HomeÉcologie et souveraineté dans le domaine numérique, entre conflictualité et alignement

Écologie et souveraineté dans le domaine numérique, entre conflictualité et alignement

*  *  *

Abstract

Français English

While the concept of sovereignty is generating renewed interest in the digital sphere, its connection with ecological paradigms remains largely unexplored, despite some recent publications engaging with this research axis. Indeed, in the name of digital sovereignty, new and increasingly redundant infrastructures are being built to provide better connectivity, enhanced computing, or expanded storage capacities. This issue of Terminal aims to intersect, within the digital domain, various approaches to sovereignty and ecology, between conflict and alignment.

Announcement

Français English

Call for papers

As sovereignty in the digital realm is the subject of renewed interest (Pohle et al., 2025), the articulation of this concept with ecological paradigms remains under-explored, despite the timely issues raised by this focus of research (Carré and Desbois, 2025).

Indeed, in the name of digital sovereignty, new and more redundant infrastructures are being built and planned to ensure reliable local connectivity, computing capacities, and local data storage among other aspects (for example on DNS: DNS4EU, 2025; Knight et al., 2025).

This materiality requires the exploitation of energy, labour, water, land, and raw materials, thereby leading to the acceleration of:

  1. dynamics of ecologically unequal exchange (Hornborg, 2015) that characterises the world economy: extraction of resources at a low cost in the global peripheries, primarily for the benefit of global centres, with an unequal distribution of the social and ecological impacts (Hickel et al., 2022);

  2. global extractivist dynamics, with governments lowering environmental protection standards in order to make their domestic markets more attractive (Fan et al., 2023);

  3. dynamics of local competition between digital infrastructure and decarbonisation projects.

The recent spur in the generative artificial intelligence (genAI) industry has intensified these tensions (Ding & Shi, 2024). While the latter constitute the most salient manifestations, other more subtle configurations — oscillating between conflictuality and alignment – emerge once considering the plurality of possible interpretations of sovereignty and ecology.

Indeed, these two concepts can be approached through a variety of paradigms. The concept of ‘ecology’ thus encompasses a wide range of theoretical perspectives, including environmental ecology, decolonial ecology (Ferdinand, 2019), social ecology (Bookchin, 2020), indigenous ecologies (Whyte, 2017), political ecology (Keucheyan, 2018), ecofeminism (Mies and Shiva, 1993), Marxist ecology (Saito, 2020). These constitute but few important theoretical perspectives on ecology. In the digital realm and more broadly, sovereignty can also be examined from multiple perspectives: from state sovereignty (Haggart et al., 2021) to people’s sovereignty – particularly through the lens of autonomy (Grohmann et al., 2025) or indigenous approaches (Couture et al., 2024) –, through individual sovereignty or the quasi-sovereign role exercised by companies (Jiang \& Belli, 2025). In accordance with this approach, no a priori definition of these concepts is adopted for the purposes of this call for papers. The present issue of *Terminal* aspires to convene, within the digital realm, a variety of approaches to sovereignty and ecology, encompassing the spectrum from conflictuality to alignment.

A non-exhaustive list of questions and themes

In this special issue of Terminal contributors from a wide range of academic disciplines (with a particular emphasis on science and technology studies, information and communication science, economy, management, computer sciences, law, etc.) are invited to focus in particular on the following themes:

  1. Infrastructure projects resulting from so-called “digital sovereignty” policies give rise to concerns regarding their water and energy consumption, as well as the land grabbing required for their construction, among other issues. To what extent do specific discourses on digital sovereignty legitimize environmentally harmful infrastructure and industrial policies? What political economy underlies these dynamics? To what extent do digitalisation policies justified in the name of the “ecological transition” weaken certain forms of sovereignty? Which paradigms of sovereignty or autonomy are being mobilised – or could be mobilised – to promote an ecologically desirable future in the face of the rapid infrastructure-driven expansion of AI?

  2. Sovereignty can be understood as a process of delimitation, whereby the power to determine which territories and which peoples may be exploited is conferred. What role does the notion of sovereignty play in reshuffling these contemporary extractive dynamics (Bieberstein \& Evren, 2024)? According to which ecological paradigms can digital sovereignty policies be understood as contributing to colonial or neocolonial dynamics (Kwet, 2019)? In what ways is the concept of sovereignty mobilised and implemented in colonial (internal or external) and postcolonial contexts to fight extractivist dynamics accelerated by digitalisation? In the name of sovereignty, certain centres have asserted the necessity of relocating several components of the digital value chain (mines, chips, batteries). To what extent does the relocation of these resource-intensive and highly polluting industries (Izoard, 2024) address a sovereignty requirement?

