Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:53:01.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principles of International Internet Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Legal principles are an essential element of jurisprudence. They help to systemize, to comprehend and to further develop a legal order. Although International Internet Law is quite a new legal subject, some principles begin to evolve. The article addresses five emerging core principles of International Internet Law: (1) The principle of internet freedom, (2) the principle of privacy, (3) a modified principle of territorial jurisdiction adapted to cyberspace, (4) the principle of interstate cooperation, and (5) the principle of multi-stakeholder cooperation.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2010 , pp. 1245 - 1263
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Andrew D. Murray, The Regulation of Cyberspace 60–69 (2007).Google Scholar

2 See Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, Internetvölkerrecht, 47 Archiv des Völkerrechts (AVR) 261, 263–274 (2009).Google Scholar

3 See e.g. Hans-Georg Dederer, ICANN und die Dominanz der USA, 47 AVR 367 (2009); Wolfgang Kleinwächter, From Self-Governance to Public-Private Partnership: The Changing Role of Governments in the Management of the Internet's Core Resources, 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1103 (2003); Id., Beyond ICANN vs. ITU: Will WSIS Open New Territory for Internet Governance?, in Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration 31, 36 (Don McLean ed., 2004); Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, Multilevel Internet Governance Involving the European Union, Nation States and NGOs, in Multilevel Regulation and the EU 145 (Andreas Follesdal, Ramses A. Wessel & Jan Wouters eds., 2008).Google Scholar

4 See Kohl, Uta, Jurisdiction and the Internet (2007).Google Scholar

5 See the WTO, Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, WTO Doc. WT/L/274 of 30 September 1998.Google Scholar

6 See Tietje, Christian & Nowrot, Karsten, Das Internet im Fokus des transnationalen Wirtschaftsrechts: Normative Ordnungsstrukturen für den E-Commerce, 47 AVR 328 (2009).Google Scholar

7 See Christopher C. Joyner & Catherine Lotrionte, Information Warfare as International Coercion: Elements of a Legal Framework, 12 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 825 (2001); Wolff Heintschel v. Heinegg, Informationskrieg und Völkerrecht, in Brücken bauen und begehen: Festschrift für Knut Ipsen 129 (Volker Epping, Horst Fischer & Wolff Heintschel v. Heinegg eds., 2000); Antonio Segura-Serrano, Internet Regulation and the Role of International Law, 10 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (MPYUNL) 191, 220–231 (2006).Google Scholar

8 Michael N. Schmitt, Wired Warfare: Computer Network Attack and jus in bello, 84 International Review of the Red Cross 365 (2002); Jenny Doge, Cyber Warfare: Challenges for the Applicability of the Traditional Laws of War Regime, 48 AVR (2010; forthcoming).Google Scholar

9 See Armin von Bogdandy, Founding Principles, in Principles of European Constitutional Law, 11, 14–18 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2nd ed., 2009), who discerns even three functions of legal principles; see also Id., General Principles of International Public Authority: Sketching a Research Field, 9 GLJ 1909, 1910–1914 (2008); András Jakab, Re-Defining Principles as “Important Rules”: A Critique of Robert Alexy, in On the Nature of Legal Principles 145, 155–159 (Martin Borowski ed., 2010).Google Scholar

10 Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Droit international public (9th ed. 2008), para. 334.Google Scholar

11 See Schmahl, Stefanie, Zwischenstaatliche Kompetenzabgrenzung im Cyberspace, 47 AVR 284, 313 (2009).Google Scholar

12 See Brownue, Ian, Principles of Public International Law 16 (7th ed., 2008); Dupuy (note 10), para. 331.Google Scholar

13 Antonio Cassese, International Law 193–194 (2nd ed., 2005).Google Scholar

14 UNTS, vol. 999, 171, 178.Google Scholar

15 Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 5, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/.Google Scholar

16 UNTS, vol. 999, 171, 178.Google Scholar

17 Eur. Court H.R., Perrin v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 October 2005, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2005-XI.Google Scholar

18 Eur. Court H.R., Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), Judgment of 10 March 2009, Application 3002/03 and 23676/03, para. 27.Google Scholar

19 Id. Google Scholar

20 Eur. Court H.R., Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A, No. 216, para. 59; Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (note 18), para. 40.Google Scholar

21 Eur. Court H.R., Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, Judgment of 22 April 2010, Application 40984/07, para. 95.Google Scholar

22 Nicola Wenzel, Opinion and Expression, Freedom of, International Protection, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL, Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2009), para. 14, available at http://www.mpepil.com/.Google Scholar

23 See Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights 47–48 (2002): principles as optimization requirements; see also Martin Borowski, The Structure of Formal Principles – Robert Alexy's “Law of Combination”, in On the Nature of Legal Principles (note 9), 19, 20–22.Google Scholar

