![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This article discusses the evolving framework of a new branch of international public law – international Internet law (IIL), the public international law framework for Internet governance. The article presents the genesis of IIL, its principles and perspectives; tackles key challenges to this new interdisciplinary area of research, such as cyber-security, jurisdiction and privacy protection; and draws analogies between IIL and such traditional areas of international public law as environmental law, human rights law and law of the sea. The article presents current proposals of applying international environmental law due diligence standard to state responsibility for cyber-attacks and giving critical Internet resources the Common Heritage of Mankind status. The role of soft law in creating IIL is emphasized and successful examples of its exercise are presented. The article then goes on to elaborate on hard-law proposals for IIL (Internet Framework Convention including a unique multistakeholder model of participation and responsibility) and presents them as the further evolutionary path for IIL.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on excerpts from this author's book by the same title: J. Kulesza, International Internet Law (Routledge 2012), translated by: Magdalena Arent and Wojciech Wołoszyk, IURIDICO – Legal Consultancy & Translations, funded by Foundation for Polish Science.
Notes
1 See generally B. van Schewick, Internet Architecture and Innovation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).
2 The ‘physical layer’ is the very core of the network, that covers computers and wires that connect them. The ‘code layer’ consists of all the software that allows network computers to interact. The outer ‘content layer’ is being transmitted over the cables as a result of the interoperability of software. See e.g. Y. Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 392 ff.; L. Lessig, Code: Version 2.0 (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 144, but see also 368, footnote 10, where a fourth – ‘application layer’ – is mentioned.
3 Effective rule over the Internet would require efficient control exercised over all three layers simultaneously on a universal level. No state or organization owns sufficient technological and political power to achieve such an objective.
4 See generally Lessig, Code: Version 2.0, 1–30.
5 In accordance with the principle of multistakeholderism, discussed in detail below, see para. 2.1.
6 Although as R.H. Weber rightly mentions: ‘Already in the seventies of the last century, a group of block-free countries discussed the idea of a ‘New World Information Order’ (NWIO) … At the same time, the Soviet Union proposed to release a ‘Mass Media Declaration’ under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)'. R.H. Weber, Shaping Internet Governance, Regulatory Challenges (Berlin: Springer, 2010), 25.
7 For the detailed analysis of the process see e.g. J. Malcolm, Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum (Perth: Terminus Press, 2008), 322 ff.
8 WSIS, Declaration of Principles; Building the Information Society: A Global Challenge in the New Millennium, (Document WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E 2003), http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (accessed December 17, 2010); see also WSIS, Plan of Action (Document WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/5-E 2003), http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html (accessed December 17, 2010).
9 WSIS, Declaration of Principles, pt. 50.
10 Ibid.; the WGIG was to be set up ‘in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005’. But see hereinbelow, footnote 46.
11 Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (2005), http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf (accessed December 17, 2010).
12 Ibid., pt. 10, p. 4.
13 See ibid., chap. 3, p. 5 ff. The catalogue, initially drafted by the WGIG, with time turned into the basis of international IG debate.
14 Ibid., s. V.A.1, pt. 40 and pt. 43. The Group proposed for the forum to be ‘linked to the United Nations’ (pt. 44) and ‘be open to all stakeholders from all countries’ (pt. 46).
15 Report of the Tunis Phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS Tunis Agenda) (WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/9(Rev.1)-E WSIS Executive Secretariat, 2006), http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.doc (accessed December 17, 2010), pt. 72, p. 17.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., pts. 73–4.
18 Ibid., pt. 73. This WSIS document also incorporated the WGIG definition of IG (p. 12, pt. 34) as well as an elaboration on the WGIG list of key IG issues, including explicitly: Critical Internet Resources (CIRs) management, freedom of Internet access (pt. B3 Access to information and knowledge), network security (pt. B5 Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs), cultural and linguistic diversity (pt. B8 Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content), the role of ethics in international Internet Governance (pt. B10 Ethical dimensions of the information society) as well as the need for international and regional cooperation (pt. B11).
19 E.g. D. Cogburn, ‘The US Role in Running the Net’, BBC, November 14, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4435352.stm (accessed December 20, 2010); M. Geist, ‘Analysis: Net Control Debate Rumbles On’, BBC,, November 17, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4446242.stm (accessed December 20, 2010); J. Twist, ‘Controversy Blights UN Net Summit’, BBC, November 18, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm (accessed December 20, 2010).
