Skip to main content
Top

2022 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

8. Cyberspace Governance and Politics

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The dynamics of globalization are technical, cultural, social, and political. Cyberspace has had a predominantly dynamic influence because of its operation as a medium by which information can be transmitted. A strong cybersecurity program is vital for corporations to protect worthy and sensitive information. Networks are replacing hierarchies and markets as a basic form of economic organization. It has to be considered that just as information is a mode of upholding security, it is also a type of control and so when governments are able to control commercial and political information, they augment their surveillance over the population. A democratic and open character of the Internet limits the possibilities of authoritarian and monopoly control. Moreover, a shift of some components of the state’s sovereignty over to other entities carries the potential to limit sovereignty but may not be the elimination rather than a partial relocation to supranational institutions.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
Jill E. Fisch, Can Internet Offerings Bridge the Small Business Capital Barrier?, 2 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 57, 69–70 (1998) (“[T]he Internet offers new methods for offering and selling securities. Businesses can distribute financial information and solicit investors through the Internet more quickly and at lower cost than was previously possible through paper-based communications”).
 
2
Zekos, G. (1999), “Internet or electronic technology: a threat to state sovereignty,” JILT, available at: www.​law.​warwick.​ac.​uk/​jilt/​99-3/​zekos.​html
 
3
G. Zekos, “Globalisation and States’ Cyber-Territory,” [2011] 5 Web JCLI.
 
4
Jonathan R. Macey, The Death Of Corporate Reputation: How Integrity Has Been Destroyed On Wall Street (2013).
 
5
S. Rosenne (2003) The perplexities of modern international law, General Course on Public International Law, RCADI tom III.
 
6
Twining, W. Globalisation and Legal Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
 
7
McGrew, A. (2000) ‘Power Shift: From National Government to Global Governance?’ in D. Held, A Globalisaing World? Culture, Economics, Politics, London: Routledge.
 
8
Crane, A./Matten, D. (2007): Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization, 2nd, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
 
9
Pelton, J. N., Madry, S., & Camacho-Lara, S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of Satellite Applications (Second Edition). Cham: Springer. Bjola, C. (2017, October 14). Satellite Remote Sensing and Diplomatic Crisis Management. https://​medium.​com/​digitaldiplomacy​/​satellite-remote-sensing-and-diplomatic-crisis-management-286651c83cb, Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (1 edition). London; New York: Routledge.
 
10
G Zekos, “Cyber-Territory And Jurisdiction Of Nations, 2012 Journal of Internet Law, Number 12/3, G. Zekos, Globalisation and States’ Cyber-Territory,” [2011] 5 Web JCLI.
 
11
Zekos, G. (1999), “Internet or electronic technology: a threat to state sovereignty,” JILT, available at: www.​law.​warwick.​ac.​uk/​jilt/​99-3/​zekos.​html
 
12
23 JL Goldsmith & T Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World (OUP, 2008); OS Kerr, ‘The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law’ (2003) 91 Georgetown L J 359–361.
 
13
M Lemley, “Place and Cyberspace” (2003) 91 Calif L Rev. 521, 523 (challenging inevitability of cyberspace privatization).
 
14
J Cohen, “Cyberspace As/And Space” (2007) 107 Colum L Rev. 210, 226.
 
15
UN Charter, arts 2(4), 40–42, 51. M Render “Introduction” in The Meador Lectures on Boundaries (Alabama 2013) 8.
 
16
Ran Hirschl and Ayelet Shachar Spatial Statism, 17(2) Int’l J. Const. L. 387, 391 (2019). Anna Jurkevics, Hannah Arendt Reads Carl Schmitt’s Nomos of the Earth, 16(30 Eur. J. Pol. Theory 345, 349 (2017).
 
17
Paul Linden-Retek, The subjects of spatial statism: Reclaiming politics and law in international entanglement https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3450966 p1.
 
18
CR Sunstein, “Incompletely Theorized Agreements in Constitutional Law” (2007) 74 Social Research 1 (noting consensus on valuing religious liberty without agreement on why it deserves value: “Some people may stress what they see as the need for social peace; others may think that religious liberty reflects a principle of equality and a recognition of human dignity; others may invoke utilitarian considerations; still others may think that religious liberty is itself a theological command”).
 
19
M Schmitt, “Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance” (2010) 50 Va J Intl L 795.
 
20
G Zekos, Internet or Electronic Technology: A Threat to State Sovereignty, JILT 1999 (3) https://​warwick.​ac.​uk/​fac/​soc/​law/​elj/​jilt/​1999_​3/​zekos/​
 
21
Damian Tambini, Danilo Leonardi and Chris Marsden, Codfying Cyberspace: Communications self-regulation in the age of Internet convergence, Routledge, 2008.
 
22
Voyeur Dorm v. City of Tampa, 265 F.3d 1232.
 
23
Caroline Bradley & A. Michael Froomkin, Virtual Worlds, Real Rules, 49 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 103, 139–46 (2004).
 
