My intellectual path ran through philosophy and AI ethics before bringing it into international relations, which means I came to questions of state power and technology governance having already spent years thinking about what AI systems actually do to the people and institutions that adopt them. That background shapes how I study sovereignty: not as an abstract legal concept but as something that either compounds or erodes depending on the governance choices states make, often saliently and before the consequences are visible.

I am particularly drawn to the situation of smaller democratic states, as they face the dependency problem most acutely, have the least representation in AI governance discourse, and yet often possess the institutional agility that larger states lack. My research develops frameworks that are calibrated to their actual constraints rather than assuming ideal bureaucratic capacity.

I am also interested in the human side of this transition: how people perceive, resist, and adapt to AI systems (and technologies more generally), and how those interaction patterns shape adoption outcomes in ways that top-down governance rarely anticipates. Digital technologies do not land in a vacuum: they encounter existing cultural logics, social norms, and collective imaginaries that determine whether and how they take hold. The visions societies hold about technology, whether as threat, tool, or companion, are not merely rhetorical. They actively shape the conditions under which AI systems get deployed, contested, or quietly normalised. This is where sociology of technology and human-AI interaction research become indispensable complements to policy analysis.