The quadrangular shape of the geometry of digital power(s) and the move towards a procedural digital constitutionalism

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI:10.1111/eulj.12472
O. Pollicino
{"title":"The quadrangular shape of the geometry of digital power(s) and the move towards a procedural digital constitutionalism","authors":"O. Pollicino","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper explores the evolution of private powers in the digital landscape, developing a quadrangular systematisation of such a phenomenon based on four main aspects: space, values, (private) actors, and (digital) constitutional remedies. Taking a trans‐Atlantic approach, the paper shows how these categories, typical of constitutionalism, apply to the context of the Internet and of new digital technologies both in the United States and in Europe. On the one hand, the United States has up to now maintained the supremacy of the notorious Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, European legislation has undergone a significant change, moving from a phase of digital liberalism, of which the 2000 e‐Commerce Directive is the emblem, towards a new era of digital constitutionalism, passing through the age of judicial activism of European courts. In this sense, Europe has increasingly attempted to introduce limits to private (digital) powers, with a view to better protect and enforce (also horizontally) users' fundamental rights. Additionally, the evolution of digital constitutionalism, from a vertical‐sectoral approach to a horizontal and procedure‐based one, significantly showcased by the recent Digital Services Package, is underscored, signalling the recent movement of the EU into its second phase of digital constitutionalism. In this respect, the paper argues that the great benefit of stressing the procedural dimension, which may be defined as a European application of “due (data) process” to the relationship between individuals and private powers, is that it is potentially able to help consolidate a (necessary) trans‐Atlantic bridge.","PeriodicalId":47166,"journal":{"name":"European Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12472","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper explores the evolution of private powers in the digital landscape, developing a quadrangular systematisation of such a phenomenon based on four main aspects: space, values, (private) actors, and (digital) constitutional remedies. Taking a trans‐Atlantic approach, the paper shows how these categories, typical of constitutionalism, apply to the context of the Internet and of new digital technologies both in the United States and in Europe. On the one hand, the United States has up to now maintained the supremacy of the notorious Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, European legislation has undergone a significant change, moving from a phase of digital liberalism, of which the 2000 e‐Commerce Directive is the emblem, towards a new era of digital constitutionalism, passing through the age of judicial activism of European courts. In this sense, Europe has increasingly attempted to introduce limits to private (digital) powers, with a view to better protect and enforce (also horizontally) users' fundamental rights. Additionally, the evolution of digital constitutionalism, from a vertical‐sectoral approach to a horizontal and procedure‐based one, significantly showcased by the recent Digital Services Package, is underscored, signalling the recent movement of the EU into its second phase of digital constitutionalism. In this respect, the paper argues that the great benefit of stressing the procedural dimension, which may be defined as a European application of “due (data) process” to the relationship between individuals and private powers, is that it is potentially able to help consolidate a (necessary) trans‐Atlantic bridge.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数字权力几何的四边形与程序性数字宪政的走向
本文探讨了数字景观中私人权力的演变,基于四个主要方面:空间、价值观、(私人)行为者和(数字)宪法补救,对这一现象进行了四边形系统化。本文采用跨大西洋的方法,展示了这些典型的宪政类别如何适用于美国和欧洲的互联网和新数字技术。一方面,到目前为止,美国一直保持着臭名昭著的《通信体面法案》第230条的至高无上地位。另一方面,欧洲立法发生了重大变化,从以2000年《电子商务指令》为标志的数字自由主义阶段,到数字宪政的新时代,经历了欧洲法院司法能动主义的时代。从这个意义上说,欧洲越来越多地试图限制私人(数字)权力,以更好地保护和执行(也是横向的)用户的基本权利。此外,强调了数字宪政的演变,从垂直的部门方法到横向的、基于程序的方法,这在最近的数字服务一揽子计划中得到了显著展示,标志着欧盟最近进入了数字宪政第二阶段。在这方面,该论文认为,强调程序层面的巨大好处是,它可能有助于巩固(必要的)跨大西洋桥梁。程序层面可以被定义为欧洲对个人和私人权力之间关系的“正当(数据)程序”应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The European Law Journal represents an authoritative new approach to the study of European Law, developed specifically to express and develop the study and understanding of European law in its social, cultural, political and economic context. It has a highly reputed board of editors. The journal fills a major gap in the current literature on all issues of European law, and is essential reading for anyone studying or practising EU law and its diverse impact on the environment, national legal systems, local government, economic organizations, and European citizens. As well as focusing on the European Union, the journal also examines the national legal systems of countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe and relations between Europe and other parts of the world, particularly the United States, Japan, China, India, Mercosur and developing countries. The journal is published in English but is dedicated to publishing native language articles and has a dedicated translation fund available for this purpose. It is a refereed journal.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Datafication of the hotspots in the blind spot of supervisory authorities Limits to discretion and automated risk assessments in EU border control: Recognising the political in the technical Decoding Frontex's fragmented accountability mosaic and introducing systemic accountability - System Reset Rule of law backsliding within the EU: The case of informal readmissions of third-country nationals at internal borders
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1