24 Eur. Court H.R., Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, Judgment of 8 April 2008, Application 21151/04, para. 68.Google Scholar

25 Eur. Court H.R., Von Hannover v. Germany, Judgment of 24 June 2004, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2004-VI, paras. 57–58.Google Scholar

26 See Ehlers, Dirk, General Principles, in European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 25, 53 (Dirk Ehlers ed., 2007).Google Scholar

27 But see Articles 15, 16 of the Charter of Human Rights of the European Union, O.J. 2007 C 303/1; moreover, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GA Res. 2200 [XXI] of 16 December 1966) as well as Article 1 of the European Social Charter of 18 October 1961 (Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 35) guarantee the social right to work.Google Scholar

28 Eur. Court H.R., Times Newspapers Ltd (note 18), para. 37 and passim. Google Scholar

29 Eur. Court H.R., Megadat.com SRL (note 24), paras. 62–64.Google Scholar

30 Eur. Court H.R., Paeffgen GmbH v. Germany, Judgment of 18 September 2007, Application 25379/04 et al., sub The Law 1.Google Scholar

31 UNTS, vol. 55, 188, 224–228.Google Scholar

32 UNTS, vol. 1869, 183, 197.Google Scholar

33 See e.g. WTO Appellate Body, EC – Computer Equipment, Report of 5 June 1998, WT/DS62/AB/R; WTO Panel, EC–IT Products, Report of 16 August 2010, WT/DS375/R, WT/DS376/R & WT/DS377/R.Google Scholar

34 UNTS, vol. 1969, 183, 199.Google Scholar

35 WTO Appellate Body, US – Gambling, Report of 7 April 2005, WT/DS285/AB/R, paras. 158–213.Google Scholar

36 See also WTO Panel, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, Report of 12 August 2009, WT/DS/363/R, paras. 7.1209, 7.1220.Google Scholar

37 Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, The WTO Constitution and Human Rights, 19 Journal of International Economic Law 19 (2000); Id., Human Rights, Constitutionalism and the World Trade Organization, 19 Leiden Journal of International Law 633 (2006).Google Scholar

38 Markus Krajewski, Verfassungsperspektiven und Legitimation des Rechts der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) 188–193 (2001); Armin von Bogdandy, Law and Politics in the WTO, 5 MPYUNL 609, 655–657 (2001).Google Scholar

39 See Article XX(a) GATT, Article XIV(a) GATS.Google Scholar

40 WTO Appellate Body, US – Gambling (note 35), paras. 304–327; China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, Report of 21 December 2009, WT/DS/363/AB/R, paras. 237–249.Google Scholar

41 WTO Appellate Body, US – Gambling (note 35), para. 373(D)(iv).Google Scholar

42 See Eur. Court H.R., Liberty et al. v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 1 July 2008, Application 58243/00, para. 52; Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 May 2010, Application 26839/05, para. 118, where the Court makes, however, no distinction between private life and correspondence.Google Scholar

43 Eur. Court H.R., Copland v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 3 April 2007, Application 62617/00, paras. 41–42.Google Scholar

44 EP and Council Directive 2006/24 of 15 March 2006, O.J. 2006 L 105/54.Google Scholar

45 Eur. Court H.R., Wypych v. Poland, Judgment of 25 October 2005, Application 2428/05; see also 6. v. Finland, Judgment of 27 January 2009, Application 33173/05, para. 52, with regard to the publication of a judgment on the internet, and Human Rights Committee, Sayadi & Vinck v. Belgium, Views of 29 December 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006, para. 10.12, with regard to the publication of personal data on a UN sanctions list via the internet.Google Scholar

46 Eur. Court H.R., Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A, No. 31, para. 31; Airey v. Ireland, Judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A, No. 32, para. 32; X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A, No. 91, para. 32; see also Benediktsdóttir v. Iceland, Judgment of 16 June 2009, Application 38079/06, sub The Law 3 I; Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, Personal Rights and the Prohibition of Discrimination, in European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (note 26), 67, 76.Google Scholar

47 See, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., von Hannover (note 25), paras. 57–58, for a conflict between privacy and freedom of the press.Google Scholar

48 Eur. Court H.R., X and Y v. the Netherlands (note 46), para. 27; K. U. v. Finland, Judgment of 2 December 2008, Application 2827/02, para. 43.Google Scholar

49 K. U. v. Finland (note 48).Google Scholar

50 K. U. v. Finland (note 48), paras. 40–50.Google Scholar

51 Bernard H. Oxman, Jurisdiction, in MPEPIL (note 22, 2007), para. 11.Google Scholar

52 See Brownlie (note 12), 299, 301; Dupuy (note 10), paras. 66–73.; Lotus, PCIJ 1927, Series A, No. 10, 1, 18; Eur. Court H.R. (Grand Chamber), Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, Judgment of 12 December 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-XII, para. 59.Google Scholar

