cyber actions and generate international legal responsibility. This indicates that the “glass house dilemma” in cyberspace may change the dynamics of the game over international cyberspace rules. Non-Western countries, which have traditionally actively used protective principles such as sovereignty and non-intervention to counter interference and aggression by major powers, will now face more pressure and competition for discourse from Western powers on these issues.

在此情况下，一些国家开始对主权、不干涉等以往多用于“保护弱者”的国际法原则和规则有了更大需求。就不干涉原则而言，美西方从传统上的冷漠、敌视转向重新塑造和选择性强化，意图使这一原则被用于“保护强者、限制弱者”。就主权原则而言，围绕网络空间主权原则仅仅是一项一般性原则，抑或是一项可以直接约束特定网络行动并产生国际法律责任的具体规则，西方国家内部也存在争议。这表明，网络空间的“玻璃房困境”可能会改变网络空间国际规则博弈的态势，传统上积极通过主权、不干涉等保护性原则对抗大国干涉和侵犯的非西方国家，在这些问题上将更多地面临来自西方大国的压力和话语权争夺。

Lu Chuanying: Artificial intelligence technology is reshaping the cybersecurity landscape from both offensive and defensive ends, giving rise to systemic new threats. On the offensive side, artificial intelligence has achieved the automation, intelligence, and weaponization of cyberattacks, not only significantly lowering the threshold for attacks but also giving rise to new vulnerabilities targeting AI models themselves, such as data poisoning and adversarial sample attacks, making threats more covert and precise. On the defensive side, traditional security models are becoming ineffective, with offense and defense showing a trend of “AI versus AI.” The “black-box” nature of AI decision-making triggers a crisis of interpretability and trust in defensive measures, and blurs the attribution of attacks, making the overall security environment more complex and unpredictable.

鲁传颖：人工智能技术正从攻防两端重塑网络安全格局，催生出系统性的新威胁。在攻击侧，人工智能实现了网络攻击的自动化、智能化与武器化，不仅大幅降低了攻击门槛，更催生出数据投毒、对抗样本攻击等针对人工智能模型本身的新漏洞，使威胁更隐蔽、更精准。在防御侧，传统安全模式正在失效，攻防呈现出“以AI对抗AI”的趋势，而人工智能决策的“黑箱”特性则引发了防御措施的可解释性与信任危机，并模糊了攻击归责，这使得整体安全环境更具复杂性和不可预测性。

These technological changes pose a fundamental challenge to the traditional international governance system based on state sovereignty. On the one hand, existing international laws and regulations struggle to effectively define and regulate automated cyber actions driven by artificial intelligence, leading to a regulatory vacuum and governance failure. On the other hand, technologically dominant countries such as the United States and the West compete for leadership by setting de facto standards, exacerbating the risk of governance fragmentation and the capacity gap between the global North and South. This forces the international community to move beyond mere technical regulation and shift towards building a collaborative governance framework that focuses on controlling high-risk areas, ensuring ultimate human oversight, and integrating diverse actors, in order to prevent cyberspace from sliding into an uncontrolled “law of the jungle.”

这些技术变革对以国家主权为基础的传统国际治理体系构成了根本性挑战。一方面，既有国际法规难以有效界定和规制由人工智能驱动的自动化网络行动，导致规则真空与治理失能。另一方面，美西方等技术优势国家通过设定事实标准争夺主导权，加剧了治理阵营化风险与全球南北方能力鸿沟。这迫使国际社会必须超越单纯的技术管制，转向构建聚焦高风险领域管控、确保人类最终监督权、融合多元行为体的协同治理框架，以防止网络空间滑向失控的“丛林法则”。

4. Adhering to the Principle of Cyber Sovereignty and Building a Community with a Shared Future in Cyberspace

4.恪守网络主权原则，构建网络空间命运共同体

Moderator: Currently, cyberspace governance faces increasingly prominent challenges such as unbalanced development, imperfect rules, and disorderly order. Cyber hegemonism has become a real threat to global peace and development. Against this backdrop, the international community urgently needs to build a more just, reasonable, and effective cyberspace governance system. China actively participates in global internet governance and has put forward the important proposition of building a community with a shared future in cyberspace. How should we understand the core essence of this proposition? What is its relationship with China’s consistently advocated “respect for cyber sovereignty”?

