The state of discussions on digital sovereignty in Switzerland and Europe

On the 18th of November 2025 two conferences in two European capitals simultaneously discussed issues pertaining to the buzzword of digital sovereignty: the DINAcon in Bern, Switzerland and the European Digital Sovereignty Summit in Berlin, Germany. Despite addressing similar topics, the conferences could not have been more different in content, however: While Swiss administrators used the DINAcon to present their implementation efforts with respect to the free and open-source software and interoperability requirements outlined in articles 9 and 14 of the EMBAG law, respectively, the European governments represented in the European Council pitched a very different vision of digital sovereignty in Berlin: One which emphasizes the competitiveness of and investment into proprietary European software solutions, most likely at the expense of consumer protections.

We, as the Switzerland Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-CH), are very concerned about the commercial re-interpretation of the term digital sovereignty. While supporting local businesses to develop and administer digital solutions is an essential part of the equation to achieve digital sovereignty, it must not come at the cost of jeopardizing the ability of states to act independently now and in the future. The reaction to an outsized dependency on (state-sponsored) American and Chinese Big Tech firms cannot possibly be an outsized dependency on (state-sponsored) European or Swiss Big Tech companies. Apart from ignoring the fact that companies can change domiciles, be bought by foreign investors or go bankrupt, the “buy European” approach also showcases a lack of creativity and imaginative power on the part of European politicians who cannot fathom an alternative to emulating other global powers and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of technological dependencies: The fact that a software vendor or cloud computing provider is domestic does nothing to reduce the vendor lock-in effects, the restrictiveness of proprietary software licenses, and the resulting stifling of competition and innovation.

Simply procuring digital services domestically falls massively short of achieving digital sovereignty as defined by either the Swiss (with a narrow focus on the state) or European (with a wider perspective including non-state actors) regulators:

“Digital sovereignty requires the necessary control over and ability to act in the digital realm to ensure the delivery of state services.” – own translation of the Swiss government’s definition of digital sovereignty

“Digital sovereignty is the ability of Member States to be able to regulate their digital infrastructure, data and technologies. It encompasses the ability of individuals, businesses and institutions in Europe to act independently in the digital world, allowing for autonomous decisions about the use, governance, and development of digital systems without undue reliance on external actors […].” – taken from the Declaration for European Digital Sovereignty

A more encompassing answer as to how ensure digital sovereignty is needed. Any entity which wants to have control over the digital services it uses and aims to be able to change them to serve its specific needs should strive to operationalize the following principles:

• local infrastructure: Having access to geographically local computing resources, network infrastructure, and electricity is a prerequisite for being able to exert control over one’s digital services.
• local expertise: Without a motivated, experienced and educated local work force who can develop, debug and deploy digital services one cannot truly operate in a self-sovereign manner.
• interoperability: Open standards and open data formats allow for connectivity between services and reduced switching costs, thereby preventing vendor lock-ins and increasing one’s agency.
• free and open-source software: The four freedoms of free and open-source software (use, change, share and improve) give a legal and technical guarantee to the user to be a self-determined actor rather than a disenfranchised consumer. Instead of paying lip service to free and open-source software like the European Declaration for Digital Sovereignty does by making it optional and conditional,
  

  “Open-source solutions can play an important role enhancing digital sovereignty,
  provided they meet high cybersecurity standards and are complemented by
  reliable proprietary technologies where appropriate.”

  policy makers should recognize that actual digital sovereignty cannot be achieved without a firm commitment to free and open-source software.

Operationalizing these criteria is obviously harder than simply procuring domestic digital products. It requires new capabilities, organizational structures and cultural changes. But unlike the simplistic “buy domestic” strategy – whose political appeal in times of economic and geopolitical turmoil is obvious – they actually provide a path to achieve what the Declaration for European Digital Sovereignty sets out as a goal: ensuring “the ability of individuals, businesses and institutions in Europe to act independently in the digital world”.

As an NGI-0 consortium member, ISOC-CH will continue highlighting the advantages of free and open-source software, open standards, and open data formats for attaining digital sovereignty to policy makers, administrators, educators, and the wider public. We are happy to support Swiss decision makers on municipal, cantonal and federal levels with our expertise and network to take steps towards true digital sovereignty together.