From Coal to Code: How Data Federalization Could Redraw the Map of European Governance

Introduction: The EU’s Unlikely Blueprint for the Digital Age

When the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was founded in 1951, its architects saw pooled resources as a way to bind nations together—not just economically, but politically. Fast-forward to 2024: data has replaced coal and steel as the critical resource shaping sovereignty, security, and solidarity. Yet, despite its planetary scale, data remains trapped in fragmented silos, proprietary systems, and national jurisdictions. This blog argues that the EU’s legal history offers a roadmap to reimagine data governance through federalization—a supranational system where data is managed as a shared resource for collective planetary challenges.

1. Coal, Steel, and Data: The EU’s Cycle of Resource-Driven Integration

The ECSC and Euratom were revolutionary not just for their economic aims, but for their legal engineering: supranational institutions with binding powers over member states. Today, data holds similar transformative potential:

Like coal/steel, data underpins economic power (AI, health tech, smart cities).
Like nuclear energy, it demands safeguards (privacy, ethics, security).
Unlike past resources, data is borderless, infinitely replicable, and generated by everyone.

The EU’s emerging frameworks—the Data Governance Act, Data Act, and GAIA-X—hint at this vision. But they lack the boldness of the ECSC’s supranationalism. Imagine a European Data Agency, modeled on the ECSC’s High Authority, acting as a steward for cross-border data flows while enforcing accountability—a "public data broker" for the common good.

2. Planetary Blindness: Why Fragmented Data Fails Humanity

Consider climate change: satellites, ocean sensors, and emissions databases generate petabytes of data daily. Yet no single entity can synthesize this into actionable insights. Why?

Data Silos: Governments, corporations, and NGOs hoard information in incompatible formats.
Jurisdictional Walls: GDPR compliance clashes with U.S. Cloud Act demands, creating legal minefields (Schrems II).
Tech Monopolies: Proprietary platforms (e.g., AWS, Azure) lock public data into private infrastructures.

This fragmentation isn’t just inefficient—it’s existentially dangerous. We’re flying blind on pandemics, biodiversity collapse, and disinformation because no one “owns” the planetary dashboard.

3. Federalizing Data: A Legal Toolkit for the EU

To avoid a digital Tower of Babel, the EU must pioneer data federalism—a system balancing unity and autonomy. Here’s how:

A. Interoperability by Law

Mandate EU-wide standards for data formats and APIs (like the Interoperable Europe Act for public services).
Empower agencies like ENISA to certify compliance, penalizing walled gardens.

B. A Data Federation Treaty

Create a multilateral pact for “data commons” in critical areas (climate, health, migration).
Lessons from the EU’s success with cross-border crime databases (e.g., Schengen Information System).

C. The Public Data Broker

A supranational entity to anonymize, certify, and mediate access to datasets.
Governance model: A mix of ECSC-style technocratic oversight and GDPR-style citizen rights (e.g., data altruism).

D. Federated Learning Systems

Technical fix: Analyze data locally but share insights globally (e.g., cancer research across EU hospitals).
Legal fix: Standardized contracts under EU law to ensure ethical AI training and GDPR compliance.

4. Administrative Law’s Make-or-Break Role

Federalizing data isn’t just about tech—it’s a legal reengineering project. Key challenges:

Sovereignty vs. Supranationalism: How to reconcile Germany’s Bundescloud with a European Data Space? Art. 4(2) TEU (national identity) will clash with Art. 114 TFEU (internal market harmonization).
Democracy Deficit: Avoid replicating criticisms of the ECB or ECSC’s technocratic opacity. Solution: Embed participatory mechanisms (e.g., citizen assemblies on data priorities).
Enforcement: A European Data Agency needs teeth—fines, injunctions, and the backing of the CJEU.

5. Conclusion: The EU as Architect of Planetary Governance

The EU has a unique chance to lead the data age—not by mimicking China’s surveillance state or U.S. tech oligopolies, but by reviving its founding ethos: shared sovereignty for shared challenges. Just as coal and steel turned adversaries into partners, federalized data could turn fragmentation into collective intelligence. The alternative? A planet drowning in data but starved of wisdom.

For lawyers, this is the challenge of our century: to design frameworks as bold as the ECSC Treaty, but fit for a digital planet.

Call to Action

Policymakers: Prioritize interoperability in the next EU Data Strategy.
Scholars: Rethink administrative law beyond borders—what does “due process” mean in federated AI systems?
Citizens: Demand a say in who governs your data—and for what purpose.