Nostradamus Lite – Selected Speculations as to the Future of Internet Jurisdiction

Dan Svantesson

Abstract

This paper examines and analyses current trends in the field of Internet jurisdiction, including the troubling development of overly broad claims of 'scope of jurisdiction', the increasing interest in so-called geo-location technologies and the tendency of litigants targeting Internet intermediaries. A handful of recent key judgments from around the world are also analysed, and an effort is made to identify and present key projects and other initiatives currently dealing
with the topic of Internet jurisdiction. Based on observations flowing from this analysis, a selection of speculations as to the future of Internet jurisdiction is presented.

It will be shown that while the topic of Internet jurisdiction is currently gaining an unprecedented degree of attention and, while progress is being made, there are several serious hurdles in relation to which we have seen little or no progress over the past 20 years. In addition, there are new dangerous trends emerging, adding to the concerns for the future direction of Internet jurisdiction.

Keywords

Internet Jurisdiction, Scope of Jurisdiction, Europe, Australia, Internet Intermediaries, Territoriality, Geo-location Techniques

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

[1] Article 29 Data Protection Working Party 2014, ‘Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment on ‘Google Spain and Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González’ - C-131/12’ (2014) WP225

[2] Attorney-General's Department 2012, 'Reducing Legal Complexity of Cross-Border Transactions and Relationships' (Discussion Paper).

[3] Attorney-General’s Department 2015, Private International Law, viewed 25 April 2016,
https://www.ag.gov.au/Internationalrelations/PrivateInternationalLaw/Pages/default.aspx.

[4] Berman, PS 2012, Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence of Law beyond Borders, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[5] ‘Bond University researcher recognised as one of Australia’s best and brightest’ 2012 (26 July 2012) <https://bond.edu.au/news/44138/bond-university-researcherrecognised-
one-australias-best-and-brightest>.

[6] Buxbaum, HL 2009, ‘Territory, Territoriality, and the Resolution of Jurisdictional Conflict’, American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 57, p. 674. https://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2008.0018

[7] ‘CNIL orders Google to apply delisting on all domain names of the search engine’ n.d., viewed 25 April 2016, <http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/news/article/cnil-orders-google-to-apply-delisting-on-alldomain-
names-of-the-search-engine/>.

[8] Cobb, P et al 2000, ‘Taxing Internet Transactions’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 21, p. 671.

[9] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Internet Policy and Governance 2014 (COM(2014) 072) 12 February 2014, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072&from=EN>.

[10] Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference 2015, Conclusions and Recommendations Adopted by the Council, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2015concl_en.pdf>.

[11] ‘Developments in the Law: The Law of Media’ 2007, Harvard Law Review, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 990-1066, pp. 1040-1041.

[12] EuroDIG 2015a, Messages from Sofia 4-5 June 2015: Shaping the Internet Together, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://www.eurodig.org/fileadmin/user_upload/eurodig_Sofia/EuroDI
G_A5.pdf>.

[13] EuroDIG 2015b, Category: Sessions 2015, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Category:Sessions_2015>.

[14] European Commission 2015a, Article 29 Working Party (11 September 2015), viewed 25 April 2016, <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/index_en.htm>.

[15] European Commission 2015b, Press release: Have your say on geo-blocking and the role of platforms in the online economy, Brussels, 24 September 2015, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5704_en.htm>.

[16] European privacy requests for search removals n.d., viewed 25 April 2016, <https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/?hl=en>.

[17] Fawcett, J et al 2005, International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[18] Final Communication from The Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe 2015 (Brussels, 6.5.2015 COM(2015) 192) {SWD(2015) 100 final}.

[19] Fleischer, P 2014, ’Response to the Questionnaire addressed to Search Engines by the Article 29 Working Party regarding the implementation of the CJEU judgment on the ‘right to be forgotten’’ (31 July 2014), viewed 25 April 2016, <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/vie
w?pli=1&sle=true>.

[20] Geist, M 2001, ‘Is There a There There? Towards Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 16, p. 1345.

[21] Goldsmith, J and Wu, T 2006, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World, Oxford University Press, New York.

[22] International Law Association 2012, Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Sofia Conference), viewed 25 April 2016, <http://www.ila-hq.org/download.cfm/docid/59D49CFE-2AC0-4D74-92E82EF00AC116F9>.

[23] International Law Association 2014, Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Washington Conference), viewed 25 April 2016, <http://www.ila-hq.org/download.cfm/docid/33B8054F-F87D-4433-A1DC108BF6A08B68>.

[24] Internet & Jurisdiction Project: Structure 2014, <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/about/structure/>.

[25] Jaeger-Fine, D, Reidenberg, J, Debelak, J and Kovnot, J 2013, ‘Internet Jurisdiction: A Survey of German Scholarship and Cases’ [30 June 2013] Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2309575. Available at SSRN: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2309575> or
<https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2309575>, viewed 25 April 2016.

