The Institute
The Startup States Society is a Genève-based think tank and policy institute dedicated to the research, study, and promulgation of peaceful de novo sovereign statehood under public international law. We champion the proposition that new countries can, and should, be built with the rigour of a startup: through negotiated treaty, constitutional clarity, and mutual benefit, rather than through conflict, coercion, or colonial imposition.
Our work exists at the intersection of international law, governance innovation, diplomatic strategy, and sovereign design. We provide legal frameworks, policy research, governance blueprints, and strategic counsel to credible founders, investors, host governments, and allied institutions navigating the emerging field of intentional statehood.
Startup States do not seek to undermine existing countries. They complement the international order, offering voluntary, opt-in alternatives characterised by consent, clarity, and competence.
The international legal order, anchored by the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), already provides the legal architecture for peaceful, negotiated state formation. No revolution is required: only precision, consent, and strategic will.
The Society is constituted as a non-profit think tank and policy institute. In its present form, it does not itself undertake state-building activities. The Society nonetheless reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to establish or affiliate with purpose-built commercial instruments through which it may, in time, participate more directly in sovereign formation and jurisdictional development.
The Book
Startup States
Where Countries Are Built Like Startups, and Startups Become Countries
The foundational monograph of the Startup States movement: a comprehensive treatment of treaty-based sovereign formation, jurisdictional design, and the legal, diplomatic, and economic architecture of de novo statehood in the twenty-first century.
Grounded in the Montevideo Convention, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and comparative constitutional theory, the work charts a lawful, peaceful, and rigorous path from founding concept to recognised sovereign state.
Research
Peer-reviewed scholarship, policy essays, and research monographs advancing the legal and theoretical foundations of intentional statehood.
Startup States: A New Framework for Jurisdictional Innovation
Read Article ↗Startup States and the Architecture of Treaty-Based Sovereignty
Read Essay ↗What Are Startup States?
A formal treatment of the term, its etymology, expanded juridical definition, and organisational basis, drawn from the Society's canonical reference text.
Definition 1.0
Startup States
New, independent, self-governing countries intentionally built from first principles, channelling an entrepreneurial ethos in the design and deployment of modular governance, innovative technologies, and market-aligned systems: delivering legally grounded, deliberate, treaty-enabled statehood.
Epigram
Startups that are new countries, and new countries that are startups.
IPA: /ˈstɑːtʌp steɪts/ · Phonetic: STAHR-tuhp stayts · Singular: Startup State
The term Startup States synthesises two historically distinct yet increasingly convergent domains: startups, entities rooted in iterative creation and private capital; and states, juridically recognised sovereign polities with defined territory, population, and governance, capable of entering international relations.
Startup derives from the twentieth-century lexicon of Silicon Valley, denoting ventures born from agility, innovation, and lean experimentation. The term signals a departure from rigid hierarchies in favour of adaptive, mission-driven growth.
State, from the Latin status, acquired its political meaning in medieval and Renaissance Europe, evolving under the Westphalian system into the foundational unit of modern international law. A state is recognised under the Montevideo Convention (1933) as possessing a permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states.
The juxtaposition of these terms forms a neologism: Startup States. It signals not rebellion or reformation, but origination: a new class of statehood grounded in lawful intent and entrepreneurial clarity. These are countries designed with purpose, launched through consent, and governed with precision. Their legal foundations aim to satisfy criteria such as those articulated in the Montevideo Convention whilst securing status through negotiated treaties, sustainable jurisdictional leasing or purchase, and pluralistic diplomacy. The result is a form of statehood no longer inherited by accident, but engineered by agreement.
To the extent that nation-states continue to constitute the prevailing superior, legitimate, recognised legal form and framework for human organisational governance, Startup States acknowledge and operate from within such parameters, whilst expressly reserving judgement as to their metaphysical necessity. Whilst some regard the nation-state as axiomatic, Startup States remain agnostic and neutral on such a question. Their formation reflects a pragmatic accommodation to extant global structures: if the nation-state endures as the dominant vessel for the grouping and gathering of humans, then it ought to be reimagined through intention, legality, and innovation.