  3. Certain centres, such as France, have adopted regulatory relaxation policies with a view of attracting foreign direct investments to finance digital infrastructures. To what extent does this reconfiguration of the state’s role exacerbate both technological dependencies and the environmental impact of digital technology? Conversely, could an industrial policy favouring domestic digital actors constrain the ecological impacts of digitalisation? To what extent does the process of deregulation result in the transfer of sovereignty to private entities, thereby contributing to the ecological harms that are prevalent in the digital realm? In the neoliberal economic paradigm, governments typically permit markets to self-regulate and reduce oversight of companies in the name of competition and innovation (Foucault, 2004; Ojala, 2021). Does the state’s withdrawal from market regulation alter the way in which ecological impacts of digital technology are framed?

  4. Discourses concerning sovereignty have been advanced; they suggest that free and open-source resources and digital commons may provide means of achieving a non-state-centred understanding of sovereignty. Does this approach give rise to new questions regarding ecological issues? Can digital commons facilitate a reduction in energy consumption through the reuse of existing resources? Can the adoption of digital commons by States and enterprises in the name of sovereignty influence the way ecological issues are addressed?

This is not an exhaustive list, but rather an invitation to authors to critically explore the relationships and tensions between sovereignty and ecological paradigms in the digital realm.

Calendar & authors’ guidelines

  • Publication of the call: 30th Jun 2026

  • Deadline for sending the abstracts (max 2 pages long): 30th October 2026

  • Validation of the abstracts: 15th November 2026

  • Deadline for sending full articles: 15th February 2027

  • Final publication: June 2027

Abstracts must be submitted through the OJS platform (choose issue #144) : https://ojs.openedition.org/index.php/terminal/about/submissions.

Author guidelines can be found on the journal website: https://journals.openedition.org/terminal/875.

Guest Editors

Bibliographie

Bieberstein, A. von, Evren, E. (2024). Sovereign extractions, extractive sovereignty. Anthropological Theory 24(3): 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996241270783

Bonnet, E., Landivar, D., Monnin, A. (2021). Héritage et fermeture: une écologie du démantèlement. Éditions Divergences.

Bookchin, M. (2020). L’Écologie sociale. Penser la liberté au-delà de l’humain. Editions Wildproject.

Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., Van Lente, H. (2006). The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3‑4): 285‑98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002

Brodie, P. (2025). Smarter, greener extractivism: Digital infrastructures and the harnessing of new resources. Information, Communication & Society 28(6): 1061-1080. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2341013

Carré, D., Desbois, D. (2025). Positionnement et éléments de cadrage préalable pour aborder les transitions numérique et écologique. Terminal 140. https://doi.org/10.4000/13vht

Clavey, M. (2025). IA : Emmanuel Macron annonce une centaine de milliards pour la Porte des étoiles française, Next. https://next.ink/169815/ia-emmanuel-macron-annonce-une-centaine-de-milliards-pour-la-porte-des-etoiles-francaise/

Couture, S., Toupin, S., Mayoral Baños, A. (2024). Resisting and claiming digital sovereignty: The cases of civil society and Indigenous groups. Policy & Internet 16(4): 739-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.434

Ding, Y., Shi, T. (2024). Sustainable LLM Serving: Environmental Implications, Challenges, and Opportunities. 2024 IEEE 15th International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference (IGSC), 37-38. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGSC64514.2024.00016

DNS4EU (2025). DNS4EU. https://www.joindns4.eu/

Fan, J.H., Omura, A., Roca, E. (2023). Geopolitics and rare earth metals. European Journal of Political Economy 78: 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2022.102356

Ferdinand, M. (2019). Une écologie décoloniale. Penser l’écologie depuis le monde caribéen. Seuil.

Foucault, M. (2024). La Naissance de la biopolitique. Cours au Collège de France (1978-1979). Seuil.

Frank, A. (1975). On Capitalist Underdevelopment. Oxford University Press.