53 European Treaty Series No. 185, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/.Google Scholar

54 Oxman (note 51), para. 16.Google Scholar

55 Lotus (note 52) 23; Vaughan Lowe & Christopher Staker, Jurisdiction, in International Law 313, 321–322 (Malcom D. Evans ed., 3rd ed. 2010); Oxman (note 51), para. 23.Google Scholar

56 See Joined Cases 89/85 et al., Wood Pulp, 1988 E.C.R. 5193, paras. 15–18; Eleanor M. Fox, Modernization of Effects Doctrine: From Hands-Off to Hands-Linked, 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 159, 160, 167, 174 (2009).Google Scholar

57 Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Convention on Cybercrime, Explanatory Report of 8 November 2001, para. 233, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/reports/html/185.htm.Google Scholar

58 Court of Appeal, [2002] EWCA Crim 747, paras. 2–4; Eur. Court H.R., Perrin (note 17).Google Scholar

59 Bundesgerichtshof, Toeben (Federal Court), Judgment of 12 December 2000, case 1 StR 184/00, 46 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen (BGHSt) 212 (2001) = 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 624 (2001), also available through http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/.Google Scholar

60 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, UEJF et Licra c/ Yahoo! Inc., Ordonnance de Référé of 20 November 2000, available at: http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tgiparis20001120.htm; see also Joel R. Reidenberg, Yahoo and Democracy on the Internet, 42 Jurimetrics Journal 261 (2002).Google Scholar

61 See the analysis given by Kohl (note 4), 47–65; from a perspective of private international law see Roth, Isabel, Die Internationale Zuständigkeit deutscher gerichte bei Persönlichkeitsverletzungen im Internet 243–289 (2007).Google Scholar

62 Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc., US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 952 F.Supp. 1119, at 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997); Schmahl (note 11), 306–307.Google Scholar

63 See Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Yahoo (note 60).Google Scholar

64 See also Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 2 March 2010, case VI ZR 23/09, 63 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1752 (2010), para. 22 (also available through http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/), where the German Federal Court emphasized that readers of the New York Times online edition could choose Germany in a list of countries of residence on registration.Google Scholar

65 See Kohl (note 4) 97; see also Article 15(1)(c) Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 12/1, according domestic courts jurisdiction over transnational consumer contracts if the other party “directs” commercial activities such as promoting websites to that state.Google Scholar

66 Toeben, (note 59), 46 BGHST 212, 224 (2001) = 54 NJW 624, 628 (2001).Google Scholar

67 Eur. Court H.R., Perrin (note 20), Section The Law B.Google Scholar

68 For a depiction of this scenario see Kohl (note 4), 279–283.Google Scholar

69 Eur. Court H.R., Perrin (note 17), Section The Law B; Kohl (note 4), 115–163.Google Scholar

70 See Brownlie (note 12), 105; Dupuy (note 10), para. 37.Google Scholar

71 John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace of 8 February 1996, available at: http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internetcensorshipbills/barlow0296.declaration; see also David R. Johnson and David G. Post, Law and Borders – The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stanford Law Review 1367 (1996).Google Scholar

72 See the analysis given by Rolf H. Weber, Shaping Internet Governance: Regulatory Challenges 73–88 (2010).Google Scholar

73 Kleinwächter (note 3), 1106.Google Scholar

74 See Weber (note 72), 51–54.Google Scholar

75 See Article L45, Articles R20-44-34-R20-44-41 Code des postes et des communications électroniques (Posts and Electronic Communications Code), consolidated version available through http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechCodeArticle.do.Google Scholar

76 EP and Council Regulation 733/2002 of 22 April 2002, O.J. 2002 L 113/1.Google Scholar

77 Commission, Call for Expressions of Interest for the Selection of the .eu TLD Registry, Notice of 3 September 2002, O.J. 2002 C 208/6.Google Scholar

78 Commission Decision 2003/375 of 21 May 2003, O.J. 2003 L 128/29.Google Scholar

79 See the draft service concession contract annexed to the Call for Expressions of Interests (note 77), at 14.Google Scholar

80 Commission Regulation 874/2004 of 28 April 2004, O.J. 2004 L 162/40, last modified by Commission Regulation 560/2009 of 26 June 2009, O.J. 2009 L 166/3.Google Scholar

81 ICANN, Bylaws as amended of 5 August 2010, Article Xl(2)(1), available at: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.Google Scholar

82 See Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Beyond ICANN vs. ITU: Will WSIS Open New Territory for Internet Governance?, in Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration (note 3), 31, 45; Uerpmann-Wittzack, (note 3), 160; for a concept to transform the GAC into an Internet Regulatory Organisation see Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, International Regulation by International Regulatory Organisations – A model for ICANN?, The Global Community: Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2008, vol. I, 113 (2009).Google Scholar

