Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Normative Shifts

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW German Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1017/glj.2023.24
Cedric Ryngaert
{"title":"Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Normative Shifts","authors":"Cedric Ryngaert","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The most eye-catching effect of digitalization on the law of enforcement jurisdiction is the fading into irrelevance of territoriality. Insofar as the “physical” location of digital data—on a server—may be entirely fortuitous and may in fact not be known by the territorial state, it appears unreasonable for that state to invoke its territorial sovereignty as a shield against another state’s claims over such data. To prevent a jurisdictional free-for-all, however, it is key that the exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction in cyberspace becomes subject to a stringent test weighting all relevant connections and interests in concrete cases. Introducing such a weighting test means that extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction is no longer governed by binary rules (allowed and not allowed), but becomes a matter of degree, requiring a granular, contextual assessment. It remains the case that such a flexible attitude towards extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction is not universally shared, and that relevant state practice and expert opinion in favor of the “un-territoriality of data” has a particular Western slant.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":"537 - 550"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The most eye-catching effect of digitalization on the law of enforcement jurisdiction is the fading into irrelevance of territoriality. Insofar as the “physical” location of digital data—on a server—may be entirely fortuitous and may in fact not be known by the territorial state, it appears unreasonable for that state to invoke its territorial sovereignty as a shield against another state’s claims over such data. To prevent a jurisdictional free-for-all, however, it is key that the exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction in cyberspace becomes subject to a stringent test weighting all relevant connections and interests in concrete cases. Introducing such a weighting test means that extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction is no longer governed by binary rules (allowed and not allowed), but becomes a matter of degree, requiring a granular, contextual assessment. It remains the case that such a flexible attitude towards extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction is not universally shared, and that relevant state practice and expert opinion in favor of the “un-territoriality of data” has a particular Western slant.
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
网络空间的域外强制管辖权:规范性转变
数字化对执法管辖权最引人注目的影响是属地性的无关性。如果数字数据在服务器上的“物理”位置可能完全是偶然的,而且实际上可能不为领土国所知,那么该国援引其领土主权作为盾牌来反对另一个国家对此类数据的主张,似乎是不合理的。然而,为了防止管辖权的混战,关键是在网络空间行使域外执行管辖权必须接受严格的测试,权衡具体案件中的所有相关联系和利益。引入这种权重测试意味着域外执法管辖权不再受二元规则(允许和不允许)的支配,而是成为程度问题,需要详细的上下文评估。然而,对治外法权执行管辖权的这种灵活态度并没有得到普遍认同,支持“数据的非属地性”的有关国家实践和专家意见具有特别的西方倾向。
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
German Law Journal
German Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
75
期刊最新文献
Regulating Parties by Constitutional Rules in Liberal Democracies New Dynamics of the “Post-COVID-19 Era”: A Legal Conundrum Media, Cultural Techniques, and the Law: The Other Cornelia Vismann Minimum Legal Standards in Reparation Processes for Colonial Crimes: The Case of Namibia and Germany How to Regulate Moral Dilemmas Involving Self-Driving Cars: The 2021 German Act on Autonomous Driving, the Trolley Problem, and the Search for a Role Model
×
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