20 WSIS Tunis Agenda, pt. 77.
21 For the appraisal of the IGF compromise see e.g. K.M. Rogers, ‘Internet Governance: The United States won the battle, but will the Internet win the war?’, Hertfordshire Law Journal 4, no. 1 (2006): 26–35; V. Mayer-Schönberger and M. Ziewitz, ‘Jefferson Rebuffed: The United States and the Future of Internet Governance’, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 8, no. 188 (2007): 184 ff. On the genesis and structure of IGF see generally Malcolm, Multi-Stakeholder Governance, 321–55.
22 The Council of Europe, Internet Engineering Task Force, International Telecommunications Union or United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, to mention just a few.
23 On the determining role of principles for the formation of international law see R. Uerpman-Wittzack, ‘Principles of International Internet Law’, German Law Journal 11, no. 1 (2010): 1245–7.
24 But see M.S. McDougal, ‘International Law, Power and Policy: A Contemporary Conception’, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 82, no. 144 (1953-I): 137 (questioning the actual distinction between law and policy); U. Fastenrath, ‘Relative Normativity in International Law’, European Journal of International Law 4, no. 305 (1993), p. 305–340 (emphasizing the role of soft law as the key instrument of political impact).
25 As K. Wolfke wrote in 1976 ‘The earth, though one closely interrelated ecosystem, is still politically divided into over 140 sovereign States, on whose consent and active participation the carrying out of the necessary preventive measures depends. Consequently, international law is the only available legal tool for the regulation and, if necessary, enforcement action at the transnational level’; K. Wolfke, ‘Some Reflections on International Environmental Law-Making and Enforcement’, Polish Yearbook of International Law VIII (1976): 33. Today this very same statement is still true, when it comes to regulating the transnational cyberspace.
26 See para. 3.2. below.
27 V. Cerf proposed creating a ‘cyber fire-department’ (Legal aspects of Internet governance: International cooperation on cyber-security (Session 123, IGF 2010, Vilnius, Lithuania, September 15, 2010, transcript), http://www.afilias.info/webfm_send/138 (accessed December 15, 2010), 2.
28 Including the aforementioned WSIS and WGIG documents, numerous UN GA Resolutions and some fundamental EU documents.
29 Including CoE Convention on Cybercrime (2001, ETS No. 185), WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT; 1996), WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT; 1996) (‘WIPO Internet treaties’). Other important IIL documents include e.g. Model Law on Electronic Commerce, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1997, UN Doc. A/RES/51/162, UNESCO Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage, adopted at the 32nd session of the General Conference of UNESCO, October 17, 2003 or the London Action Plan on International Spam Enforcement Cooperation (concluded on October 11, 2004 by governments and public agencies from 27 countries).
30 E.g. Uerpman-Wittzack, ‘Principles of International Internet Law’; see also the same author's ‘Internetvolkerrecht’, Archiv des Volkerrechts 47, no. 26 (2009): 263–74; S. Hoffer, World Cyberspace Law (New York: Juris Publishing, Inc., 1998); A. Segura-Serrano, Internet Regulation: A Hard-Law Proposal, 10/06 The Jean Monnet Working Papers (2006), http://ideas.repec.org/p/erp/jeanmo/p0183.html (accessed December 25, 2010); see also the same author's: ‘Internet Regulation and the Role of International Law’, in 10 Max Planck Yearbook of United National Law 2006, ed. A. von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2006), 191–272; J. Kurbalija, ‘Internet Governance and International Law’, in Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), ed. W.J. Drake (New York: United Nations Publications, 2005), 105–16. See generally U. Kohl, Jurisdiction and the Internet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Malcolm, Multi-Stakeholder Governance, 98–175 and 144 ff.; Weber, Shaping Internet Governance, 10–16.
31 Its shape in reference to human rights protection on-line is being developed by the ground-breaking judicial decisions of the ECHR. See Uerpman-Wittzack, ‘Principles of International Internet Law’, 1249–53.
32 In particular when it comes to protecting privacy on-line, see para. 3.1 below; and ISP defamation liability: E.M. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 463 ff.
33 See generally J.K. Winn, Consumer Protection in the Age of the Information Economy (Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2006).
34 See K. Komaitis, The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: Domain Names as Second Class Citizens in a Mark-Dominated World (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010) (proposing a sui generis domain name right).
