Introduction

Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

This chapter introduces the topic of the book with particular focus on displaying its diversity. It brings attention to the challenges we face, especially due to our current territoriality-focused paradigm. It hints at the tools—the law reform initiatives—needed to solve the Internet jurisdiction puzzle. Finally, this chapter outlines and discusses a set of fundamental assumptions that have impacted how the author views this area of law. Based on those fundamental assumptions, it is argued that the Internet serves humanity best where it caters for cross-border interaction governed by law: law with an appropriate reach determined not merely by national territoriality but also by broader international interests that transcend the public/private international law divide.

Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

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.


Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

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.


Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj

In deciding cases of private international law or conflict of laws, as it is widely known, judges of the Supreme Court in India generally consult the works of renowned English jurists like Dicey and Cheshire. This volume argues that our country should have its own system of resolving inter-territorial issues with cross-border implications. The author critically analyses cases covering areas such as the law of obligations, the law of persons, the law of property, foreign judgments, and foreign arbitral awards. The author provides his perspectives on the application of law in each case. The idea is to find out where the judges went wrong in deciding cases of private international law, so that corrective measures can be taken in future to resolve disputes involving complex, extra-territorial issues.


2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oren Bigos

The internet presents challenges for private international law. One challenge relates to jurisdiction, which is traditionally based on territory. Transactions on the internet span many borders. When cross-border wrongs are committed they may lead to transnational litigation. This article examines the circumstances in which a court can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant alleged to have committed a civil wrong over the internet. Section I examines the background to jurisdiction and the internet and sets the scope of the topic. Section n gives a brief summary of the internet and its applications. Section HI examines jurisdictional rules in civil wrongs cases.The focus is on two sets of rules commonly applied around the globe: the service abroad provisions and the special jurisdiction provisions. Section IV aims to apply those jurisdictional rules to cases of wrongs committed on the internet. It advances general principles, applicable in cases of cross-border wrongs committed on the internet, relating to the place where a wrong is committed and the place where damage is suffered. Defamation has its own peculiarities and is discussed separately. The issue of whether a court can grant an injunction against a foreign defendant in respect of foreign conduct is explored. The article concludes (in Section V) that existing jurisdictional rules need not be amended in light of the internet, and offers general statements about how jurisdictional rules apply to wrongs committed on the internet.


Author(s):  
Hong Suhn-Kyoung ◽  
Cheong Seong-Koo

This chapter discusses the law of set-off in South Korea, along with certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of set-off in insolvency proceedings. The legal framework for set-off in South Korea is based on the Civil Code. The courts have also generally supported set-off as a means of satisfying a claim or discharging debt. The Korean Private International Law does not expressly lay down the governing law for set-off. This governing law issue is commonly discussed under two scenarios: set-off is undertaken on the basis of a set-off agreement between the parties; and set-off is undertaken in the absence of an agreement. The chapter first considers the governing law of contractual and non-contractual set-off in South Korea before turning to set-off between solvent parties and set-off against insolvent parties. It also analyses issues arising in cross-border set-off.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 44-60
Author(s):  
B. A. Shakhnazarov

The paper analyzes the current trends in the development of private international law, its relationship with international public law. Special attention is paid to the relationship between the public and the private in the regulation of cross-border private law relations, the concept of a polysystemic complex. The special role of the international civil process in the system of modern private international law is noted. Being implemented by law enforcement agencies, also in the context of the application of uniform conflict-of-law rules, the conflict-oflaws method of private international law vests with the public area due to its implementation. It is difficult to call the conflict-of-laws regulation a trend in private international law. The author highlights the international (crossborder) nature of private international law. Modern private international law is characterized by the presence of a symbiosis of traditional methods of state substantive and conflict-of-laws legal regulation and non-state regulation emanating from the subjects of private law relations, formed with due regard to the use of modern information technologies and often implemented in the digital environment, including with the use of non-state alternative methods of dispute resolution modernizing their forms with the development of technologies (the ODR, blockchain arbitration, the UDRP).The paper highlights the formation of “cross-border private law” that is private in its own nature and in the context of the formation procedure which means that it comes from the subjects of private law. The author highlights such trends in the development of private international law in modern conditions as harmonization, primarily of electronic methods, of mechanisms for the implementation of private law relations; profiling of private international law within the framework of the activities of international organizations and cross-border self-regulatory organizations; orientation towards the uniform formation of private international law in the world and the expansion of its regulatory elements


Forum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 109-132
Author(s):  
Sanja Stankovic

Today, as a consequence of cross‐border movement of people, goods, capital and delivering of services exists more and more cases with international element. Authority of state before which the process is started, firstly by establishes the existences of international jurisdiction. If the authority establishes its competence, by conflict rule it determines ex officio the law of state which law should be applied. When the law of foreign state has to be applied, competent authority is obliged ex officio to deterime and apply it.The methods of cognition of foreign law content are regulated by law regulating private international law, bilateral agreements regulating international legal assistance, multilateral agreements sedes materiae, i.e. European Convention on information about foreign law and multilateral agreements lex specialis.The purpose of this paper is to present the concepts encompased in legal sources of the Republic of Serbia, and to compare them mutually as well as to present the provisions of comparative practice, i.e. states in the region.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document