Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 60 No. 1 (2026): Prawo i Więź

Sovereignty by Design: Embedding Fiscal Risk Intelligence in Europe’s Defence-Digital Strategy

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36128/2z2k7566
Submitted
2 February 2026
Published
19-02-2026

Abstract

The European Union confronts structural uncertainty across defence and digital sectors. Fiscal governance still relies on stability-oriented frameworks that cannot handle volatility. This paper argues that strategic autonomy requires integrating actuarial reasoning – quantification, pricing and systemic treatment of uncertainty – into existing EU budgeting and investment tools. The approach does not require new institutions or treaty changes. It requires a change in decision logic inside the Multiannual Financial Framework, the European Defence Fund, the Digital Europe Programme and the European Investment Bank. Empirical work in cyber-risk insurance, cyber-threat forecasting and development finance demonstrates that uncertainty can be modelled and priced. Actuarial governance emerges as a necessary foundation for credible European sovereignty.

References

  1. Aghion Philippe, Céline Antonin, Simon Bunel, The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nations. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2021.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Bakker Age, Roel Beetsma, Marco Buti, “Investing in European Public Goods While Maintaining Fiscal Discipline at Home” Intereconomics, No. 2 (2024): 98-103.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin Robert, Martin Cave, Martin Lodge, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Bannister Frank, Regina Connolly, “ICT, Public Values and Transformative Government: A Framework and Programme for Research” Government Information Quarterly, No. 1 (2014): 119-128.
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Barthelmess Benedikt, Jean Langlois, “SME Financing in MENA: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Multilateral and Bilateral Development Lenders’ Intermediated Lending Practices” Review of Middle East Economics and Finance, No. 3 (2020): 1-32.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Barthelmess Benedikt, Jean Langlois, Tokenomics: Emerging Strands of Research. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-04179572.html.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Berkelmans Ray, Jason van der Merwe, “Risk-Sharing, Development Finance, and the Role of Multilateral Development Banks” World Development, No. 144 (2021).
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Bierecki Dominik, Christophe Gaie, Mirosław Karpiuk, “Artificial Intelligence in e-Administration Prawo i Więź, No. 1 (2025): 383-407. https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI54.1201.
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Bierecki Dominik, Christophe Gaie, Mirosław Karpiuk, Jean Langlois-Berthelot, “Creating Resilient Artificial Intelligence Systems. A Responsible Approach to Cybersecurity Risks” Prawo i Więź, No. 5 (2025): 131-149. https://doi.org/10.36128/0akf8v90.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Bierecki Dominik, Mirosław Karpiuk, Claudio Melchior, Nicola Strizzolo, “Security in the Era of Cybersecurity Threats” Prawo i Więź, No. 4 (2025): 73-87. https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI57.1476.
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Bierecki Dominik, Mirosław Karpiuk, Martin Kelemen, Sergii Prylipko, „The Impact of Digital Transformation on Cybersecurity in Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine” Prawo i Więź, No. 6 (2025): 473-495. https://doi.org/10.36128/c2xvy848.
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Bierecki Dominik, “Zasada proporcjonalności w stosowaniu rozporządzenia w sprawie operacyjnej odporności cyfrowej sektora finansowego (Digital Operational Resilience Act – DORA)” Europejski Przegląd Prawa i Stosunków Międzynarodowych, No. 3 (2024): 8-9.
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Böhme Rainer, Stefan Laube, Markus Riek, “Cyber Insurance: Models, Markets, and Misconceptions” IEEE Security & Privacy, No. 3 (2022): 42-51.
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Boudy Pierre-Alexandre, Małgorzata Czuryk, Claudio Melchior, „The Use of New Technologies in the Field of Security” Ius et Securitas, No. 2 (2025): 67-78.
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Busuioc Madalina, Martin Lodge, “The Reputational Basis of Public Accountability” Governance, No. 2 (2015): 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12161.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Cordella Antonio, Carla Bonina, “A Public Value Perspective for ICT Enabled Public Sector Reforms: A Theoretical Reflection” Government Information Quarterly, No. 4 (2012): 512-520.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Corti Francesco, Patrik Vesan, “The Politics of the Recovery and Resilience Facility” Journal of European Public Policy, No. 9 (2022): 1447-1466.
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Czuryk Małgorzata, „Cybersecurity and Protection of Critical Infrastructure” Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, No. 5 (2023): 43-52. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.5.43-52.
