New Aragon and the “Make Your Own Country” Moment

Author: L. Kareem

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

The idea of “making your own country” has resurfaced this week across online forums, entrepreneurship circles, and civic-technology communities—often framed as a response to rising bureaucracy, polarization, and dissatisfaction with public service delivery. Rather than treating the trend as a purely utopian or illegal fantasy, this article analyzes it as a contemporary management and governance phenomenon shaped by legitimacy struggles, resource constraints, and institutional pressures. Using a conceptual case—New Aragon—as a composite of recurring features found in modern micronations and “network state” proposals, the study applies three complementary lenses: Bourdieu’s theory of capital and fields, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. A qualitative method is proposed and demonstrated through structured document analysis of policy narratives, governance designs, and public claims commonly used by new-sovereignty projects. Findings suggest that the viability of “new country” initiatives depends less on bold declarations and more on (1) credible service delivery and compliance capacity, (2) symbolic legitimacy production, (3) strategic positioning within core–periphery structures, and (4) isomorphic adoption of recognizable state-like forms. The article concludes that New Aragon-style projects are best understood as organizational experiments in governance—often legal as communities, platforms, or special administrative projects—while full statehood remains rare due to international legal recognition barriers.

Keywords: micronations, network states, legitimacy, governance design, digital sovereignty, institutional isomorphism, world-systems

1. Introduction

This week’s renewed attention to “how to make your own country” is not occurring in a vacuum. It reflects wider shifts in technology, identity politics, remote work, and a growing managerial belief that governance can be redesigned like a product. The language has evolved: where older projects used romantic symbolism, flags, and ceremonial titles, recent initiatives talk about protocols, communities, digital identity, jurisdictions, charter cities, and network states (Srinivasan, 2022). Some projects are playful. Others are ideological. A few pursue economic goals through tourism, residency offers, or special administrative arrangements.

The key analytical challenge is to separate three overlapping phenomena:

1. Micronations: self-declared “states” that typically lack recognition but may function as communities with symbolic governance.

2. Network-state claims: digitally coordinated communities seeking increasing political autonomy and ultimately recognition (Srinivasan, 2022).

3. Legal autonomy experiments: charter cities, special economic zones, and negotiated administrative arrangements that remain inside existing states but alter governance structures.

Public discourse often collapses these into a single question—“Can I make my own country?”—yet the managerial and legal realities differ dramatically. Statehood is constrained by recognition politics and international law, while community-building and jurisdictional experimentation can be lawful if pursued through compliant pathways.

This article contributes a Scopus-style conceptual and analytical study using a composite case, New Aragon, to examine the governance logic behind new-sovereignty projects. The aim is not to provide instructions for unlawful secession or evasion, but to analyze how such projects attempt to build legitimacy and what organizational mechanisms typically make them succeed or fail as governance ventures.

2. Background and Theory

This section integrates three frameworks that help explain why New Aragon-like projects emerge, how they compete for legitimacy, and why many eventually resemble the very states they claim to disrupt.

2.1 Bourdieu: Capital, Field, and the Production of Legitimacy

Bourdieu’s sociology is useful because “country-making” is not only a legal matter; it is also a struggle over legitimate authority. In Bourdieu’s terms, the attempt to create New Aragon is an attempt to enter (or create) a field—the field of governance—where actors compete for dominance using different forms of capital:

• Economic capital (funding, land access, infrastructure)

• Social capital (networks, alliances, membership)

• Cultural capital (expertise, credentials, professional norms)

• Symbolic capital (prestige, perceived legitimacy, recognition)

New Aragon’s central problem becomes: how can a new governance project accumulate enough symbolic capital to be taken seriously, while also converting economic and cultural capital into reliable public goods (security, dispute resolution, identity systems, service delivery)? This is why many projects invest heavily in branding and ceremonial state imagery: symbolism is a shortcut to perceived seriousness, even when operational capacity is limited.

2.2 World-Systems Theory: Core, Periphery, and Sovereignty as a Scarce Resource

World-systems theory frames the modern world as a hierarchical system with core, semi-periphery, and periphery positions. Sovereignty is not just a principle; it is also a scarce resource unequally distributed and defended by incumbents. Core states and global institutions shape recognition norms, finance, security frameworks, and compliance regimes. For a project like New Aragon, the challenge is structural: recognition is harder when the project is seen as destabilizing the existing system, or as an attempt to bypass regulation and accountability.

This lens also explains why many “new country” projects shift focus from political sovereignty to functional sovereignty—control over identity, payments, dispute resolution, and community membership—often in digital form. The rise of “digital sovereignty” debates shows how states themselves see technology as a sovereignty battleground, increasing pressure on new entrants (Fratini, 2024; Jansen et al., 2023; Santaniello, 2025).

2.3 Institutional Isomorphism: Why “New Countries” Start Looking Like Old Ones

Institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell) explains why organizations in the same environment become similar over time. New Aragon might claim to be radically innovative, but it will likely adopt familiar “state-like” structures due to:

• Coercive pressures: compliance demands from banks, host jurisdictions, regulators, and platform gatekeepers

• Normative pressures: professional standards and expectations (lawyers, auditors, security experts, educators, administrators)

• Mimetic pressures: imitation of recognized states under uncertainty (“If it looks like a state, people will trust it.”)

This isomorphism is visible in modern micronations and cyberspace sovereignty claims: many create constitutions, ministries, courts, passports, and national symbols because those templates are socially readable—even if not legally binding (Zhuk, 2023).

3. Method

3.1 Research Design

This article uses a qualitative, theory-driven case analysis built around a composite case (New Aragon) representing recurring patterns in current “make your own country” discourse. The method is suitable because many such projects are emerging, fragmented, and performative; quantitative measures are limited and often unreliable.

3.2 Data Approach: Structured Document Analysis

A replicable approach is to analyze:

1. Founding narratives (manifestos, “whitepapers,” mission statements)

2. Governance designs (constitutions, charters, role structures)

3. Institutional claims (citizenship, passports, courts, taxation, policing, diplomacy)

4. Technical infrastructure claims (digital ID, payments, online dispute resolution)

5. External positioning (tourism, investment, partnerships, compliance language)

This mirrors methods used in legal and policy scholarship that examine how nontraditional sovereignty claims attempt to situate themselves within international law and public legitimacy frameworks (Zhuk, 2023).

3.3 Analytical Strategy

The analysis proceeds in three stages:

• Stage 1: Identify what New Aragon claims to be (symbolic narrative).

• Stage 2: Identify what New Aragon can plausibly do (operational capacity).

• Stage 3: Examine pressures that push New Aragon toward state-like isomorphism and/or containment by the international system.

4. Analysis: The Case of New Aragon

New Aragon is presented as a hypothetical “new country” project launched in 2026. It begins as a digital-first community seeking self-determination and better public services. It frames itself as:

• Technology-enabled (digital identity, online governance, remote membership)

• Service-focused (fast arbitration, transparent budgeting, community welfare)

• Tourism and cultural-brand oriented (festivals, heritage story, visitor economy)

• Sustainability-coded (green development, small-footprint urban planning)

New Aragon’s strategy is typical of the current trend: it blends startup language (iteration, product-market fit) with state symbolism (constitution, flag, passports), hoping to achieve legitimacy faster than traditional political movements.

4.1 Legitimacy as a Management Problem

For New Aragon, legitimacy is not only “recognition by others.” It is also internal legitimacy: whether members accept decisions, pay fees, resolve disputes through its mechanisms, and remain loyal when conflicts arise. Many projects overinvest in symbolic capital (flags, titles, passports) and underinvest in governance operations (service delivery, compliance, dispute resolution quality).

Using Bourdieu, New Aragon must convert:

• Cultural capital (expert-led governance design, professional standards)into

• Symbolic capital (trust and perceived authority)and ultimately into

• Durable social capital (stable membership and alliances).

This conversion fails when scandals occur—fraud allegations, financial opacity, unsafe tourism offers, or unrealistic citizenship claims. The “country” brand then becomes a liability rather than a legitimacy asset.

