Internet Jurisdiction - Thinking Outside the Box(es) - The role of geo-location
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2016 |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | Currently, questions around Internet jurisdiction are gaining an unprecedented level of attention. Yet, progress is both slow and limited. Arguably, the most significant obsta-cle for progress is found in the fact that our current thinking on jurisdiction is largely dominated by, and rooted in, notions of territoriality. It is fair to say that, in our current paradigm, the territoriality principle represents the jurisprudential core of our thinking on jurisdiction – a State has jurisdiction over all that ccurs in its territory for the simple reason that it occurs in its territory. But as is well-known, it is not always easy – or indeed possible – to determine where (in real space geographical terms) events take place on -line. The fact that the territoriality principle is a poor fit for the largely border-disregarding, if not ‘borderless’, Internet is well established. However, apart from (now largely discredited) calls in the mid-90s for the law not to apply to the Internet at all, few real alternatives to territoriality as the cornerstone of jurisdiction have been advanced until recently. Moving forward on Internet jurisdiction will require creativity and a willingness to reconsider, and potentially depart from, established legal approaches, concepts and doctrines. Geo-location technologies – allowing the identification of individual Internet users’ geographical location – have been used for some time now. However, their use is now gaining considerable attention. The use of geo-location represents a potential ingredient in addressing overlapping claims of jurisdiction. At the same time, geo-location represents a threat to the Internet as we know it by catering for fragmentation. What is the future of geo-location? How, if at all, should geo-location be regulated? |
| Related projects: |