Укр Eng
+380 (44) 278-80-24
“Almanac of Law”
  1. Home
  2.  ⇒ 
  3. Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026)
  4.  ⇒ 
  5. Information Sovereignty of the State: Structure and Functions

Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 596–602.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-596-602

Liulko S. А.
Information Sovereignty of the State: Structure and Functions

The article provides a comprehensive theoretical and legal analysis of the structure and functions of state information sovereignty in the context of global digitalization. The nature of information sovereignty as a specific dimension of unified state sovereignty in the information sphere is examined. The plurality of approaches to defining information sovereignty in modern legal doctrine is analyzed, including works by leading Ukrainian and foreign scholars. The position is substantiated that information sovereignty is not a separate type of sovereignty but represents a functional manifestation of state sovereignty regarding the regulation of the information space.

Five structural components of information sovereignty are identified: territorial-jurisdictional (extension of state power to information processes occurring on state territory or concerning its citizens), normative-legal (legislative regulation system of the information sphere), technological (control over critical information infrastructure and development of national technologies), information-content (control over information content and ensuring information environment quality), and international-legal (participation in forming international rules of cyber behavior). These components form an integrated system whose effectiveness depends on balanced development of all elements. Different models of legal framework for information sovereignty are analyzed — Chinese (based on strict data localization and state security priority), European (balancing user rights protection and limitation of technological platforms dominance), American (sectoral regulation and free Internet principles), and Ukrainian (combining effective protection with democratic principles adherence).

The functional purpose of information sovereignty is characterized through five interrelated functions: protective (safeguarding national information space from external threats including cyberattacks and destructive information influences), regulatory (establishing rules for national information space functioning and technology standardization), developmental (creating conditions for national information and communication technologies development and digital economy growth), coordinational (harmonizing actions of various state bodies, private sector and civil society), and international-representative (participating in forming global Internet governance norms and protecting national interests globally).

The main problems and challenges of modern information sovereignty development are identified, including tension between state control aspiration and information freedom necessity, limitations of national regulation due to global nature of information flows, and regulatory gaps due to rapid technological changes. Special attention is paid to Ukrainian experience in forming an information sovereignty model under conditions of countering information aggression from the Russian Federation. Ukraine faces the unique challenge of simultaneously resisting large-scale information aggression while maintaining openness of information space, freedom of speech, and media pluralism. This requires a balanced model combining effective national interests protection with democratic standards compliance. The necessity of a systematic approach to developing all structural components is substantiated, as weakness of any single element undermines the state’s overall capacity to protect its interests in the digital sphere and ensure national security. The article concludes that only harmonious realization of all identified functions — protective, regulatory, developmental, coordinational, and international-representative — ensures effective information sovereignty in the context of modern challenges including information aggression and European integration aspirations.

Keywords: information sovereignty, digital sovereignty, structure, functions, cyberspace, information security, legal regulation, public administration, Ukraine.

 References

  1. Ternavska V. M. Kontseptsiia derzhavnoho suverenitetu v aspekti hlobalnoho informatsiinoho prostoru. Informatsiia i pravo. № 4 (39). S. 80–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37750/2616-6798.2021.4(39).248794 (in Ukr.).
  2. Solodka M. Zabezpechennia informatsiinoho suverenitetu derzhavy. Informatsiia i pravo. 2020. № 1 (32). 80–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37750/2616-6798.2020.1(32).200311 (in Ukr.).
  3. Novikov Digital sovereignty: conceptual challenges and constitutional implications. Konstytutsiino-pravovi akademichni studii. 2024. № 1. S. 61-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2663-5399.2024.1.08 (in Ukr.).
  4. Teoriia derzhavy i Akademichnyi kurs: pidruchnyk / za red. O. V. Zaichuka, N. M. Onishchenko. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter, 2006. 688 s. (in Ukr.).
  5. Zahalna teoriia derzhavy i prava: pidruchnyk / V. Tsvik, O. V. Petryshyn, L. V. Avramenko ta in.; za red. V. Tsvika, O. V. Petryshyna. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2009. 584 s. (in Ukr.).
  6. Bobrovnyk V. Kompromis i konflikt u pravi: antropoloho-komunikatyvnyi pidkhid do analizu: monohrafiia. Kyiv, 2011. 384 s. (in Ukr.).
  7. Celeste Digital constitutionalism: a new systematic theorisation. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 2019. Vol. 33, No. 1. P. 76–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2019.1562604
  8. Daskal The Un-Territoriality of Data. Yale Law Journal. 2015. Vol. 125, № 2. P. 326–390.
  9. Parkhomenko M. Dzherela prava: problemy teorii ta metodolohii: monohrafiia. Kyiv: Yurydychna dumka, 2008. 336 s. (in Ukr.).
  10. Cybersecurity Law of the Peoples Republic of URL:  https://www.dataguidance.com/sites/ (data zvernennia 18.02.2026).
  11. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2016. URL: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/contents (data zvernennia 18.02.2026).
  12. European Commission. Shaping Europes Digital Future. COM (2020) 67 final. Brussels, 2020. URL:  https://europa.eu/system/files/ (data zvernennia 18.02.2026).
  13. Shevchuk M. О. Analiz natsionalnoho zakonodavstva pro informatsiinu bezpeku. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal. № 1. S. 383–386. URL: http://lsej.org.ua/1_2025/89.pdf (data zvernennia 18.02.2026). DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2025-1/87  (in Ukr.).
  14. Husariev S. D., Tykhomyrov O. D. Yurydychna deontolohiia (osnovy yurydychnoi diialnosti): navch. posib.; 3-tie vyd., pererob. i dop. Kyiv: Znannia, 2008. 495 s. (in Ukr.).
  15. Radutnyi E. Iliuziia ta realnist informatsiinoho suverenitetu. Informatsiia i pravo. 2020. № 4 (35). S. 22–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37750/2616-6798.2020.4(35).221215 (in Ukr.).
  16. Dzoban P. Filosofiia informatsiinykh komunikatsii: monohrafiia. Kharkiv: Maidan, 2012. 224 s. (in Ukr.).
  17. Schmitt M. (ed.) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 598 p.
  18. Hichko V. Informatsiinyi suverenitet yak peredumova mizhnarodnoi spivpratsi Ukrainy: pytannia zakhystu v umovakh zbroinoi ahresii. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia: PRAVO. 2024. Vyp. 86. Ch. 3. S. 272–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.86.3.41 (in Ukr.).
  19. Kutsepal S. Informatsiinyi suverenitet ta informatsiina bezpeka Ukrainy: vyklyky ta realii viiny. Poltavskyi pravovyi chasopys. 2023. № 1. S. 78–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2786-7811.1.290476 (in Ukr.).

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 18.02.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026

Back to contents