Digital Sovereignty Must Be Put into Practice
CAISA Chief Scientist contributes to debate at an event by Dansk Industri.
How do organizations work with digital sovereignty in concrete terms? This was a central question at the DI Digital-event by Dansk Industry on April 23rd, 2026, where the topic was on the agenda among companies, decision-makers, and experts.
CAISA Chief Scientist Roman Jurowetzki participated in the discussions and contributed with perspectives on how work on digital sovereignty is increasingly moving from strategic ambitions to operational choices in practice.
From Strategy to Practice
A key message from the event is that digital sovereignty cannot be reduced to a single overarching strategy. Instead, it concerns ongoing and concrete prioritizations within organizations, for example regarding the choice of technologies, partners, regulatory approaches, and the ability to adapt or replace systems.
Roman Jurowetzki emphasizes that organizations’ work with AI and digital solutions is itself a critical component of building digital sovereignty. Experience from implementation and operations creates the necessary capacity to navigate a complex technological and geopolitical landscape.
At the same time, the discussion highlighted that digital sovereignty largely concerns organizational capacity: The ability to understand one’s own systems, assess their performance, and make informed decisions on that basis. This requires, among other things, insight into digital infrastructures, competencies in AI and data, and systematic learning through practice.
A Core Research Area at CAISA
Digital sovereignty is a core research area at CAISA. The center focuses on analyzing how the concept is translated into practice in a Danish and European context, including how organizations balance innovation and control, and how political ambitions are transformed into concrete decisions.
Roman Jurowetzki’s participation in the DI Digital event is an example of how CAISA’s research is brought into play in ongoing discussions on digital development and governance.
Through six interventions from leading European scholars in their field, this research brief examines the challenges of governing AI-generated content in an information environment where such content is rapidly becoming the norm. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives, the contributions assess the effectiveness and limitations of emerging AI transparency governance, particularly labelling requirements under the EU AI Act and the forthcoming Code of Practice on marking and labelling of AI-generated content. While transparency labels are normatively important for informing users about content provenance, research suggests that labelling alone is unlikely to mitigate manipulation, restore trust, or empower citizens. The research brief therefore argues for a broader transparency ecosystem that combines labelling with governance infrastructure, organisational accountability, and ongoing research to develop adaptive, evidence-based approaches to AI transparency.
Artificial intelligence has moved to the very center of Danish politics. During the government negotiations at Marienborg in April 2026, the talks were temporarily paused so that senior politicians could attend a seminar on AI and its societal implications.
At the seminar, CAISA Director Rebecca Adler-Nissen, together with Professor Abraham Newman (Georgetown University), contributed research-based perspectives on the role of AI in geopolitics, the economy, and democracy. Their presentation addressed, among other issues, how artificial intelligence affects security, labor markets, education, and Europe’s strategic position.
According to TV2, there was strong interest among the politicians, who actively engaged with questions related to both technological developments and societal consequences. Rebecca Adler-Nissen highlighted the high level of engagement and the growing demand for knowledge about the implications of AI across policy areas.
CAISA’s participation underscores the center’s role in bringing research-based knowledge into political decision-making processes and contributing to the responsible development of AI in society.
This brief is currently only available in Danish.
Summary (Translated)
Digital sovereignty is multidimensional and requires priority
In a time of geopolitical instability and rapid AI development, control over digital infrastructure and data has become critical. While there is broad agreement on the need for action at the national, Nordic, and EU levels, a shared language around digital sovereignty is still lacking. This lack of alignment leads either to inaction or to narrow technical solutions without strategic direction. The core argument of the brief is that digital sovereignty is a multidimensional concept, involving both principled positions and pragmatic choices. Reducing it to technical solutions risks overlooking the values and trade-offs that determine who controls and benefits from these systems. Conversely, focusing solely on values leads to abstract principles without practical implementation or real impact. Digital sovereignty is rarely about choosing between full self-sufficiency and total dependence. Rather, it is about balancing often competing demands for openness, security, competitiveness, growth, values, and rights in a world where capabilities are unevenly distributed. This means that it is necessary to define who or what is to be protected or promoted, within the domains of security, economic growth, or citizens’ rights, and to recognize that choices in one domain may strengthen or undermine another. The brief focuses on AI as the area where digital sovereignty is most acutely at stake, but the concepts apply more broadly to digital infrastructure and data. It provides decision-makers with tools to navigate these dilemmas by presenting:
- A conceptual framework for identifying who or what should be digitally sovereign.
- An overview of how digital sovereignty is prioritized around the world.
- An understanding that sovereignty can be exercised through three control regimes: ownership, expertise, or regulation – but that none of these are sufficient on their own.
The central implication of the brief is that digital sovereignty requires an integrated strategy that combines ownership, expertise, and regulation, while managing the interdependencies and trade-offs between security, economic growth, and citizens’ rights through clear objectives. Without this holistic approach, there is a risk of ineffective regulation, unusable infrastructure, or a lack of capacity to develop, maintain, and apply solutions in practice, potentially undermining security, growth, or rights.