Gossart, C. (2025). Une souveraineté numérique et écologique est-elle possible ? Terminal 141. https://doi.org/10.4000/148ea

Grohmann, R., Burity, P., Vilarins, L. (2025). Soberania Popular e Autonomia: Diferentes Sentidos e Consequências para Políticas Digitais. Comunicação, Mídia e Consumo 22(65). https://doi.org/10.18568/cmc.v22i65.3085

Haggart, B., Scholte, J.A., Tusikov, N. (2021). Introduction: Return of the state? In Haggart, B., Scholte, J.A., Tusikov, N. (Eds.), Power and Authority in Internet Governance, pp. 1-12. Routledge.

Hickel, J., Dorninger C., Wieland, H., Suwandi, I. (2022). Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990–2015. Global Environmental Change 73: 102467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102467

Hornborg, A. (2014). Ecological economics, Marxism, and technological progress : Some explorations of the conceptual foundations of theories of ecologically unequal exchange. Ecological Economics 105: 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.015

Izoard, C. (2024). L’esprit qui dévorait la matière : L’IA, une technologie insatiable. Écologie & Politique 69(2): 73‑84. https://doi.org/10.3917/ecopo1.069.0073

Jiang, M., Belli, L. (2025). Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries. Cambridge University Press.

Jones, N., Witze, J.T., Tollefson, J., Kozlov, M. (2025). Science under Trump 2.0: The likely winners and losers. Nature 637: 533. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00052-z

Keucheyan, R. (2018). La nature est un champ de bataille. Essai d’écologie politique. Seuil.

Knight, C., O’Brien, P., Herbert, E. (2025). France announces creation of 35 new data centres as AI summit kicks off. France24. https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/business/20250206-france-announces-creation-of-35-new-data-centres-as-ai-summit-kicks-off

Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class 60(4): 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172

Leonard, M., Pisani-Ferry, J., Shapiro, J., Tagliapietra, S., Wolff, G.B. (2021). The geopolitics of the European Green Deal. Bruegel Policy Contribution 04/2021. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/237660

Mies, M., Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. Fernwood Publications.

Monnin, A. (2023). Politiser le renoncement. Éditions Divergences.

Mounier-Kuhn P. (1994). Le Plan Calcul, Bull et l’industrie des composants : Les contradictions d’une stratégie. Revue Historique 591(3): 123-154. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40955788

Ojala, M. (2021). Doing away with the sovereign: Neoliberalism and the promotion of market discipline in European economic governance. New Political Economy 26(1): 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020.1729714

Paris, B. (2021). The Internet of Futures Past: Values Trajectories of Networking Protocol Projects. Science, Technology, & Human Values 46(5): 1021‑47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920974083

Pereira, P., Bašić, F., Bogunovic, I., Barcelo, D. (2022). Russian-Ukrainian war impacts the total environment. Science of the total environment 837: 155865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155865

Pohle, J., Santaniello, M. (2024). From multistakeholderism to digital sovereignty: Toward a new discursive order in internet governance? Policy & Internet 16(4): 672-691. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.426

Pohle, J., Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review 9(4): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532

Roussilhe, G. (2021). Eau et puces électroniques : l’avenir climatique et industriel de Taïwan. Blog article. https://gauthierroussilhe.com/articles/eau-et-puces-electroniques-l-avenir-climatique-et-industriel-de-taiwan

Saito, K. (2020). Hitoshinsei no “Shihonron” (Capital in the Anthropocene). Shueisha.

Samet, J.M. (2025). Conflict and the Environment: The Tragic Example of Gaza. American Journal of Public Health 115(7): 1042-1043. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308168

Tubaro, P. (2025). The dual footprint of artificial intelligence: Environmental and social impacts across the globe. Globalizations 23(4): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2025.2589571

White House (2025). Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf

Whyte, K. (2017). Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes 55(1-2): 153-162. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/711473/summary


Keywords

  • Souveraineté numérique, écologie, critique, intelligence artificielle, données, infrastructures numériques, environnement

Contact(s)

  • Riccardo Nanni
    courriel : riccardo [dot] nanni [at] cnrs [dot] fr

License

CC-BY-4.0 This announcement is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0 .

To cite this announcement

Valérian Guillier, Riccardo Nanni, Marie Garin, « Écologie et souveraineté dans le domaine numérique, entre conflictualité et alignement », Call for papers, Calenda, Published on Friday, July 31, 2026, https://doi.org/10.58079/16n7e

Author(s)

Valérian Guillier

Riccardo Nanni

Marie Garin

Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search