24
Edward Castronova, The Right to Play, 49 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 185, 185, 200–05 (2004).
 
25
eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058.
 
26
Jessica Litman, Breakfast with Batman: The Public Interest in the Advertising Age, 108 Yale L.J. 1717, 1725 (1999).
 
27
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Recovery Express, Inc. 415 F. Supp. 2d 6).
 
28
((“UETA”), 7A U.L.A.§701, (“E-Sign”), 15 U.S.C. §§7001–7031).
 
29
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244.
 
30
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, Mark A. Lemley, Place and Cyberspace, 91 Cal. L. Rev. 521 (2003).
 
31
The Schooner Exch. v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812).
 
32
Oppenheim’s International Law 1992 R Jennings Chapter 5 at 563.
 
33
I Brownlie “Principles of Public International Law” 1990 Oxford pp. 100–200.
 
34
L Kramer “Extraterritorial Application of American Law” 1991 Sup. Ct. Rev. 179. Strassheim v Daily 221 US 280.
 
35
James Boyle, Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hardwired Censors, 66 U. CIN. L. REV. 177. Timothy S. Wu, Note, Cyberspace Sovereignty?—The Internet and the International System, 10 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 647, 654–55 (1997).
 
36
Prune Yard Shopping Center v.Robins,447 U.S.74 (1980); Oyster Software, Inc.v. Forms Processing, Inc., No.C-00-0724 JCS,2001 WL 1736382 (N.D.Cal.Dec.6, 2001).
 
37
Intel Corp. v.Hamidi, 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 244 (Cal.App.3d 2001). Intel Corp.v.Hamidi, 71 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2003). Intel v.Hamidi, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 244, 253–55.
 
38
Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp.2d 532,534 (E.​D.​Va.2003).
 
39
Courts applying the doctrine of trespass to chattels to the Internet, see, e.g., eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Register.​com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); America Online v. National Health Care Discount, Inc., 174 F. Supp. 2d 890 (N.D. Iowa 2001); Oyster Software, Inc. v. Forms Processing, 2001 WL 1736382 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2001).
 
40
eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Register.​com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Oyster Software, Inc. v. Forms Processing, 2001 WL 1736382 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2001); and Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244 (Ct. App. 2001).
 
41
United States v Montoya de Hernandez 473 US 531, The Chinese Channel Limited http://​www.​chinese-channel.​co.​uk Framework for Global Electronic Commerce http://​www.​ecommerce.​gov/​; Management of Internet http://​www.​ntia.​doc.​gov/​
 
42
Peter H. Lewis, Limiting a Medium Without Boundaries, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 15, 1996, at D1. John Pomfret, Chinese Sentenced in Internet Case, WASH. POST, Jan. 21, 1999, at A19.
 
43
Hoffmann, Stacie, et al. (2020) “Standardising the Splinternet: How China’s Technical Standards Could Fragment the Internet,” Journal of Cyber Policy 1–26.
 
44
US v Smith, 680 F 2d 255 (1st Cir. Mass 1982).
 
45
For an analysis see G. Zekos, State Cyberspace Jurisdiction and Personal Cyberspace Jurisdiction, Int J Law Info Tech 2007 15: 1–37; doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ijlit/​eai029 www.​ijlit.​oxfordjournals.​org
 
46
International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (establishing test for determining whether an assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution based on whether the defendant had sufficient contact with the relevant state “such that jurisdiction is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”).
 
47
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414–15 & n.9 (1984).
 
48
Hinsch v. Outrigger Hotels Haw., 153 F. Supp. 2d 209, 213–14 (E.D.N.Y.2001) ((1) the defendant must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state or consummate some act or transaction with the forum state; (2) the defendant’s forum-related activities must relate to the claim; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Courts continue to rely on the due process analysis of International Shoe as they construe personal jurisdiction based on cyberspace activities)).
 
49
People Solutions, Inc. v. People Solutions, Inc., 2000 WL 1030619 (N.D. Tex., 2000).
 
50
Maritz Inc. v. CyberGold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996). Ameritech Services, Inc. v. SCA Promotions, Inc., 2000 WL 283098 (N.D. Ill., 2000); LFG, LLC v. Zapata Corp., 78 F. Supp.2d 731 (N.D. Ill., 1999); Biometics, LLC v. New Womyn, Inc., 112 F.Supp.2d 869 (E.D. Mo., 2000).
 
51
Livnat v. Palestinian Auth., 851 F.3d 45, 56 (D.C. Cir. 2017) Jones v. IPX Int’l Equatorial Guinea, S.A., 920 F.3d 1085, 1094 (6th Cir. 2019) (“Courts presume that plaintiffs choose convenient forums, so a plaintiff’s choice of forum is given deference.”).
 
