The Microfoundations and Security Implications of Technological Sovereignty in the Digital Age
- AIOR Admin

- 4 days ago
- 1 min read
Hanzhi Zhang, Yuhang Jiang
Beijing International Studies University

In the age of artificial intelligence, firms’ technological capabilities have become a critical variable underpinning the logic of national security; however, the mechanisms through which micro-level technological evolution translates into macro-level security outcomes remain insufficiently understood. Taking the Chinese embodied intelligence Unitree Robotics as a case study, this article develops an analytical framework of “technological capability–mechanism–security outcome” and identifies three causal mechanisms: the Capability Effect, the Dependency Effect, and the Rule Effect. Drawing on process tracing and multi-source data, the study yields three major findings. First, firms’ technological innovation capabilities can directly enhance national strategic autonomy by providing alternative pathways for critical technologies; however, such effects remain constrained by dependence on underlying hardware and software infrastructures. Second, the dependency structures generated through firms’ integration into global technological systems improve operational efficiency while simultaneously introducing latent security vulnerabilities. Third, firms’ technological advantages can only be transformed into stable institutional power once they are institutionalized as industry standards. These three mechanisms exhibit a progressive relationship characterized by “capability foundation–dependency constraint–rule diffusion,” jointly shaping the dynamic process through which firm-level technological capabilities are converted into national security resources. By moving beyond a state-centric perspective and shifting the level of analysis from the state to the firm, this study elucidates the logic through which firms’ micro-level capabilities are transformed into national security assets. It further argues that technological capability building at the firm level should be incorporated into the broader framework of national security governance.




Comments