83 Article l(2)(11) ICANN Bylaws (note 81).Google Scholar

84 Kleinwächter (note 3), 1121–1122; Uerpmann-Wittzack (note 3), 156.Google Scholar

85 Principles of 5 April 2005, available at: http://gac.icann.org/system/files/ccTLDPrinciples0.pdf.Google Scholar

86 See Weber (note 72), 31–36.Google Scholar

87 Doc. WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev.1)-E, available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf.Google Scholar

88 Doc. WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/10 (Rev.4)-E, para. 54; available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt10rev4.pdf.Google Scholar

89 Convention on Cybercrime, supra, note 53.Google Scholar

90 Convention on Cybercrime, supra, note 53, Preamble, para. 8.Google Scholar

91 Christoph Schreuer, State Sovereignty and the Duty of States to Cooperate – Two Incompatible Notions?, in International Law of Cooperation and State Sovereignty 163, 170 (Jost Delbrück ed., 2002); Philip Kunig, United Nations Charter, Interpretation of, in MPEPIL (note 22, 2006), paras. 12–14; see also Helen Keller, Friendly Relations Declaration (1970), in MPEPIL (note 22, 2009), para. 30.Google Scholar

92 Schreuer (note 91), 170–174; see also Vaughan D. Lowe, International Law 111 (2007).Google Scholar

93 GA Res. 44/25 of 20 November 1989.Google Scholar

94 Id. Google Scholar

95 11th recital of the Convention's Preamble (note 53).Google Scholar

96 Eur. Court H.R., Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Judgment of 7 January 2010, Application 25965/04, para. 289.Google Scholar

97 K.U. v. Finland, supra, note 49.Google Scholar

98 But see Tietje, Christian, The Duty to Cooperate in International Economic Law and Related Areas, in International Law of Cooperation and State Sovereignty (note 91), 45, 63–64: according to whom duties to cooperate are linked to issues of overlapping jurisdictions, which is indeed an important aspect; for different types of cooperation see Lori Fisler-Damrosch, Obligations to Cooperate in the International Protection of Human Rights, in International Law of Cooperation and State Sovereignty (note 91), 15, 24–30.Google Scholar

99 Doc. WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E, para. 65, available at: http://www.itu.int/dmspub/itus/md/03/wsis/doc/S03-WSIS-DOC-0004!!PDF-E.pdf.Google Scholar

100 Tunis Agenda, supra, note 87; see also Id., paras. 47, 51, 69.Google Scholar

101 For a pessimistic appraisal see Kohl (note 4), 251–252.Google Scholar

102 Barlow, supra, note 71.Google Scholar

103 See the Memorandum of Understanding of 25 November 1998 between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm; Dederer (note 3), 377–379 and 389–390, accentuates this form of state control.Google Scholar

104 Available at: http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.pdf.Google Scholar

105 ICANN, President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform of 24 February 2002, available at: http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm.Google Scholar

106 See also Kleinwächter (note 3), 1120–1123; Erich Schweighöfer, Role and Perspectives of ICANN, in Internet Governance and the Information Society 79 (Wolfgang Benedek, Veronika Bauer & Matthias C. Kettemann eds., 2008).Google Scholar

107 Affirmation of Commitments (note 104), para. 4.Google Scholar

108 Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49.Google Scholar

109 Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49(a).Google Scholar

110 Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49(b).Google Scholar

111 Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49(c); on the role of civil society within the WSIS process itself see Cammaerts, Bart & Carpentier, Nico, The Unbearable Lightness of Full Participation in a Global Context: WSIS and Civil Society Participation, in Towards a Sustainable Information Society 17 (Nico Carpentier & Jan Servaes eds., 2006).Google Scholar

112 Tunis Agenda (note 87), para. 35.Google Scholar

113 Tunis Agenda (note 87), para. 37.Google Scholar

114 Tunis Agenda (note 87), para. 72.Google Scholar

115 See Tunis Agenda (note 87), paras. 40 and 56–62; see also the definition of internet governance given by the Report from the Working Group on Internet Governance of 3 August 2005, Doc. WSIS-II/PC-3/DOC/5-E, paras. 10–12, available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/off5.pdf.Google Scholar

116 Geneva Declaration (note 99), paras. 17, 20, 35, 60–61.Google Scholar

117 Tunis Agenda (note 87), paras. 27(b), 39, 41, 45, 71, 83, 88–89.Google Scholar

118 See Spain, Anna, Who's Going to Copenhagen?: The Rise of Civil Society in International Treaty-Making, 13 ASIL Insight No. 25 (2009), available at: http://www.asil.org/insights091211.cfm.Google Scholar

119 Geneva Declaration, supra, notes 108–111; Tunis Agenda, supra, note 112.Google Scholar

120 K. U. v. Finland, supra, note 48.Google Scholar