52
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1776 (2017) (emphasizing the significance of the connection between the forum state and the underlying controversy that occurred in that state). Car-Freshner Corp. v. Scented Promotions, LLC, No. 519CV1158GTSATB, 2021 WL 1062574, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2021) (requiring defendants contacts to relate to the claim), Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147, 1163 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining courts are “obligated, if at all possible, to distill from apparently conflicting … decisions a basis of reconciliation and to apply that reconciled rule.”).
 
53
Daniel Klerman, Personal Jurisdiction and Product Liability, 85 S. CAL. L. REV. 1551, 1585–86 (2012) (“[P]otential plaintiffs are likely to perceive out-of-state litigation as a significant hardship.”); Todd David Peterson, Categorical Confusion in Personal Jurisdiction Law, 76 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 655 (2019) (“[I]t is clearly in a corporate defendant’s interest to force a plaintiff to travel from the plaintiff’s home state.”); Adam N. Steinman, Access to Justice, Rationality, and Personal Jurisdiction, 71 VAND. L. REV. 1401 (2018) (“To require the plaintiff to seek judicial remedies outside her home state can impose significant cost and inconvenience.”).
 
54
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 720 (1878) (“The authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established.”); at 722 (“[N]o State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory.”). Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940).
 
55
Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 67–68 (1983) (voluntary appearance). Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991).
 
56
Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414.
 
57
571 U.S. 277 (2014).
 
58
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). Jonathan Remy Nash, The Rules And Standards Of Personal Jurisdiction, 2020 Alabama Law Review Vol. 72:2:465.
 
59
Scott Dodson, Personal Jurisdiction and Aggregation, 113 NW. U. L. REV. 1, 17 (2018).
 
60
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958); Allan Erbsen, Impersonal Jurisdiction, 60 EMORY L.J. 1, 26 (2010).
 
61
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760–61 (2014) (quoting Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (No. 11–965)); Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2856–57 (2011).
 
62
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021). Ford v. Montana, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1032 (2021) (Alito, J., concurring) (“[T]here are … reasons to wonder whether the case law we have developed … is well suited for the way in which business is now conducted.”); Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes, et al., Ford’s Jurisdictional Crossroads, 109 GEORGETOWN L.J. ONLINE 102 (2020).
 
63
Zainab R. Qureshi, If the Shoe Fits: Applying Personal Jurisdiction’s Stream of Commerce Analysis to E-Commerce-A Value Test, 21 N.Y.U. J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL’Y 727, 728 (2019) (“[T]he Supreme Court has yet to define the parameters of personal jurisdiction vis-à-vis Internet activity.”)
 
64
OECD (2009). Rethinking e-Government Services: User-Centred Approaches. OECD Publishing, 2009.
 
65
Yigitcanlar T., Baum S. B. (2006). E-Government and the digital divide. In: Encyclopedia of e-commerce, e-government, and mobile commerce. Khosrow-Pour M. (Ed.), pp. 353–358. USA, Pennsylvania, Hershey: Idea Group Reference (IGI Global), 2006. Wauters P., Lörincz B. (2008). User satisfaction and administrative simplification within the perspective of eGovernment impact: Two faces of the same coin?”, European Journal of ePractice, no. 4, August 2008, www.​epracticejournal​.​eu
 
66
OECD (2009). Rethinking e-Government Services: User-Centred Approaches. OECD Publishing, 2009.
 
67
Belanger F., Carter L. (2006). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. In: Proceeding HICSS ‘06 Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006, No. 04.
 
68
Joe Waz and Phil Weiser, Internet Governance: The Role Of Multistakeholder Organizations, 2012 J. On Telecomm. & High Tech. L. Vol. 10,331 p 348.
 
69
Kieron O’Hara and Wendy Hall, Four Internets: The Geopolitics of Digital Governance, CIGI Papers No. 206—December 2018 p13.
 
70
International Standards Organization (ISO), Corporate governance of information technology, ISO/IEC 38500:2008, 2008.
 
71
GAO, Cyberspace: United States Faces Challenges in Addressing Global Cybersecurity and Governance, GAO-10-606, July 2010, http://​www.​gao.​gov/​new.​items/​d10606.​pdf
 
72
Deb Bodeau, Steve Boyle, Jenn Fabius-Greene, Rich Graubart, Cyber Security Governance, MTR100308 MITRE TECHNICAL REPORT ©2010 The MITRE Corporation.
 
73
Benjamin S. Buckland, Fred Schreier, Theodor H. Winkler, Democratic governance challenges of cyber security, DCAF HORIZON 2015 WORKING PAPER No. 1.
 
74
Skantze, Pernilla (2003). “European Cyber Security.” OECD Global Forum on Information Systems and Network Security: Towards a Global Culture of Security. <www.​oecd.​org/​dataoecd/​53/​43/​17979495.​pdf>.
 