35 E.g. within the ambit of administrative law falls the use of frequencies allocated by the ITU for ‘Industrial, Scientific and Medical purposes’ of the RFID bands designed for medical purposes (‘ISM bands’), such as monitoring a patient's blood pressure and recording the data with a particular medical clinic supervising the treatment. As emphasized by R.H. Weber, such use of RFIDs requires a global harmonization of telecommunications policies; see: R.H. Weber and R. Weber, Internet of Things: Legal Perspectives (Berlin: Springer, 2010), 97.
36 See Basel Committee, Electronic Banking Group Initiatives and White Papers (Basel, 2000), http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs76.htm (accessed December 10, 2010); Basel Committee, Risk Management Principles for Electronic Banking (Basel, 2003), http://www.mobilemoneyexchange.org/Files/86801b83 (accessed December 10, 2010); M. Brindle, R. Cox and R. Coleman, Law of Bank Payments (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004), 255 ff.
37 See para. 2.5 below.
38 Just to mention the recent work of the CoE and other initiatives described in detail in para. 4.
39 WSIS Tunis Agenda, pt. 72.
40 Thus far a similar mechanism has been introduced to international law only once, and not in such a broad capacity – within the 2002 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, however, it remain a solely soft-law document. Therefore IG puts the principle of multistakeholderism in a completely new light.
41 This aspect of multistakeholderism was emphasized by the WSIS in pt. 31 (Part A) of the WSIS Tunis Agenda.
42 Discussed in more detail further in the following paragraph.
43 See ‘Composition of the Working Group on Internet Governance agreed’, UNCTAD website 2010, http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 (accessed December 17, 2010).
44 E.g. M. Mueller, ‘The UN Sticks its Head in the Sand’, Internet Governance Project, December 12, 2010,: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/12/12/4702148.html (accessed December 15, 2010). The wave of criticism culminated in an open letter initiated by the Internet Society calling on the CSTD to reverse its decision: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/files/2010/12/IGF-Working-Group-Decision1.pdf (accessed December 25, 2010). The addressee of the letter, F. Riehl, Vice Chair of the CSTD, explained in response that the Working Group formation process was not yet finished and the Group will eventually meet the multistakeholderism criteria, see F. Riehl, ‘Tentative Road Map of Activities of the CSTD Working Group on IGF’, CSTD website 2010, http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d02_en.pdf (accessed December 10, 2010).
45 ECOSOC resolution 2010/2 on the ‘Assessment of the progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society’.
46 See e.g. C.B. Graber, ‘The New UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity: A Counterbalance to the WTO?’, Journal of International Economic Law 9, no. 3 (2006): 553–74; M. Hahn, ‘A Clash of Cultures? The UNESCO Diversity Convention and International Trade Law’, Journal of International Economic Law 9, no. 3 (2006): 515–52.
47 According to statistics, English still is the most popular language of the Net (with 27.3% of Internet users acknowledging it as their first language); however the number of Chinese-speaking Internauts has risen almost 13 times over the last decade, with presently 22.6% Internet users recognizing Chinese as their mother-tongue. The third most popular Internet language is Spanish; however Spanish speakers constitute only 7.8% of all Internet users: Miniwatts Marketing Group, Internet World Stats (last updated July 30, 2010), http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed December 17, 2010).
48 WSIS, Plan of Action, para. C8, pt. 23, WSIS, Declaration of Principles, para. B8, pt. 52–4 are both entitled ‘Cultural Diversity and Identity, Linguistic Diversity and Local Content’. The latter document also includes ‘promoting cultural diversity’ as an explicit principle for IG in its pt. 19 entitled ‘An Information Society for All: Key Principles’. The obligation to foster and respect cultural diversity is also reaffirmed in pt. 9 of the WSIS Tunis Agenda; while its pt. C8, p. 26 delegates the competence on preserving cultural diversity on-line directly to UNESCO.
49 See e.g. X. Hue, ‘Diversity: Achieving an Internet that is Really for All’, in Internet Governance: Creating Opportunities for All, ed. W.J. Drake (New York: United Nations, 2010), 25–33; J. Kurbalija, An Introduction to Internet Governance (Msida: Diplo Foundation, 2010), 144–6; K. Cheon, ‘Multilingualism and the Domain Name System’, in Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), ed. W.J. Drake (New York: United Nations Publications, 2005), 67–72; M.C. Kettemann, ‘E-Inclusion as a Means to Bridge the Digital Divides: Conceptual Issues and International Approaches’, in Internet Governance and the Information Society: Global Perspectives and European Dimensions, ed. W. Benedek, V. Bauer and M. Kettemann (Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing, 2008), 51–63.