4.2 The Recognition Barrier and the “Statehood Illusion”

International law debates on statehood and recognition highlight how difficult it is for new entities to become states in practice, regardless of internal organization. Even where formal criteria exist (territory, population, government, capacity to enter relations), recognition remains political and selective. Recent scholarship on recognition governance underscores persistent inconsistencies and institutional gatekeeping (Cole, 2025). For cyberspace-based projects, legal analyses show that claims of “virtual sovereignty” face significant doctrinal and practical obstacles (Zhuk, 2023).

As a result, New Aragon’s leadership shifts from “We are a new state” to “We are a lawful community that provides governance services,” because that framing reduces conflict with incumbents while preserving the project’s identity.

4.3 World-Systems Positioning: Why “New Countries” Become Service Platforms

From a world-systems perspective, New Aragon operates in a hierarchy where core actors control payment rails, travel documentation norms, compliance systems, and platform infrastructure. This produces a strategic pivot: rather than challenging the system directly, New Aragon tries to become useful within it—offering:

• fast dispute resolution for cross-border freelancers

• community insurance pools

• education credentials and skills verification

• remote-work hubs and tourism experiences

• digital identity as a trust layer

This is not full sovereignty, but it is functional sovereignty, shaped by core institutions’ constraints.

Digital sovereignty debates further intensify constraints because states increasingly view digital infrastructure as a national security and autonomy issue (Fratini, 2024; Jansen et al., 2023; Santaniello, 2025). That means New Aragon’s “digital ID” cannot simply be a neutral tool; it will be evaluated through compliance, surveillance-risk, and governance-risk lenses.

4.4 Institutional Isomorphism: The “Ministry Effect”

Under uncertainty, New Aragon copies recognizable institutional forms:

• a “Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (even if it has no official diplomatic status)

• a “Supreme Court” (often an arbitration panel)

• “citizenship” (often membership tiers)

• “taxes” (often subscription fees)

• “passports” (often novelty IDs)

This is mimetic isomorphism: copying state templates to signal seriousness. Over time, coercive isomorphism emerges through compliance needs: banking partners require governance controls; insurers require risk protocols; host jurisdictions require legal clarity. Normative isomorphism emerges when professionals (lawyers, auditors, IT security specialists) insist on standard governance practices.

The paradox is that the more New Aragon seeks credibility, the more it begins to resemble the state forms it originally criticized. In organizational terms, it becomes a hybrid: part community, part platform, part municipality-like service provider.

4.5 Tourism as a Legitimacy Engine (and Risk)

Tourism is a frequent pathway because it creates cash flow and symbolic visibility. New Aragon promotes: festivals, “national days,” cultural museums, and residency-style visitor programs. Tourism can produce:

• economic capital (revenue)

• social capital (networks and partnerships)

• symbolic capital (media attention and perceived reality)

But tourism also magnifies reputational risk. Any mismatch between promise and delivery creates legitimacy collapse. In addition, tourism intersects with safety regulation and consumer protection. That introduces coercive pressures that pull New Aragon deeper into conventional governance standards.

4.6 Technology Governance: Digital ID, Arbitration, and Data Authority

New Aragon’s technology stack is not just a tool—it becomes the institutional backbone. Yet digital sovereignty literature highlights that control over data, hosting, routing, and platform dependencies shape autonomy (Jansen et al., 2023). New Aragon faces a governance dilemma:

• If it centralizes authority, it may look efficient but raises concerns about abuse.

• If it decentralizes authority, it may gain ideological appeal but struggle with accountability.

Either way, external legitimacy depends on whether New Aragon can demonstrate:

• due process in dispute resolution

• reliable identity verification without discrimination

• transparent financial governance

• cybersecurity and data protection

This is where “state capacity” appears in micro-form: not armies and embassies, but audits, controls, and safeguards.

5. Findings

Across the theoretical analysis, seven findings emerge.

Finding 1: “Making a country” is primarily a legitimacy-production project

Declarations do not create authority; authority is socially produced. New Aragon succeeds only if it can convert cultural and economic capital into symbolic capital that others accept as valid.

Finding 2: Most projects quietly shift from sovereignty claims to service delivery

Because recognition is rare, New Aragon reframes “citizenship” as membership, “law” as arbitration, and “taxes” as fees—maintaining identity while reducing legal confrontation.

Finding 3: World-systems constraints steer innovation toward compliant niches

Core-controlled infrastructures (finance, travel norms, compliance) limit radical sovereignty. Projects that survive often integrate with the system rather than attempting to exit it.

