Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
CyberTerrorism: Some Insights from Owen’s Genetic-Social Framework Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Need to Think Beyond Objective Territoriality to Better Protect the Rights of the Suspect of a Cybercrime

verfasst von : Jean-Baptiste Maillart

Erschienen in: Rethinking Cybercrime

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Despite the decentralized, borderless, and pervasive nature of cyberspace, the exercise of jurisdiction over cybercrimes remains largely based on the principle of territoriality. This is explained mostly by the existence of very strong ties between the notions of state sovereignty and territoriality, the latter being the necessary corollary of the former in the Westphalian legal order. The objective of this paper is, however, to point out the limits of objective territorial jurisdiction, one of the two main forms of territoriality, and thereby call into question the territorial dogma in the digital age. More specifically, this paper aims at demonstrating that, although territoriality constitutes one of the keystones of the international legal order, the adequacy of its objective expression with regard to Internet-based offences is questionable as its exercise may easily lead to a violation of the accused’s rights. Objective territorial jurisdiction, which can be claimed by any state on the territory of which the result of an offence occurred, can indeed be claimed by so many States when an offence qualify as cybercrime that its exercise may seriously undermine the principle of legal foreseeability as well as the ne bis in idem rule. One therefore needs to think beyond objective territoriality to better protect the rights of the suspect of a cybercrime

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Assuming Identities Online: How Linguistics Is Helping the Policing of Online Grooming and the Distribution of Abusive Images
Nächstes Kapitel Images of Violence and Atrocity in Modern Media
Fußnoten
1
In this regard, see e.g. Foggetti, N., Transnational Cyber Crime, Differences Between National Laws and Development of European Legislation: By Repression?, in Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 2008/2, p. 35; Hayashi, M., The Information Revolution and the Rules of Jurisdiction in Public International Law, in The Resurgence of the State: Trends and Processes in Cyberspace Governance [Dunn, M./Krishna-Hensel, S. F./Mauer, V., eds], Aldershot/Burlington (Ashgate) 2007, p. 80.
 
3
Klip, A, Section IV––International criminal law. Information society and penal law. General report, in RIDP 2014/1, p. 391.
 
4
Section IV––International criminal law. Information society and penal law, in RIDP 2014/2013, p. 640.
 
5
See e.g. Convention on Cybercrime, Budapest, 23.11.2001, ETS No. 185, art. 22(1)(a); Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, Strasbourg, 28.1.2003, ETS No. 189, art. 4(1); Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offence, Cairo, 21.12.2001, art. 30(1)(a); Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2001 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA [2011] OJ L 335, art. 17(1)(a); Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA [2014] OJ L 218, art. 12(1)(a).
 
6
In this sense, see e.g. Brenner, S. W., Cybercrime Jurisdiction, in Crime Law and Social Change 2006, p. 193.
 
7
See contra Kaspersen, H. W. K., Cybercrime and Internet Jurisdiction, Council of Europe Discussion Paper, 2009, p. 15 (available at: https://​rm.​coe.​int/​16803042b7).
 
8
According to Brenner, this is explained by the physical constraints to which offline offenses are subjected: “[T]he one-to-one character of real-world crime derives from the constraints physical reality imposes upon human activity: A thief cannot pick more than one pocket at a time, a forger cannot forge more than one document at a time, and, prior to the rise of firearms, it was exceedingly difficult for one to cause the simultaneous deaths of more than one person” Brenner, S. W., Toward a Criminal Law for Cyberspace: Product Liability and Other Issues, in Pittsburgh Journal of Technology and Law 2004, p. 10. In the same vein, see Rosenzweig, P., Cyber Warfare: How Conflicts in Cyberspace Are Challenging America and Changing the World, Santa Barbara (Praeger) 2013, p. 86.
 
9
Brenner, S. W., Cybercrime Jurisdiction, in Crime Law and Social Change 2006, p. 194. In the same vein, the European Commission noted in 2015 that “[c]ybercriminals can act from outside the Union to harm critical infrastructures and simultaneously target a large number of victims across Member States, with minimum effort and risk” (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, The European Agenda on Security, Strasbourg, 28.4.2015, COM(2015) 185 final, p. 13).
 
10
Brenner, S. W., Cyberthreats and the Decline of the Nation-State, Abingdon/New York (Routledge) 2014, p. 64.
 
11
Yar, M., The Novelty of ‘Cybercrime’: An Assessment in Light of Routine Activity Theory, in European Journal of Criminology 2005, p. 411.
 
12
Seker, O. K., International Regulaton of National Cybercrime Jurisdiction, LL.M. Thesis, University of Tilburg, 2012, p. 22.
 
13
In this regard, see e.g. Explanatory Report of the Convention on Cybercrime, para. 239 (available at: https://​rm.​coe.​int/​CoERMPublicCommo​nSearchServices/​DisplayDCTMConte​nt?​documentId=​09000016800cce5b​).
 
14
McAfee, McAfee Labs Threats Report, September 2017, p. 2.
 
16
Podgor, E., Cybercrime: National, Transnational or International?, in Wayne Law Review 2004, p. 102.
 
17
In this regard, see e.g. Kohl, U., Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, in Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace [Tsagourias, N./Buchan, R., eds.], Cheltenham/Northampton (Edward Elgar) 2015, p. 48; Kulesza, J., International Internet Law, Oxon/New York (Routledge) 2012, p. 14; Wolswijk, H. D., Locus Deliciti and Criminal Jurisidiction, in Netherlands International Law Review 1999, p. 37.
 
