scholarly journals The Internet in Light of Traditional Public and Private International Law Principles and Rules Applied in Canada

2002 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 3-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.-G. Castel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
International Context ◽  
International Convention ◽  
The Common ◽  
Use Of The Internet ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

SummaryThis article addresses the problems related to the use of the Internet in Canada in an international context. Does international law allow Canada to regulate the Internet and its actors even if they are located abroad? Under the constitution, which level of government has the authority to do so? In which circumstances have the courts in Québec and in the common law provinces personal jurisdiction over persons using the Internet in an international context and which law do these courts apply? When are Canadian courts prepared to recognize and enforce foreign judgments involving the Internet and its actors? The author deals with these questions and is of the opinion that in most situations the federal Parliament has the jurisdiction to prescribe and the Canadian courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate with respect to the Internet and its actors in an international context without violating international law. However, to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction, it would be better to adopt an international convention covering the various aspects of the Internet.

Part 2 National and Regional Reports, Part 2.1 Africa: Coordinated by Jan L Neels and Eesa A Fredericks, 11 Common Law Africa: Common Law African Perspectives on the Hague Principles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oppong Richard Frimpong
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
African Countries ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Hague

This chapter studies the common law African countries Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Their main source of private international law rules is judicial decisions or case law. Because of the relatively underdeveloped nature of their private international law regimes, foreign case law often serves as an important source of persuasive authority. In this regard, the jurisprudence of the English courts is particularly persuasive and is often referred to by the courts. In general, an international convention or treaty does not have the force of law in the legal systems of the countries under study, unless it is expressly incorporated into national law. In essence, they are dualist countries. However, courts in some of the countries under study have demonstrated a willingness to seek guidance from international treaties that are not yet domestically in force, if the circumstances are appropriate. Thus, it is possible, that courts in the countries under study may be receptive to the Hague Principles, especially if argued by counsel.

scholarly journals Personal Jurisdiction Based on the Location of a Server: Chinese Territorialism in the Internet Era?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Huang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intellectual Property Infringement ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

Whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction based on the location of a server in internet tort cases is a controversial issue. Its significance comes from the paradox that the internet is de-localized because it is ubiquitous, but servers are indispensable to the internet and every server has a geographic location. Since 2001, Chinese law has allowed courts to exercise personal jurisdiction solely based on the location of a server or other computing equipment in intellectual property infringement cases. Recently, it has extended this jurisdiction rule to all internet torts. This paper asks whether the location of a server should be considered as the place where the tort occurs and whether this territorial-based jurisdiction rule can suffice its public-law legislative goal. It may enrich current research about technology-mediated legal challenges to private international law in two aspects. Firstly, it conducts a broad international survey by looking into laws in China, the US, Australia and the EU. It also analyzes where the tort occurs when servers are owned by an infringer, a third party or an infringee in domain name registration, service outsourcing, platform, cloud computing, commercial spams, etc. It concludes that in legal theory, the location of the server is not the place where an internet tort occurs. Secondly, by analyzing China’s experience, it argues that, in the internet era, states have to look for private-international-law tools to advance their public policy claims. However, the practice shows that the territorial-based jurisdiction rule is limited in fulfilling its pubic-law legislative goal.

Understanding the Functions of Jurisdictional Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Important Concept ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter takes us into the domain of legal theory and legal philosophy as it places the questions of Internet jurisdiction in a broader theoretical, and indeed philosophical, context. Indeed, it goes as far as to (1) present a definition of what is law, (2) discuss what are the law’s tools, and (3) to describe the roles of law. In addition, it provides distinctions important for how we understand the role of jurisdictional rules both in private international law and in public international law as traditionally defined. Furthermore, it adds law reform tools by introducing and discussing the concept of ‘market sovereignty’ based on ‘market destroying measures’––an important concept for solving the Internet jurisdiction puzzle.