Startup States are new, independent, and self-governing countries, deliberately constructed from first principles, anchored in lawful consent and entrepreneurial clarity. They are neither born of secession nor imposed through colonial conquest, but rather emerge through mutually informed, symbiotic agreements that reflect the voluntary will of all parties involved. In this respect, Startup States constitute the antithesis of colonialism and imperialism. Their juridical foundations, based in bilateral or multilateral consent, may serve not only as a repudiation of exploitative historical precedents but also as a credible and constructive response to contemporary neo-colonial and geo-economic subjugation.
Built through modular governance systems, technologically advanced infrastructures, and market-aligned institutional mechanisms, Startup States are designed to foster human dignity, constitutional integrity, and durable prosperity. They offer not simply a response to the limitations of existing political orders but a deliberate design with clarity of purpose and ethical intent.
In their most legally conscientious and diplomatically robust form, Startup States are optimally established through cooperative formations pursuant to lawful agreements with recognised sovereign powers. These are typically formalised via treaties, long-term leases, or the lawful transfer of uninhabited and uncontested territories, thereby grounding sovereignty in mutual recognition rather than coercive assertion. Such juridical constructs often prioritise ecological conservation, environmental custodianship, and the elevation of human liberties, aligning statecraft with ethical stewardship.
Jurisdictional frameworks under these arrangements may manifest as concurrent sovereignty or condominium governance, wherein both parties exercise defined legal competences whilst retaining distinct sovereign status. This consensual sovereignty is not only legally orthodox and diplomatically credible, but institutionally scalable, offering a post-Westphalian formation model that furnishes the strongest basis for de jure recognition under public international law. This pathway represents the most durable, peaceful, and strategically sound method of Startup State creation, anchored in law, cooperation, and foresight.
Where formal cooperation with recognised states is unavailable or delayed, Startup States may instead arise through decentralised, non-territorial, or extra-territorial modalities. These include the deployment of open-source governance protocols, blockchain-based administrative systems, or community-led assertions of functional sovereignty across cyberspace, the high seas, terra nullius, or extra-planetary domains. Whilst such models reflect jurisdictional entrepreneurship and commendable innovation, they operate in a legal grey zone, not yet fully acknowledged by the current international legal regime, which remains largely shaped by pre-digital, territory-centric norms. As a result, these pathways remain suboptimal, both in terms of predictable recognition and legal resilience, even though they may embody consensual futurism and articulate peaceful alternatives to the status quo.
Startup States do not seek to undermine or replace existing countries through coercion or fragmentation. Rather, they offer voluntary, opt-in alternatives characterised by consent, clarity, and competence. Their objective is not disruption but demonstration of what countries become when architected with deliberation, legitimacy, and aligned purposes.
Accordingly, Startup States are not speculative constructs nor ideological abstractions. They constitute operational, evolving, and legally conscientious frameworks for twenty-first-century state formation and beyond.
Startup States may be operated on a for-profit, non-profit, mutual-benefit, or public-benefit basis, or any combination thereof. The organisational form is a matter of founding design rather than doctrinal prescription: what remains constant is the requirement for constitutional integrity, transparent governance, and compliance with applicable public international law.
The flexibility of organisational basis reflects the deliberately pluralistic nature of the Startup States model. A Startup State may be structured as a constitutional principality, a lean technocratic republic, a cooperative commonwealth, a concession-based jurisdiction, or an entirely novel form. The key requirement is not ideological uniformity but institutional coherence, legal durability, and genuine alignment between the interests of the state, its founding partners, and its residents.
A Startup State is a brand new kind of country. It is not created by war or by chance; it is built deliberately, from the ground up. People or teams create it with care, often by working together with an existing country that agrees to help. This relationship benefits both sides: the Startup State obtains land or legal support, and the partner country gains investment, innovation, or prestige.