75
Jeffrey A. Hart, The G8 and the Governance of Cyberspace, Chapter 9, In New Perspectives on Global Order: Why America Needs the G8.
 
76
Milton L. Mueller, Networks and States: The Global Politics Of Internet Governance 1 (2010) (“A distinctive global politics is developing around the Internet. Like global trade and environmental policy, Internet governance has become a point of international conflict among states and a target of transnational policy advocates from business and civil society.”).
 
77
Dimitry Epstein, The Making of Institutions of Information Governance: The Case of the Internet Governance Forum, 28 J. INFO. TECH. 137, 139 (2013) (“For many in the Internet community, particularly those belonging to the old guard of Internet designers and those viewing the Internet in more libertarian terms, the growing interest of governments in issues of Internet governance, specifically the calls to implement a more nation-state focused and hierarchical decision-making process, was an assault on the very spirit of the Internet and its normative foundations.”).
 
78
Marius Kalinauskas & Mantas Barcys, Interaction Between National Governments and ICAN While Administering the Internet, 3 SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES 432, 435 (2013) (taking the position that the term Internet governance lacks a useful definition but “stands mainly for the global technical management of the core resources of the Internet: domain names, IP addresses, Internet protocols and the root server system”).
 
79
Marco Iansiti & Karim R. Lakhani, The Truth About Blockchain, HARV. BUS. REV. (Jan-Feb. 2017), https://​hbr.​org/​2017/​01/​the-truth-about-blockchain. Daniel Folkinshteyn, Mark Lennon & Tim Reilly, A Tale of Twin Tech: Bitcoin and the WWW, 10 J. STRATEGIC & INT’L STUDS 82, 82 & 84 (2015) (using the term “protocol” to describe both the Internet at the Bitcoin Blockchain). Jack Filiba, Blockchain is the Internet’s Legacy Through the Internet of Value, COINSQUARE (Dec. 14, 2017), https://​news.​coinsquare.​com/​blockchain/​blockchain-internet-of-value/​ (explaining that blockchain technology holds the potential to realize John Perry Barlow’s “cyber-libertarian” vision for the Internet).
 
80
Lawrence B. Solum, Models of Internet Governance, 59, 59–60, in Internet Governance: Infrastructure And Institutions (Lee A. Bygrave & Jon Bing eds. 2009) (describing the Internet governance crisis suffered when governance of DNS by one individual, Jon Postel, could not be scaled to meet demand, leading to the creation of ICANN).
 
81
The United Nations Internet Governance Forum Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies, https://​intgovforum.​org/​multilingual/​content/​dynamic-coalition-on-blockchain-technologies-dc-blockchain; W3C Blockchain Community Group, https://www.​w3.​org/​community/​blockchain/​. Vlad Zamfir, My Intentions for Blockchain Governance, MEDIUM (Oct. 4, 2018), https://​medium.​com/​@Vlad_​Zamfir/​myintentions-for-blockchain-governance-801d19d378e5
 
82
Elizabeth Pollmoan, The Rise of Regulatory Affairs in Innovative Startups, in The Handbook Of Law & Entrepreneurship In The United States at 6 (D. Gordon Smith & Christine Hurt, eds., 2018) (“In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done.” (quoting Facebook, Inc. Registration Statement, available at https://​www.​sec.​gov/​Archives/​edgar/​data/​1326801/​0001193125120345​17/​d287954dsl.​htm#toc287954_​10 Carla L. Reyes, Comment, International Governance of Domestic National Security Measures: The Forgotten Role of the World Trade Organization, 14 UCLA J. INT’L L. & FOREIGN AFF. 351 (2009) (detailing the ICJ’s inability to enforce international law during the Nicaraguan conflict).
 
83
Internet protocol (IP) addresses, domain names, and autonomous system numbers (ASNs); the Internet’s domain name system (DNS); and network-layer systems such as Internet access, Internet exchange points, and Internet security intermediaries.
 
84
J Weinberg, “Governments, Privatization, and ‘Privatization’: ICANN and the GAC” (2011) 18 Mich Telecomm & Tech L Rev. 189, 191–207.
 
85
N Choucri & D Clark, “Who Controls Cyberspace’ Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (1 September 2013).”
 
88
D Hunter, “Cyberspace as Place, and the Tragedy of the Digital Anticommons” (2003) 91 Calif L Rev. 439, 443 (“cognitive science investigations provide ample evidence that, purely as a descriptive observation, we do think of cyberspace as a place”).
 
89
Council on Foreign Relations, Task Force Report: Defending an Open, Global, Secure, and Resilient Internet (2013) 14–15 (describing ITU’s 2012 Word Conference on International Telecommunications).
 
90
D Ignatius, “After Snowden a Diminished Internet” Washington Post (5 Feb 2014); Council of Foreign Relations (n 20 above) 15; J Scott, “Chatham House founds Global Commission on Internet Governance” ComputerWeekly.​com (22 Jan 2014).
 