50 An Internet communication protocol that allows on-line computers to convert human readable domain names into sequences of numbers associated with particular websites (their hosts' IP addresses).
51 Internationalized domain names; a technical standard that allows the domain names to be entered and presented in all language-specific scripts, other than English (Chinese, Greek, Arabic, Cyrillic etc.). See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/, accessed September 7th, 2012.
52 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Californian non-profit corporation in charge of the DNS Root.
53 Particularly the 2005 decision to grant the .cat gTLD to the culture of the Spanish region of Catalonia; see P. Gerrand, ‘A Short History of the Catalan Campaign to Win the .cat Internet Domain, with Implications for Other Minority Languages’, Digithum 8 (2006), http://www.uoc.edu/digithum/8/dt/eng/gerrand.pdf (accessed December 17, 2010).
54 The .gay initiative website, explaining the background of the campaign and its history, http://www.dotgay.com/index.html (accessed December 17, 2010).
55 The current decision-making process at ICANN on the selection of new gTLDs recognizes ‘national, cultural, geographic and religious sensitivities’ as grounds for denying the registration of a new gTLD. This standard is strongly opposed by civil society, which claims there is no universal standard for ‘morality and public order’ that allows the limits of cultural identity protection to be decided upon. See: U. Gasser, H. Burkert, J. Palfrey and J. Zittrain, ‘Accountability and Transparency at ICANN: An Independent Review’, Harvard University, 2010, https://icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-review-berkmanfinal-report-20oct10-en.pdf (accessed December 17, 2010).
56 The United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force (UN ICT TF) is a multistakeholder initiative ‘to lend a global dimension to the efforts previously made to bridge the global digital divide and to advance digital opportunity for all’; UN ICT TF webpage, http://www.unicttaskforce.org/ (accessed December 20, 2010). The United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force was created in November 2001 by the United Nations Secretary, General Kofi Annan, as requested by the Economic and Social Council. See generally M. Hilbert, ‘The Manifold Definitions of the Digital Divide and their Diverse Implications for Policy Responsibility, USC, UN-ECLAC): 38th Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy’, Arlington, 2010, http://www.tprcweb.com/images/stories/2010%20papers/Hilbert%20manifold%20Digital%20Divide.pdf (accessed December 20, 2010).
57 WSIS Tunis Agenda, pt. 90 n; WSIS, Declaration of Principles, para. B3), pts. 24–8, p. 4; WSIS, Plan of Action, para. C2, pt. 9, pp. 3–4 and the constitution of the Digital Solidarity Fund, para. D2, p. 13.
58 Explicitly in Finland (Communications Market Act 393/2003 and the Decree of the Ministry of Transport and Communications on the minimum rate of a functional Internet access as a universal service 732/2009) and Estonia (Public Information Act of 2000); see generally I.A.M. Hartmann, ‘Universal Access Policies and Internet Access as a Fundamental Right: The Constitutional Law Perspective Informed by the Brazilian Case’, Fifth GigaNet Annual Symposium, September 13, 2010, Vilnius, Lithuania, on file with author. See also the decision of the French Constitutional Council from 10 June 2009 (Décision n° 2009-580 DC du 10 juin 2009; Loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur internet), where it decided that the right of each individual to connect to the Internet incorporates the personal freedom of communication and expression (in the context of the Loi HADOPI sanction, providing a ban on Internet access to copyright infringers).
59 Internet filtering is performed even by states explicitly granting the right to Internet access in their legal systems; e.g. Finland allows for voluntary ISP filtering of child pornography; see FINLEX Laki lapsipornografian levittämisen estotoimista, December 1, 2006/1068.
60 For a global overview of Internet filtering see R. Deibert, J. Palfrey, R. Rohozinski and J. Zittrain, eds., Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008).
61 See: J. McNamee, ‘ENDitorial: Internet Blocking in Ten Weeks and Counting, European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI)’, EDRi-gram 8, no. 18 (November 22, 2010, http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.18/10-weeks-until-internet-blocking (accessed December 20, 2010); see generally M.L. Mueller, Networks and States; The Global Politics of Internet Governance (Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2010), 185 ff.
