Chapter 4 Many Destinations but No Map

Abstract

Chapter 4 explains the predominant approach judges and legislators across the globe have taken to online jurisdiction questions whether in civil or criminal law matters. Whilst this approach is overall firmly focused on the effects of online activity on the local law space (and thereby a clear instance of territoriality), there are significant nuances between a moderate effects basis (targeting/directing) and one that triggers local law based on ANY effects, even minimals ones, on the local law space, such as the mere accessability of a site.

Thus this chapter goes towards answering key questions of the book "Jurisdiction and the Internet" that has become a classic in the field: Which state has and should have the right and power to regulate sites and online events? Who can apply their defamation or contract law, obscenity standards, gambling or banking regulation, pharmaceutical licensing requirements or hate speech prohibitions to any particular Internet activity? Traditionally, transnational activity has been 'shared out' between national sovereigns with the aid of location-centric rules which can be adjusted to the transnational Internet. But can these allocation rules be stretched indefinitely, and what are the costs for online actors and for states themselves of squeezing global online activity into nation-state law? Does the future of online regulation lie in global legal harmonisation or is it a cyberspace that increasingly mirrors the national borders of the offline world? This book offers some uncomfortable insights into one of the most important debates on Internet governance.

Keywords: internet jurisdiction, territoriality, cyberspace, balkanisation, content regulation