Digital Sovereignty in BRICS Countries: Policy Responses to the Challenges of Digital Neocolonialism
https://doi.org/10.24833/2782-7062-2026-5-2-51-69
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of digital neocolonialism and the issues of ensuring state digital sovereignty amid the transformation of the global digital space. In recent years, the concept of digital sovereignty has been gaining prominence in global political and public discourse: issues related to digital sovereignty are raised at both supranational (the EU, the World Economic Forum) and national levels (for example, Canada). The BRICS countries are not lagging behind this trend: at the current stage, each member state is implementing initiatives aimed at strengthening state digital sovereignty, enshrined in national regulatory frameworks. Some scholars associate this trend with the growing «data colonialism» of transnational digital corporations that exploit population data in exchange for services a phenomenon referred to in the literature as digital neocolonialism. The study sets the following objectives: first, to clarify the concept of «digital sovereignty» based on contemporary domestic and international academic approaches; second, to conduct a comparative analysis of the institutional, legal-regulatory, and strategic foundations of BRICS member states’ policies on protecting digital sovereignty; third, to formulate and substantiate a scenario for the development of BRICS cooperation on digital sovereignty protection in the context of international challenges posed by digital neocolonialism. The purpose of this article is to identify the current political course of the BRICS countries in protecting digital sovereignty in response to emerging challenges of digital neocolonialism. To achieve this aim, the study seeks to identify the key features of digital sovereignty and to define digital neocolonialism; to outline common steps taken by BRICS countries in protecting digital sovereignty; to determine national models of digital sovereignty protection (including new members); and to identify constraints on the development of a common BRICS approach to digital sovereignty. The research employs case study methods, document analysis, the comparative method, and scenario method. The findings make it possible to assess the potential and limits of cooperation among BRICS countries in the field of digital policy and to identify possible directions for developing coordinated approaches to the protection of digital sovereignty.
About the Authors
N. V. SidorenkoRussian Federation
Natalia V. Sidorenko, PhD in Political Science, Lecturer, Department of World Political Processes, Faculty of Governance and Politics
76 Vernadsky Prospect, Moscow, 119454
V. A. Dmitrieva
Russian Federation
Valentina A. Dmitrieva, PhD in Political Science
76 Vernadsky Prospect, Moscow, 119454
M. I. Savchenkova
Russian Federation
Maria I. Savchenkova, Analyst, Project Office of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation based at MGIMO University; Master’s Student
76 Vernadsky Prospect, Moscow, 119454
References
1. Calandro, E. (2025). South African digital sovereignty at the crossroad of securitization and development. In: Schiffrin, A., Donahue, E. & Mancini, M. (eds.). Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81–102.
2. Chipangura, B. & Gustave, D.-N. (2022). Securing the cybersafety of South African online high school learners beyond COVID-19. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 18 (1), Article a1256. DOI: 10.4102/td.v18i1.1256.
3. Cong, W. (2025). The spatial expansion of China’s digital sovereignty. In: Schiffrin, A., Donahue, E. & Mancini, M. (eds.). Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 63–80.
4. Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries. (2025). Schiffrin, A., Donahue, E. & Mancini, M. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Thumfart, J. (2025). Digital sovereignty in China, Russia, and India. In: Schiffrin, A., Donahue, E. & Mancini, M. (eds.). Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–62.
6. Vadiati, N. & Mehran, N. (2025). Smart mandate in Iranian cities: from digital sovereignty to the automated oppression of everyday life. Dialogues on Digital Society, 1 (3). DOI: 10.1177/29768640251375558.
7. Barandova, T.L. (2025). Tsifrovaya transformatsiya v stranakh BRIKS+: al’yansy i mezhgosudarstvennye struktury koordinatsii (obzor zarubezhnogo opyta) [Digital transformation in the BRICS+ countries: alliances and interstate coordination structures (a review of foreign experience)]. Rossiya v global’nom mire = Russia in the Global World, 28 (3), 9–31. DOI: 10.48612/RG/RGW.28.3.1. (In Russian)
8. Ignatov, A.A. (2025). Sravnitel’noe issledovanie politiki po realizatsii tsifrovogo suvereniteta gosudarstva stranami-chlenami BRIKS [A comparative study of digital sovereignty implementation policies in BRICS member states]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij = International Organisations Research Journal, 20 (3). DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2025-02-04. (In Russian)
9. Karimnia, R., Maennel, K. & Shahin, M. (2022). Culturally-sensitive cybersecurity awareness program design for Iranian high-school students. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy (ICISSP 2022), 121–132. DOI: 10.5220/0010824800003120.
10. Krylov, D. (2025). Digital transformation of the United Arab Emirates as a tool of national modernization and foreign policy strategy (2023–2025). Russia and the Moslem World, 3 (329), 55–66. DOI: 10.31249/rmw/2025.03.05.
11. Larionova, M.V. & Shelepov, A.V. (2024). Indiya: formirovanie regulirovaniya tekhnologicheskikh kompanij dlya rosta tsifrovoj ekonomiki [India: shaping the regulation of technology companies for the growth of the digital economy]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij: obrazovanie, nauka, novaya ekonomika = International Organisations Research Journal, 19 (2), 127–144. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2024-02-07. (In Russian)
12. Lebedeva, M.M. (2008). Politicheskaya sistema mira: proyavleniya «vnesistemnosti», ili novye aktory – starye pravila [The world political system: manifestations of “extra-systemicity”, or new actors – old rules]. In: “Privatizatsiya” mirovoj politiki: lokal’nye dejstviya – global’nye rezul’taty [“Privatization” of world politics: local actions – global outcomes]. Moscow: Golden Bee, 53–66. (In Russian)
13. Morozova, S.S. (2025). Tsifrovoj suverenitet i global’noe sotrudnichestvo: konkuriruyushchie modeli tsifrovogo gosudarstva v Rossii, Kitae, SShA i ES [Digital sovereignty and global cooperation: competing models of the digital state in Russia, China, the USA, and the EU]. Sot-sial’nye i gumanitarnye znaniya = Social and Humanitarian Knowledge, 11 (3), 224–235. DOI: 10.18255/2412-6519-2025-3-224-235. (In Russian)
14. Popova, I. (2024). Digital platforms regulation in Brazil: the political context of new laws adoption. International Organisations Research Journal, 19 (2), 93–109. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2024-02-05.
15. Zinovieva, E.S. & Ignatov, A.A. (2024). The role of BRICS in the international ICT security regime. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations, 3 (1), 54–82. DOI: 10.24833/RJW-PLN-2024-1-54-82.
16. Zinovieva, E.S. & Shitkov, S.V. (2023). Tsifrovoj suverenitet v praktike mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij [Digital sovereignty in the practice of international relations]. Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’ = International Affairs, 3. URL: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/2798 (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Sidorenko N.V., Dmitrieva V.A., Savchenkova M.I. Digital Sovereignty in BRICS Countries: Policy Responses to the Challenges of Digital Neocolonialism. Governance and Politics. 2026;5(2):51-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2782-7062-2026-5-2-51-69
JATS XML










