发表机构
The Digital Statecraft Academy; UCL; University of Cambridge; University of Bristol; Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), UK Government; The Alan Turing Institute; Swiss Federal Office of Energy; Imperial College London; UK Statistics Authority; Department of Labor, State of Maryland; Yale University; Innovorsa Group; Dataswyft; University of Tartu; Prime Minister’s Office, UAE; Hitotsubashi University; University of Oxford; James Madison University; NYU GovLab; The Data Tank（数字治国研究院; 伦敦大学学院; 剑桥大学; 布里斯托大学; 英国政府数字、文化、媒体和体育部; 艾伦·图灵研究所; 瑞士联邦能源办公室; 帝国理工学院; 英国统计局; 马里兰州劳工部; 耶鲁大学; Innovorsa集团; Dataswyft公司; 塔尔图大学; 阿联酋总理办公室; 一桥大学; 牛津大学; 詹姆斯·麦迪逊大学; 纽约大学治理实验室; 数据智库）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
研究算法时代数字治国方略基础问题，提出其在数字系统治理及利用数字系统治理两维度运作，基于技术连贯性与合法权威推导出十条原则，探讨国家相关问题，为数字治国方略提供理论框架并引发深层思考。
AI 中文摘要
国家的数字基础——数据、算法、基础设施、平台、应用程序——在缺乏适当概念基础的情况下被治理。治理这一基础所需的能力和合法性同时存在失调、争议且在结构上缺失。我们引入数字治国方略作为这一新兴领域的组织概念，认为“数字”重构了治国方略问题而非仅仅扩展其领域。该概念在两个维度上运作——对数字系统的治国方略，涉及国家相对于数字基础本身的权威和能力；利用数字系统的治国方略，涉及算法工具作为治理权威手段的部署。它基于两个存在真正张力的基本要求，即技术连贯性和合法权威。我们从这些基础中推导出十条数字治国方略原则，每条原则指出一种缺失会导致可识别的结构性治理失败的情况：公共利益至上、人机互补、设计可治理性、系统连贯性、混合机构、适应性治理、以人为本和公民能动性、可问责和可追溯的权威、跨时间判断以及不可委托的核心。本文以国家为出发点，国家是历史上为应对有效和合法的公共治理问题而发展起来的制度形式，也是目前唯一具备全套合法性条件的制度形式。但数字治国方略计划提出了一个比国家能否自我改革更深层次的问题：在算法时代进行良好治理可能需要重新思考国家hood本身的边界、规模和附属基础。
英文摘要
The digital substrate - data, algorithms, infrastructure, platforms, applications - is being governed without adequate conceptual foundations. The ability and legitimacy required to govern this substrate, and to govern with it, are simultaneously misaligned, contested, and structurally absent. We introduce digital statecraft as the organising concept for this emerging field, arguing that 'digital' reconstitutes the statecraft question rather than merely extending its domain. The concept operates on two dimensions - statecraft over digital systems, concerning the authority and capacity of the state in relation to the digital substrate itself, and statecraft with digital systems, concerning the deployment of algorithmic tools as instruments of governing authority. And it rests on two foundational requirements, technical coherence and legitimate authority, that are genuinely in tension. We derive ten principles of digital statecraft from these foundations, each naming a condition whose absence produces an identifiable and structural governance failure: public interest first, human-machine complementarity, governability by design, systemic coherence, hybrid institutions, adaptive governance, human centricity and civic agency, accountable and traceable authority, judgment across time, and the non-delegable core. This article takes the state as the starting point, the institutional form that developed historically in response to the problem of effective and legitimate public governance, and the only current candidate for which the full set of legitimacy conditions is institutionally available. But the digital statecraft programme holds open a deeper question than just whether states can reform themselves: governing well in the algorithmic age may require rethinking the boundaries, scale, and affiliative basis of statehood itself.
Comments27 pages