18
Section IV––International criminal law. Information society and penal law, in RIDP 2014/3, p. 640.
 
19
Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction in International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford (Oxford University Press) 2015, pp. 80–81.
 
22
Article 13.
 
23
Akehurst, M., Jurisdiction in International Law, in British Yearbook of International Law 1972–1973, p. 168.
 
25
See supra p. 1.
 
26
OJ L 328.
 
27
See e.g. 5(1) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10.12.1984.
 
28
See e.g. art 22(1)(d) cum 22(2) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
 
29
«Each State Party will exercise its rights and fulfill its obligations under this Convention to the extent practicable in accordance with the following priority of jurisdiction: first, the State Party in which the alleged offender was physically present when the alleged offense was committed; second, the State Party in which substantial harm was suffered as a result of the alleged offense; third, the State Party of the alleged offender’s dominant nationality; fourth, any State Party where the alleged offender may be found; and fifth, any other State Party with a reasonable basis for jurisdiction».
 
30
Human Rights Committee, AP vs. Italy, Communication n° 204 of 16 July 1986, CCPR/C/31/D/204/1986, § 7.3.
 
31
Schomburg, W., Criminal Matters: Transnational Ne Bis in Idem in Europe—Conflict of Jurisdictions—Transfer of Proceedings, in ERA Forum 2012, p. 313; Vervaele, J. A. E., Ne Bis In Idem: Towards a Transnational Constitutional Principle in the EU?, in Utrecht Law Review 2013/2014, p. 213.
 
32
European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, The Hague, 28.5.1970, ETS No. 70
 
33
European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, Strasbourg, 15.5.1972, ETS No. 73.
 
34
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 18.12.2000 (2000/C 364/01).
 
35
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239.
 
36
Van den Wyngaert, C./Stessens, G., The International Non Bis In Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions, in ICLQ 1999, p. 782.
 
37
Kulesza, J., International Internet Law, Oxon/New York (Routledge) 2012, p. 14.
 
38
Ibidem.
 
39
Seker, O. K., International Regulaton of National Cybercrime Jurisdiction, LL.M. Thesis, University of Tilburg, 2012, p. 22.
 
Literatur
Akehurst, M. (1975). Jurisdiction in International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, 46, 145–257.
Brenner, S. (2004). Toward a Criminal Law for Cyberspace: Product Liability and Other Issues. Pittsburgh Journal of Technology and Law, 5(1), 1–112.
Brenner, S. (2006). ‘Cybercrime Jurisdiction’, Crime Law and Social. Change, 46, 189–206.
Brenner, S. (2014). Cyberthreats and the Decline of the Nation-State. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.CrossRef
European Commission. (2015). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, The European Agenda on Security, COM(2015) 185 final.
Foggetti, N. (2008). Transnational Cyber Crime, Differences Between National Laws and Development of European Legislation: By Repression? Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 2(2), 31–45.
Hayashi, M. (2007). The Information Revolution and the Rules of Jurisdiction in Public International Law. In M. Dunn, S. Krishna-Hensel, & V. Mauer (Eds.), The Resurgence of the State: Trends and Processes in Cyberspace Governance (pp. 59–85). Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.
Klip, A. (2014). Section IV––International criminal law: Information society and penal law. General report. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 85(1), 381–428.CrossRef
Kohl, U. (2015). Jurisdiction in Cyberspace. In N. Tsagourias & R. Buchan (Eds.), Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace (pp. 30–54). Northampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRef
Kulesza, J. (2012). International Internet Law. Oxon and New York: Routledge.CrossRef
Podgor, E. (2004). Cybercrime: National, Transnational or International? Wayne Law Review, 50(1), 97–108.
Rosenzweig, P. (2013). Cyber Warfare: How Conflicts in Cyberspace Are Challenging America and Changing the World. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Ryngaert, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schomburg, W. (2012). Criminal Matters: Transnational Ne Bis in Idem in Europe—Conflict of Jurisdictions—Transfer of Proceedings. ERA Forum, 13(3), 311–324.CrossRef
Seker, O. (2012). International Regulaton of National Cybercrime Jurisdiction, LL.M. Thesis, University of Tilburg.
Van den Wyngaert, C., & Stessens, G. (1999). ‘The International Non Bis In Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Question’s. International Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(4), 779–804.CrossRef
Vervaele, J. (2013). Ne Bis In Idem: Towards a Transnational Constitutional Principle in the EU? Utrecht Law Review, 9(4), 211–229.CrossRef
Wolswijk, H. (1999). Locus Deliciti and Criminal Jurisidiction. Netherlands International Law Review, 46(3), 361–382.CrossRef
Yar, M. (2005). The Novelty of ‘Cybercrime’: An Assessment in Light of Routine Activity Theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 411.
Metadaten
Titel
The Need to Think Beyond Objective Territoriality to Better Protect the Rights of the Suspect of a Cybercrime
verfasst von
Jean-Baptiste Maillart
Copyright-Jahr
2021
Buch
Rethinking Cybercrime

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55840-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-55841-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55841-3_6

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise