If I guess the meaning of the sentence correctly, I think we have a conventional use of the past tense here: A reference to a past event that occurred in a finished past time period. Thus there is no backshift.
If the decision mentioned caused a change, the instance of causing a change is finished, though the effects of the change may endure. (If it's considered a set of decisions, then we can characterize a decision as a singular representation of a category of decisions.)
The “Information Revolution” began with the digitization of
individual enterprises, which created networks of increasingly
ubiquitous computers . . . [emphasis mine].
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~ekerschn/courses/c150042/lectures/03_information_revolution.pdf (p. 8)
I think we can say that the decision was made, an event that occurred and ended in the past. Therefore the statement is not "general" insofar as it references a specific decision, not decisions (or sovereign decisions) generally.
Contrast, for example: Sovereign decisions [always] apply rules generally to people's actions.