62 See e.g. Article 3(2) of the Council Decision 2007/125/JHA of February 12, 2007, establishing a specific programme, Prevention of and Fight against Crime, as part of the general programme of Security and Safeguarding Liberties.
63 See the so-called ‘Clinton Doctrine’, according to which the US will aid all those residents in the ‘filtering countries’ who wish to circumvent the filtering software: D. Gross, ‘Aide: Clinton Will Address China in Internet Freedom Speech’, CNN, January 21, 2010, http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/constitutional-law-freedom-speech/13752059-1.html (accessed December 21, 2010); S. Gorman, ‘Web Access is New Clinton Doctrine’, Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703405704575015461404882830.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g12:r2:c0.27837:b29953750 (accessed December 21, 2010); see generally B. Haselton, ‘List of Possible Weaknesses in Systems to Circumvent Internet Censorship’ (2002), http://www.peacefire.org/circumventor/list-ofpossible-weaknesses.html (accessed December 21, 2010).
64 See R. Deibert, J. Palfrey, R. Rohozinski and J. Zittrain, eds., Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 108 ff.; see generally J. Zittrain and B. Edelman, ‘Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in China’, Harvard Law School, Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Cambridge, MA, 2002), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?&arnumber=1189191 (accessed December 21, 2010).
65 See e.g. O. Cavalli, ‘Openness: Protecting Internet Freedoms’, in Internet Governance: Creating Opportunities for All, ed. W.J. Drake (New York: United Nations, 2010), 15–25; J. Kurbalija, An Introduction to Internet Governance (Msida: Diplo Foundation, 2010), 133–5.
66 Presently the universal human rights catalogue may be defined according to the nonbinding 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous documents following it, deriving richly from its idea (including the two 1966 binding UN human rights covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). The principles of the Declaration are included in numerous international treaties (e.g. the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture). There also exist numerous regional human rights conventions and national human rights standards, varying greatly for example when it comes to the limits of freedom of speech or privacy protection. Because of the global character of the cyberspace, all of those different national approaches are now simultaneously working in a uniform environment. See generally R.F. Jorgensen, ed., Human Rights in the Global Information Society (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2006).
67 Promoting genocide or other forms of hate-speech might be categorized as falling within the scope of freedom of speech rather than actually directly influencing those rights.
68 This list would also include most of the human rights known and protected today, including the right to a fair trial (in respect of ISP liability and personal data protection see e.g. K.U. v. Finland, ECHR, December 2, 2008, Application 2827/02, para. 43) or the right to property (especially in the aspect of domain name rights; see e.g. Paeffgen GmbH v. Germany, ECHR, September 18, 2007, Application 25379/04, 21688/05, 21722/05 and 21770/05). In the light of recent news this list could even include the right to marry; see L. Katayama, ‘Love in 2-D’, New York Times, July 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-2DLove-t.html (accessed December 26, 2010).
69 Literally expressed in the constitution of Costa Rica: Republic of Costa Rica Constitution from 1949, Article 24 bis.
70 See supra 59.
71 See generally J. Turley, ‘Registering Publius: The Supreme Court and the Right to Anonymity’, Cato Supreme Court Review, Washington, DC (2001–02): 57–83. In the context of press law and ‘new media’, see Financial Times Ltd. and others v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, December 15, 2009, application no. 821/03.
72 EU Press Release, ‘Viviane Reding Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Building Trust in Europe's Online Single Market Speech at the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU Brussels’, SPEECH/10/327, June 22, 2010, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/327 (accessed December 20, 2010).
73 W. Kleinwächter describes the fourth generation of human rights as including the human right to communicate, see Journal of International Communication 5, no. 1–2 (1998): 119.
74 2007 cyber-attacks on Estonia (see S.J. Shackelford, ‘From Nuclear War To Net War: Analogizing Cyber Attacks In International Law’, Stanford University, 2008, http://works.bepress.com/context/scott_shackelford/article/1004/type/ native/viewcontent (accessed December 20, 2010)), or the 2010 ‘Stuxnet’ worm designed to dismantle Iranian nuclear power plants (see e.g. J. Markoff, ‘A Silent Attack, but Not a Subtle One’, New York Times, September 26, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/technology/27virus.html (accessed December 15, 2010)). See generally D. Delibasis, The Right to National Self-defense: In Information Warfare Operations (Arena Books, Bury St Edmunds, 2007); see also the same author's ‘State Use of Force in Cyberspace for Self-Defence: A New Challenge for a New Century’, Peace Conflict and Development: An Interdisciplinary Journal 8 (2006): 13 ff.