These new countries are usually formed on land, but in the future could also exist at sea or in other domains. They use new technologies, fair rules, and fresh ideas to give people more freedom, safety, and opportunity. They are built to grow, adapt, and serve people well.
The term Startup States will come to define a new frontier in sovereignty and governance. It will be used in diplomatic forums, legal journals, and futurist policymaking circles to describe countries intentionally designed from first principles through lawful agreements: not by conflict. Unlike breakaway regions or micronations, Startup States distinguish themselves by forming through treaties, leases, or condominium arrangements, establishing sovereignty by consent rather than by force.
The term will become central to debates about jurisdictional competition, governance innovation, and state formation in the digital and decentralised age. It will also be adopted in venture capital, international development, and global legal theory as a reference to scalable, treaty-based statecraft with long-term alignment between stakeholders.
Fields of application include: comparative constitutional design, comparative constitutionalism, decentralised legal and political systems, digital governance, disaster resilience, humanitarian corridors, economic development, environmental governance, ethics of governance, futurist think tanks, geoeconomics, jurisdictional arbitrage, governance technology, international development, international law, treaty studies, jurisdictional design, migration and demographic planning, political science, post-sovereign theory, post-Westphalian diplomacy, sovereign wealth strategies, special purpose jurisdictions, transnational development policy, transnational innovation, and venture capital.
By leasing coastal land from a small island nation, the team will negotiate the foundation of the world's first fully climate-neutral Startup State.
Unlike secessionist movements, Startup States focus on legal consent and contractual sovereignty, offering win-win models for both host and partner nations.
The new Startup State will be launched via a multilateral treaty with two Pacific governments, blending financial innovation, regenerative development, and full diplomatic recognition.
A consortium of technologists, legal scholars, and investors will unveil a Startup State operating under a co-governed legal framework, with AI-assisted adjudication and opt-in citizenship.
By purchasing uninhabited land and entering into a revenue-sharing treaty, the Startup State will emerge as a new jurisdiction attracting entrepreneurs and digital nomads.
Charter Cities and Special Economic Zones are subnational experiments. They remain legally and politically subordinate to the host country. Their autonomy is conditional and can often be revoked. A shift in leadership or legal interpretation can reduce or end their autonomy quickly. Startup States are not subnational constructs; they are sovereign countries formed through treaties rather than domestic decrees. Their autonomy is not a favour granted but a right secured through mutual and enforceable agreement. With comparatively modest additional effort beyond that needed to enact a Charter City or SEZ, a host country could negotiate a Startup State and gain a more durable and dignified symbiotic arrangement.
Network States are often described as digital-first or ideology-driven communities seeking future sovereignty. Whilst imaginative, most lack the foundational pillars of statehood under international law: no clearly defined territory, no formal recognition, no binding treaties with existing sovereign states. Under current international law, sovereignty is not achieved by community consensus or online declarations; it is secured through state-to-state agreements, recognised borders, and compliance with instruments such as the Montevideo Convention and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Startup States begin with law rather than ideology, with territory rather than symbolism, and with recognition rather than aspiration.
Micronations are typically symbolic or hobby projects lacking legal standing, treaties, and recognition under international law. Startup States are fundamentally different: formed through lawful treaties with existing sovereign nations, designed to be recognised, self-governing, and institutionally robust. This is not pageantry. It is contract-based sovereignty designed for legitimacy, scalability, and real-world relevance from the outset.
Questions & Answers
Forty rigorously developed answers to the most important questions about Startup States, their legal foundations, and the Society's work.
Startup States are new, independent countries created through lawful and peaceful agreements with existing sovereign states, often by treaty. They are not breakaway regions or hobby micronations; they are deliberately designed jurisdictions that seek full international recognition from their inception. Built with the clarity of a startup and the strategic perspective of a sovereign investment vehicle, Startup States apply entrepreneurial thinking to governance, law, and economic systems. They are sovereign, high-performance ventures that are purpose-built and optimised for freedom, trust, innovation, and long-term viability.