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Czuryk Małgorzata, „Jurisdiction of the Voivode in the Field of Crisis Management” Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, No. 2 (2025): 94-95. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2025.34.2.87-98.
    View in Google Scholar
  20. Czuryk Małgorzata, „Restrictions on the Exercising of Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms Due to Cybersecurity Issues” Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, No. 3 (2022): 31-43. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2022.31.3.31-43.
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Czuryk Małgorzata, „Zarządzanie kryzysowe w obszarze bezpieczeństwa” Ius et Securitas, No. 1 (2025): 5-12
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Darvas Zsolt, Guntram Wolff, “A Green Fiscal Pact: Climate Investment in Times of Budget Consolidation” Bruegel Policy Contribution, No. 18 (2021): 1-22.
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Digital security risk management. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/digital-security-risk-management.html.
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Eling Martin, Werner Schnell, “What Do We Know About Cyber Risk and Cyber Risk Insurance?” Journal of Risk Finance, No. 5 (2016): 474-491.
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Fabbrini Federico, A Fiscal Capacity for the Eurozone: Constitutional Perspectives. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, 2019.
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Fabbrini Federico, EU Fiscal Capacity. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press, 2022.
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Gaie Christophe, Mirosław Karpiuk, Nicola Strizzolo, “Cybersecurity of Public Sector Institutions” Prawo i Więź, No. 6 (2024): 347-362, https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI53.1129.
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Government at a Glance 2023. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/government-at-a-glance-2023_3d5c5d31-en.html.
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Hood Christopher, Henry Rothstein, Robert Baldwin, The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford: University Press, 2002.
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Humphrey Chris, “Are Credit Rating Agencies Limiting the Capital-Raising Capacity of Multilateral Development Banks?” Review of International Political Economy, No. 6, (2020): 1378-1407.
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Janssen Marijn, Haiko van der Voort, “Adaptive Governance: Towards a Stable, Accountable and Responsive Government” Government Information Quarterly, No. 1 (2016): 1-5.
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Jones Erik, Daniel Kelemen, Sophie Meunier, “ Failing Forward? The Euro Crisis and the Incomplete Nature of European Integration” Comparative Political Studies, No. 10 (2021): 1693-1721.
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Kaczmarek Krzysztof, „Bezpieczeństwo państwa wobec współczesnych zagrożeń” Prawo i Więź No. 5 (2025): 567-580. https://doi.org/10.36128/.
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Kaczmarek Krzysztof, Mirosław Karpiuk, Claudio Melchior, “A Holistic Approach to Cybersecurity and Data Protection in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data” Prawo i Więź, No. 3 (2024): 103-121. https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI50.907.
    View in Google Scholar
  35. Krzysztof Kaczmarek, Mirosław Karpiuk, Andrea Spaziani, „Use of Artificial Intelligence in Public Sector: Threats and Prospects” Studia Iuridica Toruniensia, No. 1 (2025): 29-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/SIT.2025.002.
    View in Google Scholar
  36. Langlois Jean, Evaluating and Insuring Cyber Risks within Organizations. https://hal.science/tel-04207948/.
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Langlois-Berthelot Jean, Christophe Gaie, Jean-Fabrice Lebraty, “Epidemiology Inspired Cybersecurity Threats Forecasting Models Applied to e-Government,” [in:] Transforming Public Services – Combining Data and Algorithms to Fulfil Citizens’ Expectations, ed. Christophe Gaie, Mayuri Mehta. 151-174. Cham: Springer, 2024.
    View in Google Scholar
  38. Majone Giandomenico, “From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance” Journal of Public Policy, No. 2 (1997): 139-167.
    View in Google Scholar
  39. Nowzari Cameron, Victor Preciado, George Pappas, “Analysis and Control of Epidemics: A Survey of Spreading Processes on Complex Networks” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, No. 1 (2016): 26-46.
    View in Google Scholar
  40. OECD Digital Government Index. https://goingdigital.oecd.org/en/indicator/58.
    View in Google Scholar
  41. Rishikesh Bhandary, Kelly Gallagher, Fang Zhang, “Climate Finance, Development Banks, and Blended Finance: Governance Challenges and Solutions” Global Policy, No. 1 (2022): 36-49.
    View in Google Scholar
  42. Schramm Lucas, Ulrich Krotz, “Embedded Bilateralism, Fiscal Capacity and European Crisis Governance” Journal of European Integration, No. 6 (2021): 731-748.
    View in Google Scholar
  43. The Future is Uncertain. The NGFS Climate Scenarios Provide a Window into Different Plausible Futures. https://www.ngfs.net/ngfs-scenarios-portal/.
    View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)