Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

Brings together Svantesson's proposals for reform in the field of Internet Jurisdiction into a multifaceted framework.
Provides a history of Internet Jurisdiction.
Places Internet jurisdiction in a broader context and outlines methods for how to properly understand and work with rules of Internet jurisdiction.

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

Description

Internet jurisdiction has emerged as one of the greatest and most urgent challenges online; 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 based on an extensive period of research dedicated to the topic.

The book demonstrates that our current paradigm remains attached to 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 rather than on any clear and universally accepted legal principles, Professor Svantesson advances a new jurisprudential framework for how we approach jurisdiction - a framework that unites private, and public, international law. He also proposes several other reform initiatives 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 to properly understand and work with rules of Internet jurisdiction.

While Solving the Internet Jurisdiction 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.

Professor Svantesson argues that many of the Internet jurisdiction problems we face are due to a sleepwalking-like acceptance of orthodox thinking. Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle acts as a wake-up call to this issue.

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

1:Introduction
2:The Tyranny of Territoriality
3:A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction
4:A Very Brief History of Internet Jurisdiction
5:Jurisdictional Interoperability - The Path Forward (for now)
6:Understanding the Functions of Jurisdictional Law
7:The Vagueness of the Law and the Importance of its Interpretation
8:The Impact of our Categorisation of Types of Jurisdiction
9:Scope of (Remedial) Jurisdiction
10:A Layered Approach to Jurisdiction
11:The Role of Geo-Location Technologies
12:A Doctrine of Selective Legal Compliance
13:Concluding Remarks

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

Author Information

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Professor in the Faculty of Law, Bond University

Professor Svantesson is a Professor in the Faculty of Law at Bond University and Co-Director of the Centre for Commercial Law. He is also a Researcher at the Swedish Law & Informatics Research Institute at Stockholm University. He specialises in international aspects of the Information Technology society.

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

Reviews and Awards

"A remarkably thorough and innovative contribution to a crucial debate. Moving beyond strict territoriality is indeed key to prevent a legal arms race and properly address the exercise of sovereignty in the digital age." - Bertrand de La Chapelle, Executive Director, Internet & Jurisdiction

"Svantesson fearlessly tackles one of the thorniest and most relevant legal problems of our times. This book is a key contribution to the global debate." - Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, Deputy Head of Unit, Cybercrime, European Commission

"Dan Svantesson offers refreshing proposals to resolve the 'Internet jurisdiction puzzle'. The problem of jurisdiction is not an abstract one but has daily implications on human rights and the rule of law in cyberspace. While cybercrime is borderless and thriving, criminal justice authorities are bound by the principle of territoriality. Ninety years after 'Lotus', the search for solutions now is a burning matter for governments and international organisations. The concepts proposed by Dan Svantesson feed into these efforts. They should help ensure that practical solutions are based on a solid theoretical foundation." - Alexander Seger, Executive Secretary Cybercrime Convention Committee, Council of Europe

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

From Our Blog

In 2018, the CJEU will determine the future of the Internet

In its amicus brief submitted in relation to the US Microsoft Warrant case, the European Commission emphasised that: 'In the European Union's view, any domestic law that creates cross-border obligations should be applied and interpreted in a manner that is mindful of the restrictions of international law and considerations of international comity.' (Amicus brief, p. 5)

Posted on March 5, 2018

Read the blog post

Time for international law to take the Internet seriously

Internet-related legal issues are still treated as fringe issues in both public and private international law. Anyone doubting this claim need only take a look at the tables of content from journals in those respective fields. However, approaching Internet-related legal issues in this manner is becoming increasingly untenable. Let us consider the following: Tech companies feature prominently on lists ranking the world's most powerful companies.

Posted on October 7, 2017

Read the blog post

Supreme Court of Canada challenges the idea of state sovereignty

It has been a busy time for the Supreme Court of Canada. In a judgment on 23 June 2017, it ruled that Facebook Inc's forum selection clause was unenforceable in a case involving the application of British Columbia's Privacy Act. The long-term value of that judgment is, however, questionable given that the Court was split 4-3, with one of the judges (Abella J.) deciding against Facebook, doing so on a different basis to the other three who ruled against Facebook.

Posted on August 29, 2017

Read the blog post