The return on reform is often diminishing. Many existing countries are weighed down by bureaucratic sprawl, outdated systems, and political gridlock that make meaningful change slow or nearly impossible. Startup States offer a blank canvas: a chance to rethink how we organise law, governance, economics, and community. They allow humanity to test new ideas, such as transparent governments, post-tax economies, or rights-based digital systems, without overthrowing existing regimes. Startup States complement rather than conflict with the international order. They are a strategic reallocation of human talent and capital into more effective, accountable, and innovative systems operating in harmony with the existing international framework.
Startup States are built deliberately rather than inherited by accident. Many existing countries arose through historical happenstance: wars, conquest, or colonial entanglements. Startup States are formed through lawful and peaceful agreements with existing sovereigns, grounded in consent rather than coercion. They do not undermine sovereignty; they affirm and uphold it. Partner governments become co-founders rather than casualties, and the relationship is designed to be symbiotic rather than extractive. Rather than acting as distant gatekeepers, governments in Startup States operate more like high-trust service providers: a concierge, a butler, or a strategic partner. Citizens are treated as clients to be served rather than subjects to be managed.
Startup States are created by founders: individuals, consortia, companies, or institutions that possess the vision, discipline, and diplomatic capability to negotiate binding agreements with partner governments. Whilst the idea is open in principle, successful execution requires more than enthusiasm. It demands legal precision, financial backing, geopolitical awareness, and a commitment to long-term nation-building. These projects are forged through structured negotiations rather than slogans. This is sovereign formation for builders who can operate at the intersection of law, diplomacy, and capital. The Startup States Society exists to support credible founders who have the right mix of ambition and realism.
Yes. Physical territory is essential. Startup States are not purely symbolic projects or digital communities; they are established on real land through lawful agreements with existing sovereign countries. This is typically achieved through long-term leases, special designations, or treaty-based arrangements that grant meaningful self-governance. Territory may begin modestly: an island, an enclave, a coastal zone, or a reclaimed port. What matters is the legal foundation. A Startup State must have enforceable autonomy secured through binding agreements and respected under international law. Land is the substrate of jurisdictional authority, and Startup States are built to exercise it with clarity, integrity, and legitimacy from day one.
Startup States gain recognition through treaties, in the same way that modern countries formalise relations. They are established through lawful and negotiated agreements with existing sovereign states, structured in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This is not secession, revolution, or fantasy; it is contract-based nation-building. By anchoring their legitimacy in treaty law from day one, Startup States aim for de jure recognition at inception. This legal clarity aligns with international norms and builds investor confidence, diplomatic stability, and institutional trust over time. It is sovereignty gained through structure rather than struggle.
Startup States can be legal under international law when structured correctly and formed through mutual consent. They are not acts of secession or force; they are peaceful and treaty-based initiatives grounded in established international norms. The Montevideo Convention sets criteria for statehood, including defined territory, permanent population, effective government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. The United Nations Charter affirms sovereign equality and peaceful coexistence. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties governs the legality of binding international agreements. Startup States are designed to comply with these frameworks deliberately and precisely. This is lawful and negotiated sovereignty for the twenty-first century.
No. Micronations are typically symbolic or hobby projects that lack legal standing, treaties, and recognition under international law. They may express identity or protest, but they generally do not have enforceable agreements, institutional durability, or serious pathways to legitimacy. Startup States are fundamentally different: formed through lawful treaties with existing sovereign nations, grounded in international legal frameworks such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. They are designed to be recognised, self-governing, and institutionally robust. They are backed by capital, governed by enforceable rules, and structured for long-term sustainability. This is not pageantry. It is contract-based sovereignty designed for legitimacy, scalability, and real-world relevance from the beginning.
