Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: American Law Versus International Law. Competition or Collaboration?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Towards an Increased Security: Green Innovations, Intellectual Property Protection and Information Security (ISC 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 372))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 552 Accesses

Abstract

The Internet and cyberspace have long been a part of our lives. Internet technologies have created an opportunity for the exchange of information and the development of cross-border trade. Many IT companies and even small entrepreneurs have become subjects of international relations, carrying out their activities in various jurisdictions in conditions when they do not need to open a representative office in each country of their presence. In this regard, many questions have arisen regarding the definition of their jurisdiction, which has led to competition between different legal regimes (Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet: Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions (visited Oct. 23, 1997); Cf. Global Information Networks, Ministerial Conference Bonn 6–8 July 1997, 22 (visited Oct. 23, 1997).). At the same time, because Internet technologies began to spread primarily in the United States, it is the American legal system that has become a kind of “trendsetter” in resolving jurisdiction disputes. However, such a state of affairs could not but cause a lot of controversy and suggestions that the prevalence of a national legal system on the Internet can have a negative impact on the development of information law. The determination of the international status of cyberspace and the regulation of issues of determining jurisdiction require the existence of compromise solutions within the framework of international law, taking into account the accumulated experience of national legal systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perritt HH Jr (1998) Will the judgment-proof own cyberspace. Int Law 32:1121

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allstate Ins. Co. v Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 307 (1981); Shaffer v Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 215 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Von Mehren A, Trautman D (1966) Jurisdiction to adjudicate: a suggested analysis. Harvard Law Rev 79:1121, 1136–1163

    Google Scholar 

  4. CompuServe, Inc. v Patterson, No. C2-94-91, slip op. at 3-4 (S. D. Ohio 23 Mar 1995), rev’d, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pres-Kap Inc. v System One Direct Access Inc., 636 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flower SM (1997) When does internet activity establish the minimum contact necessary to confer personal jurisdiction? Missouri Law Rev 62:845, 851

    Google Scholar 

  8. Menthe DC (1998) Jurisdiction in cyberspace: a theory of international spaces. Michigan Telecommun Technol Law Rev 4(1):70, 74, 101–102

    Google Scholar 

  9. Restatement (third) of foreign relations law of the United States, § 403 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hardy T (1994) The proper legal regime for “Cyberspace”. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 55:993, 1021

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cosponsors - S.314 - 104th Congress (1995–1996): Communications Decency Act of 1995. www.congress.gov

  12. Juenger F (1984) Judicial jurisdiction in the United States and in the European communities: a comparison. Michigan Law Rev 82:1195

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson D, Post D (1997) Law and borders—the rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Rev 48:1367, 1389

    Google Scholar 

  15. Blum J (1994) The deep freeze: torts, choice of law, and the Antarctic treaty regime. Emory Int Lit Rev 8:667, 695–696

    Google Scholar 

  16. International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stein AR (1998) The unexceptional problem of jurisdiction in cyberspace. Int Law 32:1167, 1171–1173

    Google Scholar 

  18. Perry D (1991) Maps of sovereignty: a meditation. Cardozo Law Rev 12:959, 992–998

    Google Scholar 

  19. Calder v Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  20. American Library Association v Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Smith v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 1358 (W.D. Ark. 1997); McDonough v Fallon McElligot, Inc., 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1826 (S.D. Cla. 1996); Hearst Corp. v Goldberger, No. 96 Civ. 3620 (PKL) (AJP), 1997 WL 97097 (S.D.N.Y. 26 Feb 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Delerue F (2020) Does international law matter in cyberspace? In: Cyber operations and international law, Cambridge studies in international and comparative law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–50

    Google Scholar 

  23. (2006) Report of the study group on the ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’. International Law Commission, report on the work of the fifty-eighth session, chapter XII, pp 176–184

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pauwelyn J, Fragmentation of international law. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL), pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  25. The legality of the use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion) (1996) ICJ Reports 66, 74–75, pp 18–19

    Google Scholar 

  26. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 U.S. pp 295–296

    Google Scholar 

  27. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. at 479–480

    Google Scholar 

  28. Anton AE, Beaumont PR (1995) Anton & Beaumont’s civil jurisdiction in Scotland, 5, pp 90–124

    Google Scholar 

  29. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Buckley v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 1042, 1047 (W.D. Pa. 1991); Washington Nat’l Ins. Co. v Administrators, 2 F.3d 192, 195–196

    Google Scholar 

  31. Juenger F (1993) American jurisdiction: a story of comparative neglect. Univ Colorado Law Rev 65:1, 21–22

    Google Scholar 

  32. Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cendali DM, Arbogast JD (1996) Net use raises issues of jurisdiction. Natl Law J C7

    Google Scholar 

  34. Raysman R, Brown P (1995) Computer law: on-line legal issues. New York Law J 3

    Google Scholar 

  35. Born GB (1987) Reflections on judicial jurisdiction in international cases. Georgia J Int Comp Law 17:1, 29

    Google Scholar 

  36. Edzard S-J (1996, Nov) German minister of justice. In: Der NationaIstaat ist Oberholt [The national state is antiquated], Der Spiegel

    Google Scholar 

  37. Illegal and harmful content on the internet: communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions (visited 23 Oct 1997); Cf. Global Information Networks, Ministerial Conference Bonn 6–8 July 1997, 22 (visited 23 Oct 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Clinton WJ, Gore A Jr (2019) A framework for global electronic commerce (visited 23 Oct 1997). CCDCOE, Trends in international law for cyberspace

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bryant H (1996) CompuServe stirs debate of censorship. San Jose Mercury News

    Google Scholar 

  40. United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Commonwealth v. Woodward, 1997 WL 694119 (Mass. Super. 10 Nov 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Perritt HH Jr (1996) Jurisdiction in cyberspace. Village Law Rev 41(1):100, 104, 113–112

    Google Scholar 

  43. Alaska Textile Co. v Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 982 F.2d 813 (2d Cir. 1992); Pribus v Bush, 173 Cal. Rptr. 747, 749 & n.5 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981); Mirabile v Udoh, 399 N.Y.S.2d 869, 870–871 (Civ. Ct. 1977)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been financially supported by the Grant of the President of the Russian Federation No. NSH-2668-2020.6 “National-Cultural and Digital Trends in the Socio-Economic, Political and Legal Development of the Russian Federation in the 21st Century”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia

    Sergey N. Vinokurov

Authors
  1. Sergey N. Vinokurov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia

    Elena G. Popkova

  2. Federal Scientific Center of Legumes and Groat Crops, Orel, Russia

    Andrey A. Polukhin

  3. Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia

    Julia V. Ragulina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

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

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation