Untangling the Jurisdictional Web in Cyberspace
The ambiguous theme of cyberspace and its broad widespread inflict a major effect on the legal procedures of litigations. Since litigation might include several nationalities, because of the cosmopolitan nature of cyberspace, determining the competent court is not as direct as traditional litigations. Cyber litigations complicate this procedural threshold as the traditional application of jurisdiction determinants might not suit cyber disputes. Furthermore, jurisdiction conflicts in cyberspace frustrate settling the dispute as courts avoid giving their judgments due to invalidity.
Therefore, these conflicts introduce a modern issue to private international law theorists. It is indisputable that drafting obvious jurisdictional rules enhances the rule of law in cyberspace. Thus, the research analyses this issue and establishes a comparison to determine the state of the art regarding it. The article reviews the relevant academic contributions and legislation to point out how they crystallize the aspects of the research question. Besides, it studies relevant case laws from the UK and US judiciaries to conclude the legal principle they adopt to settle these conflicts and to enhance the validity of their judgments. Eventually, it introduces a comprehensive theory on settling jurisdiction conflicts regarding cyber litigation, which enhances the rule of law in cyberspace.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by RITHA Publishing. This article is distributed under the terms of the license CC-BY 4.0., which permits any further distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abdelkarim, Y. A. (2023). Untangling the Jurisdictional Web in Cyberspace. Journal of Research, Innovation and Technologies, Volume II, 2(4), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.57017/jorit.v2.2(4).08
Article’s history:
Received: 1st of October, 2023; Revised: 17th of November, 2023; Accepted for publication: 14th of December, 2023; Available online: 18th of December, 2023. Published as article in Volume II, Issue 2(4).
[1] Adams, J. and Albakajai, M. (2016). Cyberspace: A New Threat to the Sovereignty of the State, Management Studies, 4(6), 256-265. https://www.davidpublisher.com/index.php/Home/Article/index?id=26237.html
[2] Appazov, A. (2014). Legal Aspects of Cybersecurity, University of Copenhagen. https://www.justits ministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Arbejdsomraader/Forskning/Forskningspuljen/Legal_Aspects_of_Cybersecurity.pdf
[3] Barlow, J. P. (1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/ar/cyberspace-independence
[4] Brenner, S. and Koops, E. J. (2004). Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction, Journal of High Technology Law, 4(1), 1-46. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=786507
[5] Bu, Q. (2018). Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Vis-à-Vis Sovereignty in Tackling Transnational Counterfeits: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, European Intellectual Property Review, 40(6), 381-398. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3720837
[6] Official Journal of the European Union (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/713 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on Combating Fraud and Counterfeiting of Non-Cash Means of Payment and Replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA, 123, 18.
[7] Johnson, D. R. and Post, D. G. (1996). Law and borders - The rise of law in cyberspace, First Monday, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v1i1.468
[8] Khalifa, A. M. M (2020). Overcoming the conflict of jurisdiction in cybercrime, Master’s thesis, the American University in Cairo, AUC Knowledge Fountain. https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/846
[9] Koh, H. H. (2012). International Law in Cyberspace, USCYBERCOM Inter-Agency Legal Conference (US Department of State). https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/10/274980.htm
[10] Lessig, L. (2006). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, 2nd Edition, Volume 346 (Basic Books), New York, USA. ISBN 0–465–03914–6
[11] Nowikowska, M. (2022). The Main Tasks of the Network of Computer Security Incident Response Teams in the Light of the Act on the National Cybersecurity System in Poland’. In: K. Chałubińska-Jentkiewicz et al. (eds.), Cybersecurity in Poland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78551-2_15
[12] Raut, B. (2004). Determining the Judicial Jurisdiction in the Transnational Cyberspace, Phd’s Thesis at Queensland University of Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/15830/1/Bimal_Raut_Thesis.pdf
[13] Reidenberg, J. R. (2005). Technology and Internet jurisdiction, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 153, p.1951. https://ssrn.com/abstract=691501
[14] Perloff-Giles, A. (2018). Transnational Cyber Offenses: Overcoming Jurisdictional Challenges, Yale Journal of International Law, 43(4), 223. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/6724
[15] Schmitt, M. N. (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1316822524
[16] The Crown Prosecution Service (2021). Jurisdiction. CPS: Legal Guidance on 26 July 2021. https://cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jurisdiction
[17] The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (entered into force Nov. 16, 1994).
[18] Vinokurov, S. N. (2022). Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: American Law Versus International Law. Competition or Collaboration? In: Popkova, E.G., Polukhin, A.A., Ragulina, J.V. (eds) Towards an Increased Security: Green Innovations, Intellectual Property Protection and Information Security. ISC 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 372. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93155-1_31
[19] Willie, M. M. (2023). The Role of Organizational Culture in Cybersecurity: Building a Security-First Culture. Journal of Research, Innovation and Technologies, Volume II, 2(4), 179-198. https://doi.org/10.57017/jorit.v2.2(4).05