Charter Cities and Special Economic Zones are subnational experiments. They remain legally and politically subordinate to the host country. Their autonomy is conditional and can often be revoked. Startup States are not subnational constructs; they are sovereign countries formed through treaties rather than domestic decrees. Their autonomy is not a favour granted but a right secured through mutual and enforceable agreement. A Startup State engages the host country as a respected stakeholder and co-architect rather than merely a regulator. Its formation affirms the sovereignty of the partner state. With comparatively modest additional effort beyond that needed to enact a Charter City or SEZ, a host country could negotiate a Startup State and gain a more durable and dignified symbiotic arrangement. If prosperity proves possible in one zone, there is little reason to stop there.
Network States are often described as digital-first or ideology-driven communities that seek to become sovereign in the future. Whilst many ideas in this space are imaginative, most of these projects lack the foundational pillars of statehood under international law: no clearly defined territory, no formal recognition, and no binding treaties with existing sovereign states. Under current international law, sovereignty is not achieved by community consensus or online declarations; it is secured through state-to-state agreements, recognised borders, and compliance with the Montevideo Convention and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Startup States begin with law rather than ideology, with territory rather than symbolism, and with recognition rather than aspiration. Network States often aim to disrupt the nation-state model by bypassing its legal foundations. Startup States work within the international order rather than against it.
Governance in Startup States is deliberately designed rather than inherited. Founders have flexibility to choose the model that best fits their vision: a constitutional principality, a lean technocracy, a transparent republic, or a structure that is entirely new. What remains constant is the foundation: clear constitutional frameworks, transparent rule of law, and authority that rests on consent. In this context, governance is not primarily ideology; it is infrastructure. Startup States treat governance like high-reliability architecture: accountable, auditable, and aligned with international norms. The goal is not to replicate the past but to build systems that function with integrity, coherence, and trust.
Startup States embed ethics in their foundations through constitutional design and legal structure. Their frameworks enshrine civil liberties, protections for minorities, environmental stewardship, and transparent governance from the outset. Inclusion and fairness become design principles rather than afterthoughts. With opt-in consent, contractual accountability, and systems that reward transparency and responsibility, they create governance models in which acting ethically is both expected and advantageous. Ethics is implemented through architecture, and inclusion is supported through opportunity and design.
Some Startup States may prioritise financial freedom or low-tax models, but that represents only one possible vertical rather than the entire vision. Startup States are not ideologically uniform: they can be progressive, traditional, technocratic, artistic, communal, or climate-oriented. What defines them is not a single political ideology but the principle of voluntary association and the structure of lawful self-governance. Some may focus on financial innovation or asset protection; others may specialise in biotechnology, arbitration, public health, artificial intelligence governance, or regenerative design. A well-designed Startup State does not need to choose between ethics and competitiveness. It can aim to be both principled and profitable.
No. Digital colonialism is extractive, imposed, and top-down. Startup States are the opposite: lawful, opt-in, and co-created. They are formed through treaties rather than through unilateral imposition, built on mutual consent, shared value, and full respect for the sovereignty of partner nations. There is no conquest or coercion. A Startup State cannot exist without the active agreement of the host country. These projects are not land grabs or private enclaves; they are joint ventures for aligned growth, with enforceable terms, transparent governance, and measurable local benefit. Startup States validate the sovereignty of host nations rather than undermining it.
Startup States depend on talent, initiative, and high-agency collaboration. Whether you are a founder who wants a sovereign sandbox, an investor who seeks asymmetric upside, or a contributor with expertise in law, policy, infrastructure, or diplomacy, there is likely a role for you in this ecosystem. The Startup States Society serves as a gateway connecting serious builders, funders, and advisors with aligned opportunities to co-create new jurisdictions. The Society does not solicit public donations and does not operate as a mass membership association. It focuses on partnerships rather than patronage, and facilitates meaningful involvement for those who are ready to contribute capital, capability, or credibility to lawful, self-governing countries.
Yes. Startup States represent a frontier opportunity in which geopolitics, innovation, and capital intersect. Whether you are a venture capitalist, a sovereign wealth fund, a family office, an infrastructure builder, or a policy entrepreneur, there are multiple ways to participate. Opportunities may include land vehicles, sovereign equity, tokenised infrastructure, legal architecture, and governance-as-a-service protocols. You can help design the blueprint, fund the build-out, or join a founding team. This is not only investing in a project; it is joining the cap table of a country. The Society facilitates strategic introductions and supports serious contributors who are ready to shape, fund, and launch jurisdictions from first principles.
