“Lagom Jurisdiction” – What Viking Drinking Ettiquette Can Teach Us about Internet Jurisdiction and Google France



The law of Internet jurisdiction is facing a crisis. While there is widespread and growing recognition that we cannot anchor Internet jurisdiction in the outdated, typically overstated, and often misunderstood, territoriality principle, few realistic alternatives have been advanced so far.

This article seeks to provide an insight into the conceptual mess that is the international law on jurisdiction; focusing specifically on the concepts of sovereignty and jurisdiction, with limited attention also given to the impact of comity, and international human rights law. These issues are studied through the lens of the so-called Google France case that comes before the CJEU in 2018. The article argues that we may usefully turn to the Swedish “lagom” concept – which allegedly stems from Viking era drinking etiquette – as a guiding principle for how we approach Internet jurisdiction.

Lagom, Comity, Google France, Internet Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, Vikings

p. 29–48
Author biography

Dan Svantesson

Centre for Commercial Law, Faculty of Law, Bond University

Professor and Co-Director, Centre for Commercial Law, Faculty of Law, Bond University (Australia)

[1] Ashliman, D. L., Bray, O. (2003) Hávamál [online] Available: from: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/havamal.html

[2] Briggs, A. (2012) The Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours, 354.

[3] CNIL. (2015) CNIL orders Google to apply delisting on all domain names of the search engine 12 June. [online] Available from: http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/news/article/cnil-orders-google-to-apply-delisting-on-all-domain-names-of-the-search-engine [Accessed 2 April 2017].

[4] Constine, J. (2017) Facebook now has 2 billion monthly users… and responsibility. [online] Techscrunch.com. Available from: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/facebook-2-billionusers/ [Accessed 27 June 2017].

[5] Corn, G. and Taylor, R. (2017) Sovereignty in the Age of Cyber. AJIL Unbound, 111, pp. 207-212. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.57.

[6] Datainspektionen. (2017) The right to be forgotten may apply all over the world. [online] Datainspektionen. Available from: https://www.datainspektionen.se/press/nyheter/theright-to-be-forgotten-may-apply-all-over-the-world/ [Accessed 4 May 2017].

[7] Endicott, T. (2010) The Logic of Freedom and Power. In: Besson, S. and Tasioulas, J. (eds.) The Philosophy of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–259.

[8] Forbes. The World's Most Valuable Brands. Forbes.com [online] Available from: https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#.

[9] Ginsburg, T. (2017). Introduction to Symposium on Sovereignty, Cyberspace, and Tallinn Manual 2.0. AJIL Unbound, 111, pp. 205–206. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.58

[10] Google Inc. v. Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (2017), C-507/17.

[11] Hávamál (2018) [online] Wikipedia. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

[12] Hilton v. Guyot (1895) 159 US 113.

[13] Introductory Comment to the Harvard Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime. (1935) American Journal of International Law, 29 Supp 443.

[14] Island of Palmas (1928), 2 R. I. A. A 829, 838 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928).

[15] Judgement of 21 December 2011, The Air Transport Association of America and Others, C-366/10, EU:C:2011:864.

[16] Khan, D. E. (2012) Territory and Boundaries. In: Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[17] Khanna, P. (2016) These 25 Companies Are More Powerful Than Many Countries. [online] Foreign Policy. Available from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/15/these-25-companiesare-more-powerful-than-many-countries-multinational-corporate-wealth-power/

[18] Mann, F. (1996) The doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law. In: Karl M Meesen (ed.), Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice. Kluwer Law International.

[19] Polcak, R. and Svantesson, D. (2017) Information Sovereignty – Data Privacy, Sovereign Powers and the Rule of Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

[20] Ryngaert, C. (2015) Jurisdiction in International Law. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[21] Schmitt, M. gen. ed. (2017) Tallinn Manual 2.0 On The International Law Applicable To Cyber Operations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[22] Schmitt, M. and Vihul, L. (2017). Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Lex Lata Vel Non? AJIL Unbound, 111, pp. 213–218. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.55

[23] Spector, P. (2017). In Defense of Sovereignty, in the Wake of Tallinn 2.0. AJIL Unbound, 111, pp. 219–223. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.56

[24] S.S. “Lotus” (France v. Turkey) (1927) PCIJ Series A, No 10.

[25] Svantesson, D. (2017) Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[26] Svantesson, D. (2017) Time for international law to take the Internet seriously. [online] OUPblog. Available from: https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/international-law-internet/ [Accessed 7 October 2017].





PDF views