The Book · Chapter 18 of 28

Chapter 18Sovereignty, Governable Dependence and Institutional Cognition

What minimum operational capacity is necessary for a particular public function, and how can it be secured without technological autarky?

Summary

Formal sovereignty offers little protection when an institution cannot inspect, change or stop the systems through which it governs. This chapter develops the Sovereign Control Requirement through six capacities: understanding, audit, security, modification, suspension and replacement. It argues for governable dependence, with stronger operational control as public functions become more consequential, rather than technical self-sufficiency. Comparative legal materials, reported institutional failures and bounded model-development examples test jurisdiction, conflicting commands, shared platforms, procurement and professional competence. The chapter distinguishes service continuity from continuity of lawful authority and examines how secrecy can turn sovereignty itself into a reason for refusing accountability. Its proposed tests organise existing public-law concerns without supplying a new source of duty or a universal procurement regime. Where capacity falls short, the inquiry turns to narrower functions, shared expertise, alternative pathways and enforceable exit, while keeping the responsible public institution answerable for the power exercised.

• sovereign computational capacity
• governable dependence
• Control Threshold
• Conflicting Command Test
• suspension and exit
• procurement
• institutional cognition
• Sovereign Accountability Gap