In the past decades, data has emerged as an invaluable asset, offering a way of shaping our collective future through informed decision-making and transformative solutions for daily life problems. Data in its digital form and different shapes has become essential for our digital infrastructure and its further development at every level. Digital data, including big data and the Internet of Things, has become essential to contemporary digital infrastructure and is impacting people, organizations, and governments all over the world.

Realism sees data governance fragmentation as states prioritizing sovereignty and security over cooperation.

It presents a risk in addition to serving as a strategic asset and information system. It has become extremely valuable as a new form of money in the modern world, but its unrestricted usage has also resulted in deep abuse and exploitation. Globally, digital technology has developed faster than the laws and policies that govern it, which is clear from the ongoing debates about the ethics and management of artificial intelligence. This gap is mainly due to the strong influence of private companies in shaping the global digital environment and the reliance of governments on them.

The free flow of data that is somehow enabled by globalization is now increasingly contested as states seek greater control over the data transfer, turning data governance into a key geopolitical and strategic issue. While the private sector has driven data use, national and regional regulations are being adopted in response to its societal worth. The fact that, despite all efforts, creating a global data governance framework remains challenging due to different national priorities and uneven digital infrastructure emphasizes the need for worldwide collaboration.

The concept of a fragmented data regulatory framework emphasizes the lack of a single international legal framework to control the collection, use, and transit of data. In the present scenario, global data governance is facing increasing issues in the areas of privacy, security, and cross-border data flow, including national, regional, or global entities such as the U.S., the EU, China, and India pursuing different strategies, while the fragmentation underscores the difficulty of balancing data protection, sovereignty, and technology influence within international politics.

Now the question arises, how can the problem be theoretically evaluated and how various theories of international relations conceptualize power, sovereignty, and the role of technology in world politics, it is possible to theoretically assess the issue of a fragmented global regulatory framework.

Analyzing the fragmented global data regulatory landscape aims to show how technological influence is changing global power relations in addition to affecting politics and society. The theoretical framework, which looks at how nations use technology to assert power, is rooted in significant traditions of international relations, particularly realism and constructivism. Concepts like deterritorialization and reterritorialization are used to contextualize the breakdown of customary restrictions, showing how globalization and digitalization surpass physical borders and introduce new forms of jurisdiction. Complementary theories addressing space, economic systems, and policy frameworks further underscore the argument that technology is fundamentally altering the architecture of global governance.

Constructivism interprets fragmentation as differing norms and identities shaping state approaches to digital data.

Instead of being a force that changes world politics, realism sees actual technological growth and dominance as a secondary, instrumental component that strengthens state power within an anarchic international system. Key realist scholars, Morgenthau, Waltz, Mearsheimer, and Rose, differ in their perspectives on power but consistently treat technology as a tool used by states to gain a strategic edge, especially in fields like data management, military, and surveillance.

Realists view the differing regulatory framework in the context of global data fragmentation as the inevitable outcome of governments placing a higher priority on geopolitical competition and sovereignty than on international cooperation. According to this viewpoint, technology serves to uphold current power structures and turns into a contemporary arena for competition rather than international governance. Thus, data governance fragmentation reflects not the institutional failure but the realist logic of a state seeking control and security in a digitized world.

Constructivism views power and technology through the prism of common meanings, norms, and identities that really influence state conduct in an international society rather than via material capabilities as realism does. Prominent academics such as Martha Fennimore and Alexander Wendt argue that states interests are socially constructed and based on intersubjective understanding, making technology politically neutral; its significance emerges from the meanings states assign to it.

In the case of global governance, constructivism sees fragmentation not as a strategic struggle but as a reflection of divergent value systems and normative frameworks actually adopted, like China claiming data sovereignty, the U.A. prioritizing innovation and somehow market freedom, and the EU prioritizing privacy. These approaches basically are grounded in various identities and perspectives on the function of data in society. It emphasizes that normative convergence and common understanding of digital rights, governance, and global interdependence are necessary to address global data fragmentation and that institutional solutions alone are not enough.

The term “deterritorialization,” coined by Deleuze and Guattari, describes the dissolution of pre-existing territorial and structural limits, especially in the face of capitalism and globalizing forces. It is inherently tied to reterritorialization, which is the concurrent process of reconstructing new identities or systems of control in reaction to such boundary dissolutions. Later, the idea was expanded by academics such as Appadurai, Castells, and Lambach to describe how social, economic, and cultural interactions are being disembedded from geographic place by digital technology and global communication.

Deterritorialization and reterritorialization explain how digital flows challenge and reshape traditional territorial controls.

Lambac focuses on how states reterritorialize cyberspace by political and regulatory measures; Castells imagines a “network society” that transcends national boundaries; and Appadurai describes transnational flows (ethnoscapes, technoscapes, etc.) that challenge established norms. These concepts effectively indicate the ongoing conflict in digital governance, how states and institutions reclaim territorial authority in response to the free flow of data and technology across borders, and the resulting fragmented global data governance environment of today.

Global data fragmentation is a reflection of deeper political, cultural, and, most importantly, epistemic rifts in the international system rather than just technical or regulatory challenges. The very thirst for security and power endures, even in the cloud, as realism reminds us, while constructivism demonstrates how our identities as states, societies, and cultures are closely linked to the meaning, governance, and legitimacy of the data we create.

Here, the most concerning and illuminating aspect of these theories is that they don’t contradict one another; rather, they coexist in tension, reflecting the digital paradox of our time, which is defined by borderless infrastructure created by nation-bound actors. Therefore, fragmentation is not a coincidence; the problem is systemic and also has a historical significance with deep psychological trouble.

Throughout, the same struggles for trust, sovereignty, and creativity that have long influenced geopolitics are reflected in the digital sphere, despite the networked illusions of unity. These days, however, they grow in microchips and milliseconds. Institutional solutions are not enough to address this; it demands relational trust, ethical rethinking, and possibly even a collective rethinking of what “global” should mean in the era of algorithms.

Global data fragmentation reflects deeper political, cultural, and epistemic divides, not just technical challenges.

While every perspective provides us with a tool to diagnose the stakes, to think critically is to acknowledge that no theory has all the answers. As realism encourages prudence, constructivism presents opportunities. The very human act of directing our shared digital future without losing our real moral and ethical compass or splintering our collective agency sits between them. Ultimately, data fragmentation serves as a mirror. It reflects our world, not only in the way we relate to each other but also in such a way that we should regulate ourselves in relation to each other, to authority, and to the concept of a globalized planet itself.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.