Jurisdictional Issues in the Digital Age
Abstract
The article addresses some aspects of the key challenges for legal reality and legal systems in the digital age with a focus on jurisdictional issues in special attention to cyberspace, given its independent value and self-regulatory nature. The article suggests that regarding issues through the prism of a universal human rights approach could be a pillar for resolving existing and potential digital conflicts, prevent cybercrimes. The general legal framework in light of this approach is proposed here. The article discusses scenarios for solving jurisdictional problems: (i) global—focuses on the idea that a single worldwide legal framework and a universal regulation mechanism are possible; (ii) fragmented—partly considers the possibility of a single legal framework (or a set of agreements) and rely mainly on regional mechanisms; and (iii) national—each legal system is capable of providing and effective response to the threats of the digital age and aligns its legislation and judicial practice with the latter. Finally, it is suggested to focus on the prevention and mitigation of negative consequences of the activities of all subjects of law.
Downloads
References
Ajayi, E. F. G. (2016). Challenges to Enforcement of Cyber-Crimes Laws and Policy. Journal of Internet and Information Systems, 6 (1), 1-12. DOI: 10.5897/JIIS2015.0089
Al-Hait, A. A. S. (2014). Jurisdiction in Cybercrimes: A Comparative Study. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 22, 75-83.
Andraško, J. (2018). Identification and Authentication of Persons in Cyberspace in Selected States. International and Comparative Law Review, 18 (1), 199-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2018-0032
Brenner, S. W. & Koops, B.-J. (2004). Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction. Journal of High Technology Law, 4 (1), 2-46.
Bossler, A. M. & Berenblum, T. (2019). Introduction: new directions in cybercrime research. Journal of Crime and Justice. 42(5). 495-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1692426
Coccoli, J. (2017). The Challenges of New Technologies in the Implementation of Human Rights: An Analysis of Some Critical Issues in the Digital Era. Peace Human Rights Governance, 1 (2), 223-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14658/pupj-phrg-2017-2-4
Court of Justice of the European Union (2019). Case “Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v. Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés”, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 24-IX-2019, C-507/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:772.
European Court of Human Rights (2003). Case “Garaudy v. France”, Decision of the European Court of Human Rights, nº 65831/01, ECHR 2003IX.
Gilden, M. (2000). Jurisdiction and the Internet: the «Real World» Meets Cyberspace. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 7, 149-160.
Henriksen, A. (2019). The End of the Road for the UN GGE Process: The Future Regulation of Cyberspace. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy009
Huang, Z. & Mačák, K. (2017). Towards the International Rule of Law in Cyberspace: Contrasting Chinese and Western Approaches. Chinese Journal of International Law, 16 (2), 271-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmx011
Jiménez, W. G. (2015). Rules for Offline and Online in Determining Internet Jurisdiction. Global Overview and Colombian cases. International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 26, 13-62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.ill5-26.rood
Kshetri, N. (2019). Cybercrime and Cybersecurity in Africa. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 22 (2), 77-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2019.1603527
Kush, K. (2017). Emergence of Cyber Crimes: A Challenge for the New Millennium. Bharati Law Review, 2017 (2), 86-103.
La Chapelle, B., & Fehlinger, P. (2016). Jurisdiction on the Internet: How to Move Beyond the Legal Arms Race. CyFy Journal, 3, 8-14.
Mačák, K. (2017). From the Vanishing Point Back to the Core: The Impact of the Development of the Cyber Law of War on General International Law. 9th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, 1-14. DOI: 10.23919/CYCON.2017.8240333.
Maillart, J.-B. (2019). The Limits of Subjective Territorial Jurisdiction in the Context of Cybercrime. ERA Forum, Journal of the Academy of European Law, 19, 375-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0527-2
Menthe, D. C. (1998). Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Theory of International Spaces. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 4, 69-103.
Milanovic, M. (2015). Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age. Harvard International Law Journal, 56 (1), 82-146.
Moskowitz, S. (2017). Cybercrime and Business: Strategies for Global Corporate Security. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Oraegbunam, I. K. E. (2015). Jurisdictional Challenges in Fighting Cybercrimes: Any Panacea from International Law? Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 6, 57-65.
Pathak, J. P. (2016). Digital Age 2.0 and Its Challenges on Media Ethics. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21 (1), 18-24. DOI: 10.9790/0837-21111824
Perloff-Giles, A. (2018). Transnational Cyber Offenses: Overcoming Jurisdictional Challenges. The Yale Journal of International Law, 43, 191-227.
Pipyros, K., Mitrou, L., Gritzalis, D., & Apostolopoulos, T. (2016). Cyberoperations and International Humanitarian Law: A review of Obstacles in Applying International Law Rules in Cyber Warfare. Information & Computer Security, 24 (1), 38-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-12-2014-0081
Rice, D. T. (2000). Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Which Law and Forum Apply to Securities Transaction on the Internet? University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 121(3), 585-657.
Riek, M. & Böhme, R. (2018). The Costs of Consumer-Facing Cybercrime: An Empirical Exploration of Measurement Issues and Estimates. Journal of Cybersecurity, 4 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy004
Supreme Court of the United States (2011). Case “Snyder v. Phelps”, Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2-III-2011, 562 US 443.
Supreme Court of the United States (2018). Case “United States v. Microsoft Corp.”, Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, 584 US__, 138 S. Ct. 1186.
Svantesson, D. J. B. (2004). An Introduction to Jurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace. Journal of Law and Information Science, 15, 50-74.
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (2006). Case “Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l’Antisemitisme”, Declaratory judgment of 12-1-2006, 433 F.3d 1199.
Wilske, S. & Schiller, T. (1997). International Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Which States May Regulate the Internet? Federal Communications Law Journal, 50 (1), 117-178.
Xinmin, M. (2016). Key Issues and Future Development of International Cyberspace Law. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, 2 (1), 119-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S2377740016500068
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).
