Why Europe Needs Two Kinds of Digital Sovereignty
Europe's digital sovereignty debate surfaces a framework - present vs future sovereignty - that Australian strategy teams grappling with cloud and AI dependency could find analytically useful.
Key points
- Oxford Internet Institute argues Europe must distinguish between securing existing tech and building future sovereign capability.
- EU cloud infrastructure is 65-70% dependent on US hyperscalers; Europe's AI patent share declined 2018-2023.
- Limited direct APS applicability - Australia faces analogous dependency questions but this piece is EU-focused.
Implications for Australian agencies
- Monitor Strategy teams advising on Australia's AI and cloud sovereignty posture may want to monitor how the EU operationalises this present/future sovereignty distinction in upcoming policy programmes.
- Consider Agencies developing AI strategy could consider whether Australia faces analogous 'presentism' risk - investing in catching up on current AI stack rather than positioning for emerging paradigm shifts.
Implications are AI-generated. Starting points, not advice — see methodology for how they're framed.
View original source
Copied.
"Why Europe Needs Two Kinds of Digital Sovereignty"
Source: Oxford Internet Institute – News
Published: 24 April 2026
URL: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/why-europe-needs-two-kinds-of-digital-sovereignty/
An Oxford Internet Institute piece by Ballesteros and Lundblad argues Europe must separate two distinct goals within its digital sovereignty agenda: securing existing technological dependencies (present sovereignty) and building the capabilities to shape future paradigms (future sovereignty). The authors contend that over-investment in catching up with today's tech stack - 'presentism' - risks missing open windows in emerging areas like scientific AI, quantum, and fusion. They propose science policy mechanisms, including structured funding constraints that force demonstration of alternatives to key external inputs, as a path toward genuine technological self-determination. The piece draws on Mazzucato's mission-oriented investment framework and Perez's technological paradigm windows.
Implications for Australian agencies:
- [Monitor] Strategy teams advising on Australia's AI and cloud sovereignty posture may want to monitor how the EU operationalises this present/future sovereignty distinction in upcoming policy programmes.
- [Consider] Agencies developing AI strategy could consider whether Australia faces analogous 'presentism' risk - investing in catching up on current AI stack rather than positioning for emerging paradigm shifts.
Retrieved from SIMS, 18 July 2026.