91
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §1030 (regulating “protected computers” defined in territorial terms to include computers “used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States”); The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (UK) §§5(2)(b) and (3)(b).
 
92
L Eko et al., “Google This: The Great Firewall of China, the It Wheel of India, Google Inc., and Internet Regulation” (2011) 15 J Internet L 3, 5; Jyh-An Lee & Ching-Yi Liu, “Forbidden City Enclosed by the Great Firewall: The Law and Power of Internet Filtering in China” (2012) 13 Minn J L Sci & Tech 125, 133.
 
93
F Fassihi, “Iran Mounts New Web Crackdown” Wall St J (6 Jan 2012).
 
94
L Chao & P Trevisani, “Brazil Legislators Bear Down on Internet Bill” Wall St J (13 Nov 2013); J Watts, “Brazil to Legislate on Online Civil Rights Following Snowden Revelations” The Guardian (1 Nov 2013).
 
95
S Meinrath, “We Can’t Let the Internet Become Balkanized” Slate (14 Oct 2013).
 
96
SD Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, 1999) 9–25; A Chayes & A Chayes, The New Sovereignty (Harvard, 1995) 27.
 
97
Island of Palmas Arbitration (Netherlands v United States) (1928) II RIAA 829, 839.
 
98
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 3 (‘UNCLOS’).
 
99
R Jennings & A Watts (eds.), 1 Oppenheim’s International Law (9th ed. 1992) 678–79.
 
100
UNCLOS 1982.
 
101
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) (9 July 2004) 43 ILM 1009, 1050; accord Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v Uganda) (19 December 2005) [2005] ICJ Rep 116, [146]–[147].
 
102
CR Sunstein, “On Analogical Reasoning” (1993) 106 Harvard L Rev. 741.
 
103
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030 (cyber-specific criminal law). For an example extending existing US law by analogy see United States v. Forrester, 512 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 2008); OS Kerr, “Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach” (2010) 62 Stan L Rev. 1005, 1008.
 
104
UNCLOS (oceans law); Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 187 (trade); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (treaties).
 
105
A Bianchi et al. (eds.), Interpretation in International Law (OUP 2014).
 
106
G Zekos, Διαδίκτυο, Η/Υ & Τηλεπικοινωνίες στο Ελληνικό Δίκαιο -Cyberspace, H/Y and Telecommunications, 2017 Εκδόσεις Π. Σάκκουλα https://​www.​sakkoulas-online.​gr/​profiles/​georgios-i-zekos/​
 
107
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030; Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510 et seq; Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510; Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. §§1001 et seq; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§1801–1811.
 
108
47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) (exempting Internet Service Providers from vicarious liability for libel otherwise available under common law).
 
109
The Cybercrime Convention does not have universal aspirations, and its membership remains limited. http://​conventions.​coe.​int/​Treaty/​Commun/​ChercheSig.​asp?​NT=​185&​CM=​&​DF=​&​CL=​ENG
 
110
Explanatory Report, Cyber-Crime Convention (8 Nov 2001) §38.
 
111
Tallinn Manual 194.
 
112
Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest, 23 Nov 2001) CETS No 185 (‘Cybercrime Convention’).
 
113
D Albright et al., Did Stuxnet Take out 1000 Centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant? (ISIS, 2010).
 
114
MN Schmitt (ed.), Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (CUP, 2013).
 
115
Tallinn Manual 58, 83–84.
 
116
Tallinn Manual Rule 20.
 
117
US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2013 Annual Report to Congress (2013) 249; L Zhang, “A Chinese perspective on cyber war” (2012) 94 IRRC 801, 804.
 
118
T Rid, “Cyber War Won’t Take Place” (2012) 35 J Strategic Studies 5.
 
119
OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) Centre for Humanitarian Data https://​centre.​humdata.​org
 
120
Eric Newcomer, “Uber Pushed the Limits of the Law. Now Comes the Reckoning,” Bloomberg Technology, 11 October 2017 (https://​www.​bloomberg.​com/​news/​features/​2017-10-11/​uber-pushed-thelimits-of-the-law-now-comes-the-reckoning). Jon Axworthy, “Cab wars: the unstoppable rise of Uber,” Shortlist, 16 July 2015 (https://​www.​shortlist.​com/​instant-improver/​cab-wars/​61881).
 
121
Dir. Nat’l Intelligence, Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, U.S. Senate Select Comm. On Intelligence 2 (Jan. 6, 2017), https://​www.​intelligence.​sen-ate.​gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​ ICA_2017_01.pdf Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger & Scott Shane, The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyber-power Invaded the U.S., N.Y. Times (Dec. 13, 2016), https://​www.​nytimes.​com/​2016/​12/​13/​us/​poli-tics/​russia-hack-election-dnc.​html?​_​r=​0
 
122
Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment, §§ 131–140, 145, 162 (Intl’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia July 15, 1999) Dapo Akande, Classification of Armed Conflicts: Rel-evant Legal Concepts, in International Law And The Classification Of Conflicts 32, 56–63 (Elizabeth Wilmshurst ed., 2012).
 