主持人：当前，网络空间治理面临发展不平衡、规则不健全、秩序不合理等日益突出的挑战，网络霸权主义已成为影响全球和平与发展的现实威胁。在此背景下，国际社会亟须构建更加公正、合理、有效的网络空间治理体系。中国积极参与全球互联网治理，并提出了构建网络空间命运共同体的重要主张。应如何理解这一主张的核心要义？它与中国一贯倡导的“尊重网络主权”存在着怎样的联系？

Han Na: The core of the concept of a community with a shared future in cyberspace is to advocate that all countries work together to build cyberspace into a development community, a security community, a responsibility community, and a community of shared interests that benefits all of humanity. At the conceptual level, China firmly practices the four principles for promoting reform of the global internet governance system: “respecting cyber sovereignty, maintaining peace and security, promoting openness and cooperation, and building good order.” On this basis, it has put forward the “five-point proposal” for building a community with a shared future in cyberspace, contributing a Chinese solution to global internet governance. At the practical level, domestically, it vigorously promotes the building of a cyber power and a digital China, providing a development model for the world; internationally, it promotes common development through pragmatic cooperation, helping developing countries improve their network infrastructure construction and security defense capabilities, and narrow the digital divide, by building the “Digital Silk Road” and carrying out cybersecurity technology assistance. At the institutional level, China has established cybersecurity cooperation mechanisms with multiple countries and regions around the world to jointly address cross-border threats such as cybercrime, demonstrating through concrete actions that cyberspace can become a platform for win-win cooperation, rather than a battlefield for zero-sum games, so that cyberspace truly serves global development and the common security of humanity.

韩娜：网络空间命运共同体理念的核心，是倡导各国携手将网络空间建设成一个造福全人类的发展共同体、安全共同体、责任共同体与利益共同体。在理念层面，中国坚定践行“尊重网络主权、维护和平安全、促进开放合作、构建良好秩序”的推进全球互联网治理体系变革的四项原则，并在此基础上提出构建网络空间命运共同体的“五点主张”，为全球互联网治理贡献了中国方案。在实践层面，在国内大力推进网络强国、数字中国建设，为世界提供发展范例；在国际上以务实合作促进共同发展，通过搭建“数字丝绸之路”、开展网络安全技术援助等方式，帮助发展中国家提升网络基础设施建设水平与安全防御能力，缩小数字鸿沟。在机制层面，中国与全球多个国家和地区建立网络安全协作机制，共同应对网络犯罪等跨境威胁，以实际行动证明网络空间可以成为合作共赢的平台，而非零和博弈的战场，使网络空间真正服务于全球发展与人类共同安全。

Huang Zhixiong: Advocating and upholding cyber sovereignty by no means implies that countries act independently in cyberspace, beggar their neighbors, or close off or fragment cyberspace. In recent years, attempts by the United States to ban or forcibly acquire TikTok under the pretext of “data security,” and the imposition of restrictions by some Western countries on Chinese network facilities and services in violation of internationally accepted economic and trade rules and market principles, all indicate that with the rise of techno-nationalism, the principle of cyber sovereignty may be distorted and abused by a few countries, politicizing cybersecurity issues and even seeking cyber hegemony through this means.

黄志雄：倡导和维护网络主权，绝不意味着各国在网络空间各行其是、以邻为壑，也不意味着封闭或割裂网络空间。近年来，美国试图以“数据安全”为借口封禁或强购TikTok，以及一些西方国家违反国际通行经贸规则和市场化原则对中国网络设施和服务施加限制等事例，都表明随着技术民族主义的抬头，网络主权原则可能会被少数国家曲解和滥用，将网络安全问题政治化，甚至以此谋求网络霸权。

Respecting cyber sovereignty and building a community with a shared future in cyberspace — the former emphasizes coexistence, advocating that “each beauty brings out its own beauty,”[7]7 “Each beauty brings out its own beauty” (各美其美) is a four-character idiom from the Chinese aesthetic tradition, often used by Fei Xiaotong to describe the principle of respecting cultural diversity. while the latter leans toward cooperation, highlighting mutual benefit and win-win outcomes. The two are dialectically unified and mutually reinforcing. On one hand, jointly building a community with a shared future in cyberspace must be based on respect for cyber sovereignty; the frontier nature and complexity of cyber sovereignty, along with the differences in national conditions among countries, determine that the practice of exercising sovereignty in cyberspace will inevitably exhibit long-term diversity across nations. On the other hand, given the characteristic of cyberspace as “one global network, interconnected and interoperable,” only by building a community with a shared future in cyberspace can cyber sovereignty be effectively safeguarded. This requires that when exercising cyber sovereignty, countries must not harm the legitimate interests of other states, and should especially take into account the common interests of the international community, earnestly fulfilling obligations such as maintaining the security of network infrastructure, ensuring the interconnection and interoperability of cyberspace, and protecting the lawful rights and interests of citizens in cyberspace. Currently, some countries’ practices in exercising cyber sovereignty show tendencies toward imposing long-arm jurisdiction, pursuing unilateralism, and erecting trade barriers; cyber-bullying behaviors that place their own national interests above those of other countries and the common interests of the international community are even more incompatible with cyber sovereignty. “When all under heaven act with mutual love, order prevails; when they act with mutual hatred, chaos ensues.”[8]8 “When all under heaven act with mutual love, order prevails; when they act with mutual hatred, chaos ensues” (天下兼相爱则治，交相恶则乱) is a classical allusion from the Mohist text *Mozi*, advocating universal love as a basis for social order. Guided by the concept of a community with a shared future in cyberspace, the international community should uphold the principles of justice and fairness, adhere to extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, insist on multilateral and multi-stakeholder participation, earnestly respect the cyber sovereignty of all countries, and build a more just and reasonable governance system for cyberspace.