The first step is to develop a clear, compelling, and credible thesis. This includes defining your legal structure, governance architecture, economic model, preferred locations, and diplomatic strategy. A Startup State is not a protest; it is a detailed proposal that begins with law and structure rather than slogans or improvisation. The next step is to recruit the right partners, including legal experts, economic strategists, capital providers, and diplomatic operators. This is sovereign deal-making, not activism. The Startup States Society can support this process, helping founders move from conceptual pitch to structured protocol. Think of the Society as a seed-stage accelerator for geopolitical ventures.
Startup States represent a new chapter in the evolution of sovereignty. They shift governance from an inherited monopoly to an opt-in service that is programmable, transparent, and investable. Rooted in lawful consent and high-trust design, they offer dignified and scalable alternatives to systems constrained by inertia or decline. As treaty-based jurisdictions succeed, they will change how people think about what it means to be a state. Sovereignty will become a platform available to those who can deliver legitimacy, law, and leadership, rather than a status reserved only for historical powers. Governance becomes competitive. Legitimacy is earned. Citizenship becomes more voluntary and more aligned with preference. Startup States are ventures in civilisation design: participating in a broader realignment in which individuals and communities reorganise around purpose and voluntary association.
The full FAQ contains forty questions and answers, available in the published monograph.
Read All 40 Q&As in the Book ↗Governance
Founding statutes, official minutes, and registration details for the Startup States Society, constituted under the laws of the République et canton de Genève, Switzerland.
Official Documents
Primary statutes and minutes in French (official originals), with English reference translation.
- UID # CHE-418.101.559 (Swiss Business Registry)
- Founding Statutes (Français, original)
- Meeting Minutes / Procès-verbal (Français, original)
- Statutes (English, reference only)
Contact & Registration
SwissMailBox 467
12, Rue Le Corbusier
1208 Genève, Suisse
Télécopie / Facsimile
+41 27 539 16 11
UID: CHE-418.101.559
This is a public, informational listing. It does not imply membership offerings, fundraising, or solicitation of any kind.
Interpretive Notes
Governance
Board oversight and fiduciary responsibility.
Advisory
Subject-matter input and strategic counsel.
Discipline
Institutional tone, not lifestyle branding.
Clarity
Names link to primary sites where available.
Team & Advisory Council
Meet the Board of Directors, Advisory Council, and Friends and Ambassadors Inner Circle supporting the Society's research and policy work.
Board of Directors: Governance & Fiduciary Oversight
Founding Director
Advisory Council: Subject-Matter Input & Strategic Counsel
Advisor
Advisor
Advisor
Friends & Ambassadors Inner Circle: Supporters & Informal Allies
Friend / Ambassador
Friend / Ambassador
Treasury
The Society maintains an open-books policy of radical transparency when feasible, in keeping with best practices and good governance.
Open-Books Policy
The Startup States Society maintains an open-books policy of radical transparency, in keeping with best practices and good governance. The Society anticipates the establishment and implementation of a Decentralised Autonomy Organisation (DAO) to facilitate as close to real-time, on-chain governance transparency and accounting as is practicable, as good governance begins within this association.
The Society is presently self-financed entirely by its Founding Director and has not sought nor received external contributions of any kind. It does not actively solicit donations. The Society may, at its sole discretion, consider carefully vetted contributions that are demonstrably aligned with its institutional mission and values.
Transparency Commitments
Expenditure
Annual expense reports published as PDF documents, freely accessible to all.
On-Chain Governance
A DAO is anticipated to provide near-real-time on-chain accounting transparency.
Self-Financed
Entirely funded by its Founding Director. No external contributions received to date.
Swiss UID
CHE-418.101.559 (public registry verification available).