75 WSIS, Declaration of Principles, para. B5, pts. 35–7, p. 5; WSIS 2003 Action Plan, 2003 para. C5, pt. 12, p. 6, WSIS Tunis Agenda, e.g. pt. 42, p. 13 (emphasizing the importance of appropriate commeasure of means used for protecting security and human rights); pt. 45, p.14; pt. 57, p. 15; pts. 58 and 68, p. 16 and Annex 1, pt. C5), p. 26 (assigning ITU as the unit responsible for coordinating international measures on IT security).
76 See e.g. A. Pisanty, ‘Security: The Key to Trust and Growth of the Internet’, in Internet Governance: Creating Opportunities for All, ed. W.J. Drake (New York: United Nations, 2010), 46–56; ‘Legal Aspects of Internet Governance: International Cooperation on Cyber-security’, transcript of the session 123, IGF 2010, Vilnius, Lithuania, September 15, 2010, http://www.afilias.info/webfm_send/138 (accessed December 15, 2010).
77 See J. Kulesza, ‘State Responsibility for Cyberattacks on International Peace and Security’, Polish Yearbook of International Law XXIX (2009): 139–52.
78 See e.g. F.D. Kramer, S.H. Starr and L. Wentz, Cyberpower and National Security (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books Inc., 2009), 642; M.N. Schmitt, ‘The Principle of Discrimination in 21 Century Warfare’, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 2 (1999): 143 ff., see generally W.G. Sharp, CyberSpace and the Use of Force (Falls Church, VA: Aegis Research Corporation, 1999).
79 See e.g. N. Harvey, ‘Cyber Warfare: Addressing the Challenge’, Chatham House session transcript, November 9, 2010, http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/17800_091110harvey.pdf (accessed December 25, 2010), 6, where N. Harvey, UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces said: ‘the first thing we should recognise is that actions in cyberspace form part of the future battlefield’.
80 P. Cornish et al., On Cyber Warfare A Chatham House Report, A Chatham House Report, November 2010.
81 See e.g. Schmitt, ‘The Principle of Discrimination in 21 Century Warfare’, 143 ff.; see also the same authors' ‘Computer Network Attack: The Normative Software’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 4 (2001): 53–85.
82 See e.g. Sharp, CyberSpace and the Use of Force, 95 and 129.
83 ‘Interim Report of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet to the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services, incorporating analysis of proposals for international and multi-stakeholder cooperation on cross-border Internet’, Strasbourg, December 2010, on file with author, p. 20.
84 See pt. 60.
85 See p. 26 ff.
86 Pt. A.5., p. 26.
87 See p. 24, pt. 72.
88 See pt. 86.
89 See pt. 87.
90 See: Internet Governance and Critical Internet Resources, report prepared by the Council of Europe Secretariat Media and Information Society Division, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2009, 9 ff.; Mueller, Networks and States, 215 ff. See generally S.D. Personick and C.A. Patterson, eds., Critical Information Infrastructure Protection and the Law: An Overview of Key Issues, Washington, DC: Committee on Critical Information Infrastructure Protection and the Law, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, 2003).
91 Root-server attacks have been attempted, but so far with little success; see e.g. ICANN, ‘DNS Attack Factsheet 1.1’, ICANN, March 8, 2007, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08mar07.htm (accessed December 25, 2010).
92 See Internet Governance and Critical Internet Resources, 24 ff; A. Segura-Serrano, ‘Internet Regulation: A Hard-Law Proposal’, The Jean Monnet Working Papers, 10 Jean Monnet Papers 2006, 48.
93 See Internet Governance and Critical Internet Resources, 23; Segura-Serrano, ‘Internet Regulation: A Hard-Law Proposal’, 48; Interim Report of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet, 20 ff.
94 See e.g. A. Segura-Serrano, ‘Internet Regulation and the Role of International Law’, in 10 Max Planck Yearbook of United National Law 2006, ed. A. von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2006), 264 ff.
