Power and Governance in a Technopolar World
Technology is a consequential and influential actor in the global state. Recently, Ian Bremmer introduced the concept of an emerging ‘technopolar world’ which elucidates that power is no longer monopolised by states but increasingly diffused across large technology corporations and digital infrastructures. With the scale of its influence, technology is increasingly positioned to undermine the traditional authority of the state(s). Therefore, the Westphalian notions of sovereignty, territoriality, and state authority are progressively being reshaped.
This shift can be understood through legal, political science, and political economy based analysis. From a political economy perspective, power is concentrated in corporations that control data, platforms, and digital infrastructure. From a political perspective, these actors influence public discourse and governance processes. From a legal perspective, they expose the limits of state-based regulation.
Moreover, algorithms and AI-platforms also shape behaviour and decision-making, often acting across state borders. While regulation remains fragmented across jurisdictions, technology operates across them.. International law has potential to resolve this, as it offers a framework for common standards, agreements and conventions that reduce fragmentation and promote consistency. However, it is also limited in that it relies on state consent and has weak enforcement tools.
This timely series enquires the impact of emergence of a technopolar world on reshaping governance and the changing dynamic between states and technology companies. In response to this, the authors explore several pertinent topics such as the growing dependence of states on technology companies, the limitations of voluntary AI governance frameworks and the tensions between sovereignty, accountability, and innovation. The pieces also expound upon the inadequacy of the existing domestic and international legal frameworks and regulations. Since private actors increasingly control critical digital infrastructure and influence public decision-making, the authors undertake a careful analysis on whether such existing and upcoming frameworks are actually effective or are a mere facade. Overall, these pieces invite the readers to rethink how governance ought to respond and adapt to shifting centres of power. They also warrant for a closer inspection of how meaningful transparency and accountability should look like in an era progressively characterised by digital technologies.
The series starts with a proposal for architecture sensitive governance for AI systems. Maanasi Shivakumar and Kashvi Garg evaluate existing AI governance frameworks as against the nature of accountability that can be achieved with different kinds of AI systems. Advitiya Pathak and Tanush Mehrotra then explore the nature of governance documents released by AI corporations – how do we look at policies and frameworks that these corporations themselves publish? What must be the liability attached to internal regulatory instruments of these private entities? Thereafter, the focus shifts to India : Harleen Kaur questions whether we are achieving digital sovereignty truly independent of private entities. The series closes with Sameer Patil and Ishita Deshmukh mapping how Big Tech has accumulated forms of regulatory, normative, infrastructural, and cognitive power.
The concept note for this Blog Series drafted by Mudra Mehta from the IJLT Editorial Board can be accessed here.
Mudra Mehta (IJLT Editorial Board,2025-26) is from the Batch of 2029 at the National Law School of India, Bangalore.