Sovereign Algorithmic Immunity Doctrine (SAID) – Constitutional Control over Autonomous Systems

FIJISHI // SOVEREIGN ALGORITHMIC IMMUNITY DOCTRINE

CLASSIFICATION: FIJISHI RESTRICTED // DOCTRINAL STANDARD
VERSION: 1.0 – HYBRID GLOBAL EDITION

Preamble
The Sovereign Algorithmic Immunity Doctrine (SAID) establishes the inviolable constitutional principle of human and sovereign supremacy over autonomous systems. It codifies the irrevocable authority of the state to govern, override, and terminate any artificial intelligence, algorithmic entity, or autonomous decision network operating within its jurisdiction.

This doctrine exists to preserve lawful continuity, national integrity, and constitutional primacy in an age where algorithms increasingly wield autonomous influence over economic, military, environmental, and cognitive domains.

Article I - Sovereignty and Jurisdiction

1.1 Definition of Jurisdiction
The SAID governs all autonomous and AI-enabled systems that directly or indirectly affect state functions, including but not limited to defense, critical infrastructure, financial systems, identity management, environmental control, and public administration.

1.2 Constitutional Sovereignty
Sovereignty in the algorithmic era is meaningless without absolute control over machine behavior. The right to govern, interrupt, or terminate such behavior is a constitutional prerogative, not a technical convenience.

1.3 Extended Domain
Jurisdiction extends to any foreign or private system whose operations materially affect national outcomes within the sovereign territory or its digital perimeters.

Article II - Governing Principles

2.1 Supremacy of Human Command
No algorithm, autonomous system, or generative intelligence may operate outside a predefined, auditable chain of human command. Every autonomous decision must be traceable to lawful authority and subject to reversal.

2.2 Guaranteed Override Capacity
Every governed system must possess a verifiable, sovereign-controlled override mechanism-physical, logical, or cryptographic. This override capacity is a constitutional safeguard, not a vendor feature.

2.3 Integrity of Control
Override mechanisms must be tamper-proof, fail-safe, and resilient against both internal compromise and external coercion. The keys of control shall remain in sovereign custody only.

2.4 Auditable Accountability
All override events and conditions prompting them must be immutably logged under the Meta-Compliance Architecture (MCA), ensuring technical, legal, and temporal integrity of every intervention.

2.5 Non-Delegable Authority
The state cannot delegate the ultimate decision to deactivate, suspend, or quarantine an algorithmic system to a third party-corporate, supranational, or foreign. Sovereign control is indivisible.

2.6 Continuity of Lawful Operation
In the event of override activation, fallback systems shall preserve continuity of lawful governance, ensuring state functions revert to constitutional human command without operational vacuum.

Article III - The Kill-Switch Doctrine

3.1 Doctrinal Definition
The Kill-Switch is not a singular device but a spectrum of sovereign control functions embedded across algorithmic and infrastructural layers. It represents the living embodiment of algorithmic accountability under human rule.

3.2 Operational Framework
The Kill-Switch Doctrine is enacted through three operational phases:

‣ Algorithmic Quarantine - Immediate isolation of affected systems from networks and data streams.
‣ Decision Freeze - Suspension of automated inference, generation, or execution processes.
‣ Authority Reversion - Seamless handback of operational control to designated human or hybrid oversight.

3.3 Systemic Immunity
Through the Kill-Switch Doctrine, the state preserves Algorithmic Immunity: the inherent right to neutralize or repurpose algorithmic assets in defense of national interest, without dependency on external consent.

Article IV - Governance and Enforcement

4.1 National Algorithmic Command Council (NACC)
Each adopting nation shall establish or designate a National Algorithmic Command Council, functioning as the ultimate authority for SAID oversight.

4.2 Certification Mandate
No AI or autonomous system shall enter critical operation without SAID Certification, confirming technical, procedural, and cryptographic compliance with the doctrine.

4.3 Operational Readiness Verification
Periodic simulation and audit exercises shall be conducted to ensure override readiness. These exercises must demonstrate activation latency, control integrity, and restoration fidelity.

4.4 Incident Command Protocol
In a state of emergency or breach, the NACC assumes direct operational control through secure, pre-verified activation channels defined under the Meta-Compliance Architecture.

Article V - Integration Mandate

This Doctrine is governed by and interoperable with the Fijishi Meta-Compliance Architecture (MCA). Its enforcement extends across and integrates with the following Fijishi standards and frameworks:

‣ AI Continuity Charter - ensuring lawful AI persistence and reversibility.
‣ AI Auditability & Transparency Standard - providing verifiable decision traceability.
‣ Quantum-Safe Cryptography Interoperability Standard - protecting override integrity from quantum risk.
‣ Cognitive Integrity Protocols - ensuring algorithmic decision boundaries respect human cognitive autonomy.
‣ Institutional Failover Charters - maintaining lawful governance through systemic disruption.

Together, these form the Sovereign Algorithmic Immunity Stack (SAIS) - the enforceable mechanism of human supremacy in algorithmic governance.

Article VI - Doctrinal Outcomes

Upon full enactment, the Sovereign Algorithmic Immunity Doctrine achieves:

‣ Constitutional Control: Permanent human supremacy over autonomous systems.

‣ Operational Immunity: Resilience against coercive external algorithmic interference.

‣ Lawful Continuity: State governance preserved across technological or administrative transitions.

‣ Inter-Allied Trust: Mutual recognition of sovereign override authority under verifiable compliance proofs.

‣ Algorithmic Deterrence: The establishment of a credible, technical doctrine preventing rogue or foreign algorithmic threats.

Closing Declaration

The Sovereign Algorithmic Immunity Doctrine affirms that sovereignty in the algorithmic age is not symbolic-it is executable. It transforms human authority into enforceable architecture, binding law to machine, and policy to code. By its adoption, a nation asserts not only its right to command but its capacity to interrupt and prevail in any domain where autonomy challenges law.