[26] Johnson, D & Post, D 1996, ‘Law and Borders – The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’, Stanford Law Review, vol. 48, p. 1367. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229390

[27] King, KF 2011, ‘Personal jurisdiction, Internet Commerce, and Privacy: The Pervasive Legal Consequences of Modern Geolocation Technologies’, Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 21, p. 61.

[28] Konow, BR 2013, ‘Observations on some points of contact between private and public international law in Sweden’ in P Lindskoug et al (eds), Essays in Honour of Michael Bogdan, Jurisförlaget I Lund, Lund, Sweden.

[29] Krog, G 2005, ‘Jurisdiksjon og Avgrensning av Internett's Kolliderende Handlingsuniverser’, in G Krog & A Bekken (eds), Yulex 2005, Institutt for Rettsinformatikk, Oslo, Norway.

[30] Magnusson Sjöberg, C 2012, Rättens internationalisering i det digitala informationssamhället – Folkrätt och rättsinformatik, in R Stern & I Österdahl (eds), Folkrätten i svensk rätt, Liber AB, Stockholm.

[31] Mills, A 2014, ‘Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law’, The British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 187–239.

[32] NETmundial 2014, NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf>.

[33] OECD 2010, Workshop Summary: ‘The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives’ <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/45997042.pdf>.

[34] Oster, J 2012, ‘Rethinking Shevill. Conceptualising the EU private international law of Internet torts against personality rights’, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, vol. 26, nos. 2-3, pp. 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2012.698842

[35] Reed, C 2012, Making Laws for Cyberspace, Oxford University, Oxford.

[36] Reidenberg, J et al 2013, ‘Internet Jurisdiction: A Survey of Legal Scholarship Published in English and United States Case Law’ [30 June 2013] Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No 2309526. Available at SSRN: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2309526> or <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2309526 >, viewed 25 April 2016.

[37] Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Working Group on the Judgments Project (26-31 October 2015) and Proposed Draft Text Resulting from the Meeting, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2016pd07a_en.pdf>.

[38] Ryngaert C 2015, Jurisdiction in International Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[39] Sartor, G 2013, ‘Provider’s Liability and the Right to Be Forgotten’, in D Svantesson & S Greenstein, (eds), Nordic Yearbook of Law and Informatics 2010–2012: Internationalisation of Law in the Digital Information Society, Ex Tuto Publishing, Copenhagen.

[40] Schultz, T 2008, ‘Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface’, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 19, no. 4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chn040

[41] Slaughter, A 2006, ‘The Future of International Law Is Domestic (or, The European Way of Law)’, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 47, p. 327.

[42] Spang-Hanssen, H 2004, Cyberspace & international law on jurisdiction, DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen.

[43] Svantesson, D 2015a, ‘Limitless borderless forgetfulness? Limiting the geographical reach of the ‘right to be forgotten'’, Oslo Law Review, pp. 116-138.

[44] Svantesson, D 2015b, ‘The holy trinity of legal fictions undermining the application of law to the global internet’, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, pp. 1-16.

[45] Svantesson, D 2015c, ‘A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction: Beyond the Harvard Draft’, American Journal of International Law Unbound, vol. 109, pp. 69-74.

[46] Svantesson, D 2016, ‘Jurisdiction in 3D – ‘scope of (remedial) jurisdiction’ as a third dimension of jurisdiction’, Journal of Private International Law, pp. 60-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2016.1144987

[47] Trimble, M 2012, ‘The Future of Cybertravel: Legal Implications of the Evasion of Geolocation’, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 22, p. 567.

[48] Trimble, M 2014-2015, ‘Advancing National Intellectual Property Policies in a Transnational Context’, Maryland Law Review, vol. 74, pp. 231-232.

[49] Trzaskowski, J 2005, Legal Risk Management in Electronic Commerce, Ex Tuto Publishing, Copenhagen.

[50] UNESCO 2015, Keystones to Foster Inclusive Knowledge Societies: Access to Information and Knowledge Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Ethics on a Global Internet, viewed 25 April 2016, <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232563E.pdf>.

[51] United Nations Human Rights Council 2011, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, A/HRC/17/27 (16 May 2011), viewed 25 April 2016, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HR
C.17.27_en.pdf>.

[52] Von der Pfordten, D 2015, ‘On Obligations, Norms and Rules’ in M Araszkiewicz et al (eds) 2015, Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following, Springer International, Cham, Switzerland.

[53] Whetstone, R 2007, Free expression and controversial content on the web (14 November 2007), viewed 25 April 2016, <https://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/free-expression-andcontroversial.html>.

https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2016-1-3


Crossref Cited-by (1)

The listed references are provided by Cited-by (Crossref service) and thus do not represent the full list of sources citing the article.

1. The European Commission’s Geo-blocking Proposals and the Future of EU E‑commerce Regulation
Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel
Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology  vol: 11,  issue: 1,  first page: 39,  year: 2017  
https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-3




Copyright (c) 2016 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology