Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics. Bd. 23 (2015). Themenschwerpunkt: Recht und Ethik im Internet. Law and Ethics on the Internet.

Law reviews and legal journals have been part of the legal academic world for more than a century. [1] These legal publications are unique because they are completely run by students. However, over the last few decades, law reviews and legal journals have been highly criticized, and some critics even predict their demise. [2] If law reviews and legal journals expect to survive and remain valuable academic resources, then certain changes need to be made, and these changes are the responsibility of the student editors. Although some legal publications are making changes for the better, such as publishing online, more can be done to improve these student-run publications. By taking advantage of technological advances, especially the Internet, law reviews and legal journals can reduce the time it takes to publish an issue. In addition, these technological advances allow legal publications to offer many new features and services for both the authors and the readers. However, updating a publication with these new technological advances can be expensive. Thus, law reviews and legal journals need to generate more income from other sources than just subscriptions.

Download Full-text

Contextualizing sovereignty: A critical review of competing explanations of the Internet governance in the (so-called) Russian case

First Monday ◽

10.5210/fm.v26i5.11687 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Polina Kolozaridi ◽

Dmitry Muravyov

Keyword(s):

Critical Review ◽

Political Regime ◽

The Internet ◽

Internet Governance ◽

Historical Account ◽

Precise Meaning ◽

History Of ◽

Internet Law

In reference to Russia, the concept of “Internet sovereignty” is commonly used to evoke the state’s efforts to tighten its control over the Internet in order to consolidate a non-democratic political regime. Many scholars have discussed Russia’s “sovereign Internet law,” adopted in 2019, yet the precise meaning of both “sovereign” and “Internet” in this context has largely been overlooked. In this article, we attempt to problematize the use of both concepts by drawing on the history of the Internet in Russia to accentuate the structural asymmetries of power in “global” Internet governance. We argue that Russia’s Internet sovereignty claims, grasped in the context of these asymmetries, can be seen as an expression of counter-hegemonic tendencies. Moreover, a historical account of the Internet’s transformation in Russia problematizes a conception of “Internet sovereignty” as unitary and unchanging.

Download Full-text