尊重网络主权和构建网络空间命运共同体，前者强调共存、主张“各美其美”，后者偏重合作、彰显互利共赢，二者辩证统一，相辅相成。一方面，携手构建网络空间命运共同体必须以尊重网络主权为基础，而网络主权的前沿性、复杂性以及各国国情的差异性，决定了各国在网络空间行使主权的实践必然会长期存在多样性。另一方面，基于网络空间“全球一网、互联互通”的特性，只有通过构建网络空间命运共同体，才能有效保障网络主权。这要求各国在行使网络主权时，不能有损其他国家正当利益，尤其应顾及国际社会共同利益，切实履行维护网络基础设施安全、保障网络空间互联互通和保护公民在网络空间合法权益等义务。当前，一些国家在网络空间行使主权的相关实践存在推行长臂管辖、奉行单边主义、构建贸易壁垒等倾向，将本国利益凌驾于他国利益及国际社会共同利益之上的网络霸凌行为更是与网络主权格格不入。“天下兼相爱则治，交相恶则乱”，国际社会应在网络空间命运共同体理念指引下，秉持公道正义的理念，坚持共商共建共享，坚持多边参与、多方参与，切实尊重所有国家的网络主权，构建更加公正合理的网络空间治理体系。

Lu Chuanying: The interconnected and interoperable nature of cyberspace determines that no country can remain immune to issues such as cybersecurity and digital development. However, for a long time, some countries, relying on their technological and first-mover advantages, have attempted to dominate the rule-making of cyberspace, treating it as a new domain for seeking hegemony. This has led to frequent occurrences of cyber surveillance, cyber attacks, and technology blockades, the widening of the digital divide, and the intensification of fragmentation and camp-based polarization in cyberspace. Against this backdrop, global cyber governance has fallen into a dual crisis of “security dilemma” and “trust deficit.”

鲁传颖：网络空间的互联互通特性，决定了任何国家都无法在网络安全、数字发展等问题上独善其身。然而，长期以来，一些国家凭借技术优势和先发优势，试图主导网络空间规则制定，将网络空间视为谋求霸权的新疆域。这导致网络监听、网络攻击、技术封锁等行为屡见不鲜，数字鸿沟不断扩大，网络空间碎片化、阵营化趋势加剧。在此背景下，全球网络治理陷入“安全困境”和“信任赤字”的双重危机。

The proposal of the concept of a community with a shared future in cyberspace offers a new approach to resolving this predicament. The core essence of this concept lies in: cyberspace is a common space for human activity, and its future and destiny should be jointly determined by all countries in the world. It transcends the traditional zero-sum game mindset, abandons the hegemonic logic of “you lose, I win,” and advocates replacing confrontation with cooperation and exclusivity with win-win outcomes. More importantly, this concept also points to a scientific path of practice: by building a community of development, a community of security, a community of responsibility, and a community of interests, it aims to achieve the goals of jointly advancing development, jointly maintaining security, jointly participating in governance, and jointly sharing outcomes, thereby helping human society collectively move toward a bright future of digitalization and intelligence.

网络空间命运共同体理念的提出，为破解这一困局提供了新思路。这一理念的核心要义在于：网络空间是人类共同的活动空间，其前途命运应由世界各国共同掌握。它超越了传统的零和博弈思维，摒弃了你输我赢的霸权逻辑，倡导以合作代替对抗、以共赢取代独占。更重要的是，这一理念还指明了科学的实践路径，即通过构建发展共同体、安全共同体、责任共同体、利益共同体，实现发展共同推进、安全共同维护、治理共同参与、成果共同分享的目标，助力人类社会共同迈向数字化、智能化的美好未来。