123
Int’l Group Of Experts, Tallinn Manual 2.0 On The International Law Applicable To Cyber Operations 168–74 (Rule 32) (Michael N. Schmitt ed., 2017) Schmitt, Michael N. and Vihul, Liis, Respect for Sovereignty in Cyberspace (November 3, 2017). Texas Law Review, Vol. 95, 2017.
 
124
Sheera Frenkel, The New Handbook for Cyber war is Being Written by Russia, BUZZFEED (Mar. 19, 2017), https://​www.​buzzfeed.​com/​sheerafrenkel/​the-new-handbook-forcyberwar-is-being-writtenbyrussia?​utm_​term=​.​jgOpW30jD#.​kb0G6B2dL “It’s not that the Russians are doing something others can’t do … It’s that Russian hackers are willing to go there, to experiment and carry out attacks that other countries would back away from.”
 
125
U.N. Charter art. 51.
 
126
Tallinn Manual 1.0 Nicaragua, 1986 I.C.J. at 118–19, § 228.
 
127
Tallinn Manual 2.0.
 
128
Michael N. Schmitt, Grey Zones in the International Law of Cyberspace https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3180687
 
129
H. Lin, Responding to Sub-Threshold Cyber Intrusions: A fertile Topic for Research and discussion, 2011 12 Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 127, 129–130. Leonhard Kreuzer, disentangling the cyber security debate, Völkerrechtsblog, 20 June 2018.
 
130
Samuel W. Buell, What Is Securities Fraud?, 61 Duke L.J. 511, 562 (2011).
 
132
6 U.S.C. §§ 1501–10 (2018). Bert Lathrop, The Inadequacies of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 71 February 2020 Hastings Law Journal 501.
 
133
John W. Baker & Steve Henderson, The Cyber Data Science Process, 2 Cyber Def. Rev. 47, 47 (2017).
 
134
Ponemon Inst., The Value of Artificial Intelligence in Cyber security 4 fig. 2 (2018).
 
135
Anatomy Of A Cyber Attack: The Lifecycle of a Security Breach, Oracle 4–5 (2017) (detailing the phases of a cyber-attack and the attackers’ motivation behind each step).
 
137
Aimin Qi, Guosong Shao, Wentong Zheng, Assessing China’s Cybersecurity Law, computer law & security review 34 (2018) 1342–1354.
 
138
G Zekos, Cyber Versus Conventional Personal Jurisdiction, 2015 Journal of Internet Law, Volume 18 Number 10, April 2015 3–35 Wolters Kluwer. www.​wrightsmedia.​com https://​lrus.​wolterskluwer.​com/​store/​product/​journal-of-internet-law/​G Zekos, Demolishing State’s sole power over Sovereignty & Territory via Electronic Technology & Cyberspace, 2013 Journal of Internet Law, Volume 17 Number 5 November 2013 27–41 Aspen Publications-Wolters Kluwer.
 
139
Uhlmann, C. (2017), Australian Defence files to be moved out of privately owned data hub after Chinese buy-in, ABC News Online, www.​abc.​net.​au/​news/​2017-06-20/​security-concerns-over-defencefiles-in-data-centres/​8632360
 
140
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2017), Report to the president. Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership in Semiconductors, Executive Office of the President, https://​obamawhitehouse.​archives.​gov/​sites/​default/​files/​microsites/​ostp/​PCAST/​pcast_​ensuring_​long-term_​us_​leadership_​in_​semiconductors.​pdf
 
141
Aynne Kokas, Cloud Control: China’s 2017 Cybersecurity Law and its Role in US Data Standardization, https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3427372 p2–3.
 
142
18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B) (2001) (amending the CFAA to include Internet-connected computers outside the US).
 
143
US v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449, 457 (C.D. Cal. 2009) Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., 166 F. App’x 559, 562–63 (2nd Cir. 2006) US v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2007) Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Technologies, LLC, 248 F.R.D. 598, 602 (D. Kan. 2008) (“As a practical matter, a computer providing a ‘web-based’ application accessible through the internet would satisfy the ‘interstate communication’ requirement.”).
 
144
Office of Legal Education Executive Office for United States Attorneys, “Prosecuting Computer Crimes” (June 2013), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a).
 
145
Goldstein, Matthew, Stevenson, Alexandra and Picker, Leslie, 2016. “Unusual Pairing Makes Public Bet vs. Pacemakers.” New York Times (Sept. 8, 2016 at B1).
 