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Reform Initiatives ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
History Of

Internet jurisdiction has emerged as one of the greatest and most urgent challenges online, severely affecting areas as diverse as e-commerce, data privacy, law enforcement, content take-downs, cloud computing, e-health, Cyber security, intellectual property, freedom of speech, and Cyberwar. In this innovative book, Professor Svantesson presents a vision for a new approach to Internet jurisdiction––for both private international law and public international law––based on sixteen years of research dedicated specifically to the topic. The book demonstrates that our current paradigm remains attached to a territorial thinking that is out of sync with our modern world, especially, but not only, online. Having made the claim that our adherence to the territoriality principle is based more on habit than on any clear and universally accepted legal principles, Professor Svantesson advances a new jurisprudential framework for how we approach jurisdiction. He also proposes several other reform initiatives such as the concept of ‘investigative jurisdiction’ and an approach to geo-blocking, aimed at equipping us to solve the Internet jurisdiction puzzle. In addition, the book provides a history of Internet jurisdiction, and challenges our traditional categorisation of different types of jurisdiction. It places Internet jurisdiction in a broader context and outlines methods for how properly to understand and work with rules of Internet jurisdiction. While Solving the Internet Puzzle paints a clear picture of the concerns involved and the problems that needs to be overcome, this book is distinctly aimed at finding practical solutions anchored in a solid theoretical framework.

Internet Jurisdiction Law and Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Online Data ◽  
Media Regulation

Jurisdiction is the foundational concept for both national laws and international law as it provides the link between the sovereign government and its territory, and ultimately its people. The internet challenges this concept at its root: data travels across the internet without respecting political borders or territory. This book is about this Jurisdictional Challenge created by internet technologies. The Jurisdictional Challenge arises as civil disputes, criminal cases, and regulatory action span different countries, rising questions as to the international competence of courts, law enforcement, and regulators. From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant for online data flows and this raises the question of who governs “YouTubistan.” Services, communication, and interaction occur online between persons who may be located in different countries. Data is stored and processed online in data centres remote from the actual user, with cloud computing provided as a utility. Illegal acts such as hacking, identity theft and fraud, cyberespionage, propagation of terrorist propaganda, hate speech, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces (such as Silkroad) may all be remotely targeted at a country, or simply create effects in many countries. Software applications (“apps”) developed by a software developer in one country are seamlessly downloaded by users on their mobile devices worldwide, without regard to applicable consumer protection, data protection, intellectual property, or media law. Therefore, the internet has created multi-facetted and complex challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. Traditionally, jurisdiction in private law and jurisdiction in public law have belonged to different areas of law, namely private international law and (public) international law. The unique feature of this book is that it explores the notion of jurisdiction in different branches of “the” law. It analyses legislation and jurisprudence to extract how the concept of jurisdiction is applied in internet cases, taking a comparative law approach, focusing on EU, English, German, and US law. This synthesis and comparison of approaches across the board has produced new insights on how we should tackle the Jurisdictional Challenge. The first three chapters explain the Jurisdictional Challenge created by the internet and place this in the context of technology, sovereignty, territory, and media regulation. The following four chapters focus on public law aspects, namely criminal law and data protection jurisdiction. The next five chapters are about private law disputes, including cross-border B2C e-commerce, online privacy and defamation disputes, and internet intellectual property disputes. The final chapter harnesses the insights from the different areas of law examined.

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL LAW ASPECTS OF GERMAN COPYRIGHT LAW (GCL)

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
Юрий Юмашев ◽  
Yuriy Yumashev ◽  
Елена Постникова ◽  
Elena Postnikova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court). The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.

Jurisprudence and Jurists’ Prudence: The Iranian-Forum Clause Decisions of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal

1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted L. Stein
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Future ◽  
Effective System ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Contractual Choice ◽  
The Relationship

On November 5, 1982, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal decided a series of nine cases presenting issues of the greatest significance for the future course of that Tribunal’s work. The issue for decision in each case was the effect of a contractual choice-of-forum clause on the Tribunal’s own jurisdiction, an issue likely to arise in a great many cases. Squarely presented were issues pertaining to the relationship between public and private international law, the content of a state’s obligation under international law to maintain an adequate and effective system of local remedies, and the scope of “changed circumstances” as a ground for release from contractual obligations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document