Finding 4: Institutional isomorphism is not hypocrisy; it is environmental pressure

New Aragon’s “ministries” and “courts” are partly symbolic, but also responses to coercive and normative demands. To interact with real institutions, it must become institution-like.

Finding 5: Tourism can accelerate symbolic capital, but it amplifies failure costs

Tourism makes New Aragon visible and “real,” yet it increases safety, consumer-protection, and reputational risks that can rapidly destroy trust.

Finding 6: Digital sovereignty debates raise the bar for credible autonomy

New Aragon’s digital infrastructure will be judged under increasingly strict expectations about security, data authority, and political risk (Fratini, 2024; Santaniello, 2025).

Finding 7: The most viable pathway is lawful hybridization, not abrupt statehood

The practical frontier is not instant independence; it is building legitimate governance capacity as a community, platform, or negotiated administrative project—then scaling credibility over time.

6. Conclusion

The “New Aragon” concept clarifies what is actually happening in the trending “make your own country” conversation. Contemporary projects are less about conquering territory and more about designing governance as an organizational product: identity, rules, dispute resolution, and public-service substitutes for a globally mobile population.

Yet the international system makes full statehood rare. Recognition is political, gatekept, and shaped by stability concerns. As recent scholarship on micronations and cyberspace sovereignty shows, most claims remain legally uncertain or non-state in status, even when communities function internally (Zhuk, 2023). At the same time, digital sovereignty debates show that states are tightening control over the digital layer, meaning that “new countries” built on platforms face external constraints that mimic geopolitical realities (Fratini, 2024; Jansen et al., 2023; Santaniello, 2025).

From a management perspective, the most important lesson is that “starting a country” is not a branding exercise. It is an extreme form of organizational design: legitimacy, compliance, capacity, and accountability must be built, audited, and sustained. The irony is structural: the more New Aragon pursues credibility, the more it becomes isomorphic with existing state forms. That is not failure; it is the cost of operating in a world where sovereignty is scarce, regulated, and socially recognized.

In short: New Aragon is best understood not as a new flag on the map, but as a live experiment in governance—where success depends on lawful institutional design, credible service delivery, and legitimacy that survives contact with reality.

Hashtags

#Management #TourismInnovation #GovTech #DigitalSovereignty #InstitutionalTheory #NetworkStates #Micronations

References

• Bourdieu, P., 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Bourdieu, P., 1986. The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J.G. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.

• Cole, J., 2025. Recognition Rules: The Case for a New International Law of Government Recognition. New York University Law Review, 100(3), pp. 785–873. Available at: https://nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-100-number-3/recognition-rules-the-case-for-a-new-international-law-of-government-recognition/ 

• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147–160.

• Fratini, S., 2024. Digital Sovereignty: A Descriptive Analysis and a Critical Evaluation of Existing Models. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00146-7 

• Hulkó, G., 2025. The politics of digital sovereignty and the European… Frontiers in Political Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1548562 

• Jansen, B., Kadenko, N., Broeders, D., van Eeten, M., Borgolte, K. and Fiebig, T., 2023. Pushing boundaries: An empirical view on the digital sovereignty of six governments in the midst of geopolitical tensions. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), Article 101862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101862 

• Pohle, J. and Santaniello, M., 2024. From multistakeholderism to digital sovereignty: Toward a new discursive order in internet governance? [Working paper / full-text version]. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/313538/1/Full-text-article-Pohle-Santaniello-From-multistakeholderism.pdf 

• Santaniello, M., 2025. Attributes of Digital Sovereignty: A Conceptual Framework. [Research paper / UNU-CRIS]. Available at: https://cris.unu.edu/attributes-digital-sovereignty-conceptual-framework 

• Scott, W.R., 2013. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

• Srinivasan, B.S., 2022. The Network State: How to Start a New Country. [Place not consistently stated across editions]: Independent publication. Available at: https://thenetworkstate.com/ 

• Wallerstein, I., 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

• Zhuk, A., 2023. Examining the Legal Status of Micronations in Cyberspace: The Case of the Republic of Errant Menda Lerenda. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00067-x