146
Financial Times, “SoftBank share purchase discounts Uber by 30%” (Nov. 27, 2017).
 
147
Goldfarb, A., & Taker, C. (2017). Digital Economics. Working paper. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
 
148
Mamychev А., Okorokov А., Bespalova Т., Sviridkina Е., Chertakova Е. (2018). Civilizational modeling of political and legal development of the society in the XXI century. Revista Amazonia Investiga. № 15. Vol. 7. рp. 49–57.
 
149
NAT’L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FEDERAL AUTOMATED VEHICLES POLICY 9 (2016) (describing the Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”) International levels of autonomy in driving).
 
150
Stuart J. Russel & Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach 495–99 (3d ed., 2016) Alan M. Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, 49 MIND 433 (1950).
 
152
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Global Artificial Intelligence Study: Exploiting the AI Revolution 4 (2017), https://​www.​pwc.​com/​gx/​en/​issues/​analytics/​assets/​pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-theprize-report.​pdf Jonathan Bastable, Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium?, CHRISTIE’S (Aug. 20, 2018), https://​www.​christies.​com/​features/​A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-amachine-9332-1.​aspx
 
153
Michael Copeland, What’s the Difference Between Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning?, NVIDIA BLOG (July 29, 2016), https://​blogs.​nvidia.​com/​blog/​2016/​07/​29/​whats-difference-artificial-intelligence-machine-learningdeep-learning-ai Yann Ménière & Ilja Rudyk, The Fourth Industrial Revolution from the European Patent Office Perspective, in Intellectual Property And Digital Trade In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence And Big Data 31, 31 (Xavier Seuba, Christophe Geiger, & Julien Penin eds, June 2018), https://​www.​ictsd.​org/​sites/​default/​files/​research/​ceipi-ictsd_​issue_​5_​final_​0.​pdf
 
154
Recital 6 of GDPR.
 
155
Angela Walch, “The Bitcoin Blockchain as Financial Market Infrastructure: A Consideration of Operational Risk” [2015]18 NYU J Legislation and Public Policy837 (considering the operational risks created by informal governance processes in Bitcoin and their implications for its suitability as financial market infrastructure); Angela Walch, “Open-Source Operational Risk: Should Public Blockchains Serve as Financial Market Infrastructures?” in David Lee, Kuo Chuen and Robert D Deng (eds), Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion Vol. 2 (Elsevier Academic Press 2017) (exploring the operational risks raised by use of grassroots open-source software development practices in the use of public blockchains as financial market infrastructures).
 
156
Taylor and Broeders, “In the name of Development: Power, profit and the datafication of the global South,” Geoforum 64 (2015) 229–237.
 
157
Dreyer, June Teufel, ed. 1989. Chinese defense and foreign policy, World social systems series. New York: Professors World Peace Academy: Distributed by Paragon House.
 
158
Jerome Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, https://​www.​laits.​utexas.​edu/​poltheory/​bentham/​ipml/​ipml.​c01.​html Jerome Bentham, “…nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do … .”
 
159
Amalgamated Bank v. Yahoo! Inc., 132 A.3d 752, 761–71 (2016).
 
160
Monetary Authority of Singapore, Code of Corporate Governance, Singapore: MAS, 2018. Sandra Seah, “A new spin to Corporate Governance in Singapore - 2018′” (April 2018), Bird & Bird, online: https://​www.​twobirds.​com/​en/​news/​articles/​2018/​singapore/​a-new-spin-to-corporate-governance-in-singapore-2018 Financial Reporting Council, “A UK Corporate Governance Code that is fit for the future” (16 July 2018), online: https://​www.​frc.​org.​uk/​news/​july-2018/​a-uk-corporate-governance-code-that-is-fit-for-the
 
161
Jean-Phillipe Robé, The Legal Structure of the Firm, 1(1) Accounting, Economics, And Law 1 (2011); David Ciepley, Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation, 107(1) Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 139 (2013). Michael Jensen & William Meckling, Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, 3 J. Fin. Econ. 305, 309 (1976) (“the relationship between the stockholders and manager of a corporation fit [sic] the definition of a pure agency relationship.”).
 
162
Paul B. Miller & Andrew S. Gold, Fiduciary Governance, 57 WM. & MARY L. REV. 513, 519–20 (2015).
 
163
Kokas, Aynne. 2018. “Chilling Netflix: financialization, and the influence of the Chinese market on the American entertainment industry.” Information, Communication & Society:1–13. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1369118X.​2018.​1510534 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1369118X.​2018.​1510534</​p>. Kokas, Aynne. 2018. “Platform Patrol: China, the United States, and the Global Battle for Data Security.” Journal of Asian Studies. Kokas, Aynne. 2019. “Serious chemistry on set: the molecular structure of film investment in China.” International Journal of Cultural Policy:1–13.
 
164
Kokas, Aynne. 2018 “Predicting volatility between China and Hollywood: Using network management to understand Sino-US film collaboration.” Global Media and Communication:1742766518759797.
 
