Live

A new document is taking shape under geopolitical pressure, but will it become the foundation of Europe’s digital identity or remain just a political tool? On July 23, media reports revealed Austria’s plans to create a Digital Sovereignty Charter. Chancellor Christian Stocker invited 27 digital ministers and the Commissioner for Technological Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen, to a working meeting in Vienna on September 12. The main goal is to establish a shared European understanding of technological independence.

This initiative does not arise in a vacuum. Concerns are growing that former U.S. President Donald Trump — or future U.S. administrations — could use the dominance of American digital platforms in Europe as a political lever. In this context, Austria’s project appears not only as an effort to organize the EU’s internal tech market but also as a gesture of defending the bloc’s legal and strategic sovereignty.

A role similar to the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, proclaimed in 2000 and legally binding since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, consolidated human rights protections across the Union. It became a reference point for the European Court of Justice, Member States, and administrative bodies, harmonizing protections that were previously scattered across treaties and case law.

Could the Digital Sovereignty Charter play a similar role in the tech domain? Formally, it is set to be adopted in December during a Brussels ceremony on the eve of the EU Council meeting chaired by Denmark. If it becomes a binding political document, it could function as a “digital constitution,” outlining not only strategic goals but also the values underlying Europe’s digital policy.

Policy vs. rights

However, there is a fundamental difference between the two charters. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is normative, directly protecting individuals and enforceable in courts. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly used it as a benchmark when assessing EU institutions and Member States.

In contrast, the Digital Sovereignty Charter currently appears primarily as a political statement. Its purpose is to set common guidelines in the face of hybrid threats, growing technological dependence, and geopolitical pressure. It remains unclear whether the charter will grant citizens concrete rights or merely outline the competencies of EU institutions and Member States.

If the latter, instead of a “second charter of rights,” Europe would have a strategic instrument whose power depends on political will rather than judicial authority.

Austria and Denmark – united front or political gesture?

It is noteworthy that Austria’s initiative has received support from Denmark, currently holding the rotating presidency of the EU Council. A Danish spokesperson acknowledged that technological sovereignty has become a priority and highlighted “good dialogue” with Austria. This indicates that European capitals are seeking a shared platform to defend digital interests amid American pressure.

Yet, Danish Digital Minister Carole Stage Olsen may not attend the Vienna meeting due to a busy schedule. Symbolic absences like this suggest that political support is easier to declare than to implement in practice.

Digital sovereignty as a new fundamental right?

The Charter of Fundamental Rights already protects privacy, personal data, and communication freedoms, which extend to the digital era. So, is a new charter necessary?

The answer depends on how “digital sovereignty” is defined. If it is understood as protecting citizens from abuses by global tech corporations and foreign interference, the charter could be seen as extending fundamental rights into new areas, offering safeguards against powerful private actors.

If, however, the goal is to strengthen EU and Member State authority over technology regulation, the charter will serve as a political tool rather than a source of individual rights. Its constitutional significance would then be far less than that of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Europe between declaration and reality

The critical question is whether Europe can turn digital sovereignty declarations into action. American platforms dominate social media, cloud services, and AI. Drafting charters does not change the fact that the market is largely controlled by entities outside the EU.

From this perspective, the Digital Sovereignty Charter may be a symbolic attempt to reclaim control — a statement that Europe will not abandon its technological ambitions. Yet without a cohesive investment strategy, support for European tech firms, and robust regulatory mechanisms, the document risks remaining a mere “gesture of goodwill.”

The planned signing ceremony in Brussels on December 4 will be the project’s highlight. However, the political spectacle alone does not determine legal power. Only practice will show whether the charter becomes a reference point for the European Court of Justice, national regulators, and the European Commission — similar to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Otherwise, the Digital Sovereignty Charter is likely to function as a political declaration, akin to many past programmatic documents in European integration. In that case, it cannot be called a “second constitution of values,” but rather a tool for consolidating consensus around current geopolitical challenges.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article