In a world where sovereign borders remain intact but power quietly slips through their fingers, a new reality is emerging—one that could reshape global governance as profoundly as the post-colonial era or the Cold War ever did. As detailed in our recent strategic brief, “Privatizing Sovereignty? The Strategic Risks of Governance Vacuums in Fragile States”, a provocative trend is gaining momentum: the assumption of governance roles by non-state actors, often in places where traditional governments have failed.
From militant rule in Gaza to privately governed special zones in Central America, and even corporate control of digital infrastructure, we are witnessing a global drift toward what can only be described as the privatization of sovereignty. And this drift is no longer theoretical—it is strategic, systemic, and dangerously underappreciated.
Governance Without Government
The argument begins with a hard truth: states that cannot provide basic services or security are no longer seen as inviolable units of global order. In such vacuums, as outlined in our strategic brief, legitimacy does not disappear—it migrates. Militant groups, private investors, corporations, and technocratic enclaves are stepping in to fill the void. Sometimes, with services; sometimes, with force but rarely with accountability.
The Hamas regime in Gaza is a textbook case. Though unrecognized as a state, Hamas governs territory, enforces laws, collects taxes, and conducts foreign relations. In doing so, it exercises a de facto sovereignty that exists entirely outside the traditional system of international legitimacy.
And Gaza is far from alone. Our brief explores other case studies that underscore this dynamic. Consider Próspera, a privately built and governed charter city in Honduras. It operates under its own legal and regulatory frameworks, openly challenging the monopoly of the state over lawmaking. Or look at how global tech corporations—companies like Apple, SpaceX, and Alibaba—are increasingly managing not just products, but infrastructure that nations depend on: satellite communications, financial systems, and digital identity tools.
The implications are enormous.
Strategic Shifts
This is not simply a story about fragility—it is a story about power migration.
The rise of private governance is being fueled by at least four major geopolitical forces:
1. State Fragility: Decaying institutions, corruption, and economic collapse are undermining governments from the inside.
2. Private Wealth & Technology: Multinational corporations now wield capabilities once reserved for nation-states.
3. Digital Governance: Whoever controls the network controls the nation—sometimes literally.
4. Global Retreat: Major powers, wary of foreign entanglements, are ceding influence in fragile regions to whoever is willing to step in.
As we argue in our analysis, these trends are converging into a new geopolitical architecture in which sovereignty becomes negotiable. This is not merely a crisis—it is a strategic evolution.
The Dangers of Privatized Rule
There is no denying that non-state governance can sometimes deliver services faster than failing governments. But as our brief warns, there are serious risks.
First, legitimacy gaps. Private actors, whether ideological or profit-driven, are rarely accountable to the populations they govern. There are no elections for CEOs of charter cities. No referenda on digital policy from tech giants. Governance becomes something done to people, not by them.
Second, sovereignty dilution. The very concept of national control begins to unravel when critical infrastructure—communications, transportation, energy—is effectively under foreign or corporate rule.
Third, geopolitical exploitation. Fragile or privatized zones can become staging grounds for proxy conflicts, ideological expansion, or asymmetric influence. And the international system is largely unprepared to deal with these grey zones.
Finally, we must confront the ethical void. When services are outsourced or sovereignty collapses, who protects rights? Who ensures inclusion? Who answers when things go wrong?
A Global Wake-Up Call
What can be done?
Our report recommends several strategic interventions—and we emphasize urgency.
Recognize governance alternatives. International institutions must start tracking and classifying non-state governance models. Ignorance is not strategy.
Regulate strategic zones. Special economic zones, digital enclaves, and charter cities must not be legal wildlands.
Strengthen state capacity. Aid and investment must prioritize governance, not just infrastructure.
Codify sovereignty safeguards. Global treaties need provisions that protect digital and civic sovereignty from creeping privatization.
Engage non-state actors diplomatically. Tech leaders, financiers, and quasi-governments should be part of a new generation of statecraft.
The Future is Already Here
Let us be clear: the privatization of sovereignty is not a theory waiting to be proven. It is a global trend that is already shaping security, development, and diplomacy. As we emphasize in our full report, the longer the global community pretends that sovereignty remains untouched, the more vulnerable our systems become.
If fragile states do not reform and deliver, they will not govern. Others will.
Dr Brian O Reuben is the Executive Chairman of the Sixteenth Council and Special Envoy on European Transformation and Global Coherence. He is also a columnist at Confiance News.
Leave a comment