165
Tatjana Berg et al., Sharing a Director with a Peer (University of St. Gallen, School of Finance, Working Papers on Fin. No. 2015/07) (defining “horizontal directors” as directors affiliated with firms within the same industry based on Standard Industry Classification codes).
 
166
Cede & Co v. Technicolor, Inc., 634 A2d 345, 360 (Del 1993) (“(D)irectors are charged with an unyielding fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the corporation and to act in the best interests of its shareholders.”).
 
167
Larry E. Ribstein, The Rise Of The Uncorporation 4 (2010).
 
168
Cynthia Estlund, What Should We Do After Work? Automation and Employment Law, 128 Yale L.J. 254 (2018).
 
169
Korinek, A., Stiglitz, J.E., 2018. Artificial intelligence and its implications for income distribution and unemployment. NBER Chapters The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
 
171
Samantha Bradshaw, Laura DeNardis, The politicization of the Internet’s Domain Name System: Implications for Internet security, universality, and freedom new media & society 2018, Vol. 20(1) 332–350.
 
172
Seltzer W (2011) Exposing the flaws of censorship by domain name. IEEE Security & Privacy. http://​wendy.​seltzer.​is/​writing/​COICA-IEEE.​pdf
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Erbsen, A. (2010). Impersonal Jurisdiction. Emory Law Journal, 60(1), 26. Erbsen, A. (2010). Impersonal Jurisdiction. Emory Law Journal, 60(1), 26.
2.
go back to reference Buckland, B. S., Schreier, F., Winkler, T. H., Democratic governance challenges of cyber security, DCAF Horizon 2015 Working Paper No. 1. Buckland, B. S., Schreier, F., Winkler, T. H., Democratic governance challenges of cyber security, DCAF Horizon 2015 Working Paper No. 1.
3.
go back to reference Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes, et al. (2020). Ford’s jurisdictional crossroads. Georgetown Law Journal Online, 109, 102. Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes, et al. (2020). Ford’s jurisdictional crossroads. Georgetown Law Journal Online, 109, 102.
4.
go back to reference Estlund, C. (2018). What should we do after work? Automation and employment law. Yale Law Journal, 128, 254. Estlund, C. (2018). What should we do after work? Automation and employment law. Yale Law Journal, 128, 254.
5.
go back to reference Klerman, D. (2012). Personal jurisdiction and product liability. Southern California Law Review, 85, 1551, 1585–86 Klerman, D. (2012). Personal jurisdiction and product liability. Southern California Law Review, 85, 1551, 1585–86
6.
go back to reference Zekos, G. (2012). Cyber-territory and jurisdiction of nations. Journal of Internet Law, Number 12/3. Zekos, G. (2012). Cyber-territory and jurisdiction of nations. Journal of Internet Law, Number 12/3.
8.
go back to reference Zekos, G. (2011). Globalisation and states’ cyber-territory. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 5. Zekos, G. (2011). Globalisation and states’ cyber-territory. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 5.
9.
go back to reference Zekos, G. (2017). The United States of Europe in place of the European Union. Nova Science. Zekos, G. (2017). The United States of Europe in place of the European Union. Nova Science.
10.
go back to reference Goldfarb, A., & Taker, C. (2017). Digital economics. Working paper. National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRef Goldfarb, A., & Taker, C. (2017). Digital economics. Working paper. National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hoffmann, S., et al. (2020). Standardising the splinternet: How China’s technical standards could fragment the internet. Journal of Cyber Policy, 1–26. Hoffmann, S., et al. (2020). Standardising the splinternet: How China’s technical standards could fragment the internet. Journal of Cyber Policy, 1–26.
12.
go back to reference Nash, J. R. (2020). The rules and standards of personal jurisdiction. Alabama Law Review, 72, 465. Nash, J. R. (2020). The rules and standards of personal jurisdiction. Alabama Law Review, 72, 465.
13.
go back to reference O’Hara, K., & Hall, W. Four Internets: The geopolitics of digital governance, CIGI Papers No. 206 — December 2018. O’Hara, K., & Hall, W. Four Internets: The geopolitics of digital governance, CIGI Papers No. 206 — December 2018.
14.
go back to reference Buell, S. W. (2011). What is securities fraud? Duke Law Journal, 61, 511, 562. Buell, S. W. (2011). What is securities fraud? Duke Law Journal, 61, 511, 562.
15.
go back to reference Qureshi, Z. R. (2019). If the shoe fits: Applying personal jurisdiction’s stream of commerce analysis to e-commerce - A value test. 21 N.Y.U Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 727, 728. Qureshi, Z. R. (2019). If the shoe fits: Applying personal jurisdiction’s stream of commerce analysis to e-commerce - A value test. 21 N.Y.U Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 727, 728.
Metadata
Title
Cyberspace Governance and Politics
Author
Georgios I. Zekos
Copyright Year
2022
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94736-1_8

Premium Partner