95 See generally S. Gutwirth, Data Protection in a Profiled World (Berlin: Springer, 2010).
96 Including media convergence and applying legal regulations of conventional media (television, press) to the Internet. See e.g. ‘Meeting report’, Committee of Experts on New Media (MC-NM), Council of Europe, Strasbourg: 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-NM/MC-NM%282010%29006_en%20FIN%20Report%202nd%20meeting.asp#TopOfPage (accessed December 20, 2010).
97 See Weber and Weber, Internet of Things, 41 ff.
98 See generally, House of Lords Select Committee, Surveillance: Citizens and the State (London: The Stationery Office, 2009), 130.
99 There are various international accords on the data protection issue; however the universal status of personal data is not uniform; see generally Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Privacy Online:
OECD Guidance on Policy and Practice (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2003), 390; C.J. Bennett, Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States (New York: Cornell University Press, 1992); D.L. Baumer, J.B. Earp and J.C. Poindexter, ‘Internet Privacy Law: A Comparison between the United States and the European Union’, Computers and Security 5, no. 23 (2004): 400–412 (discussing the EU data protection regime and the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003; OPPA).
100 See generally M. Bezzi, ed., Privacy and Identity Management for Life: 5th Primelife International Summer School, Nice, September 7–11, 2009, Revised Selected Papers (Berlin: Springer, 2010); M. Petković and W. Jonker, eds., Security, Privacy and Trust in Modern Data Management (Berlin: Springer, 2007).
102 On the results of such efforts see: Global Network Initiative, ‘Inaugural Report Our Work. Our Vision. Our Progress’, GNI, 2010, http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_annual_report_2010.pdf (accessed December 25, 2010); on self-regulation and the role of ethics in IG see generally J.L. Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It (Cambridge, MA: Yale University Press, 2008); L. Lessig, The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Vintage Books, 2002).
103 Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osobowych (General Personal Data Protection Inspector).
104 See ‘Facebook poza polska˛ jurysdykcja˛: nie moz˙na go ani pozwać, ani skontrolować’ (Facebook outside Polish jurisdiction: cannot be sued or controlled), PAP/Gazeta Prawna, November 19, 2010, http://prawo.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/466155,facebook_poza_polska_jurysdykcja_nie_mozna_go_ani_pozwac_ani_skontrolowac.html (accessed December 25, 2010).
105 Discussed in detail in Kohl, Jurisdiction and the Internet; on e-commerce transactions see generally F.F. Wang, Internet Jurisdiction and Choice of Law: Legal Practices in the EU, US and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); see generally D.G. Post, International Internet Law, UOPblog, Oxford University Press, February 25, 2009, http://blog.oup.com/2009/02/internet_law/ (accessed December 10, 2010); see also the same author's In Search of Jefferson's Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
106 The Restatement of the Law; The Foreign Relations Law of the United States in para. 402 mentions: 1) territorial jurisdiction, 2) effective jurisdiction, 3) personal jurisdiction, including 4) passive personal jurisdiction, 5) protective jurisdiction and 6) universal jurisdiction.
107 Such would be the result of exercising an effective jurisdictional principle over actions performed through the Internet – their originator might be subject to the jurisdiction of any state, where their content would be available and ascertained to be unlawful. The ‘dual criminal liability’ rule would usually help avoid criminal punishment; however it would not be applicable to any crimes under the ‘protective jurisdiction’ principle. This principle would also not protect the user from civil liability (see the recent case of the Waledac botnet and the February 2010 default preliminary injunction against Chinese defendants: Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1—27, sign. 1_10CV156 (LMBIJFA); see R. McMillan, ‘Update: Court Order Helps Microsoft Tear Down Waledac Spam Botnet’, InfoWorld, February 25, 2010, http://www.infoworld.com/t/malware/court-order-helps-microsoft-tear-down-waledac-botnet-930 (accessed December 20, 2010).
108 Presented in August 2000 by the Hoover Institution, the Consortium for Research on Information Security and Policy (CRISP), the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and Stanford University, http://www.iwar.org.uk/law/resources/cybercrime/stanford/cisac-draft.htm (accessed December 20, 2010).
109 See CoE Convention on Cybercrime (2001, ETS No. 185), Article 22.
110 Particularly in para. 4 the sequence put in much detail.
111 But see Uerpman-Wittzack, ‘Principles of International Internet Law’, 1253–8 (proposing basing the jurisdictional regime in cyberspace on territorial jurisdiction based on ccTLDs). On arguments against applying territorial jurisdiction to the cyberspace see J. Kulesza, ‘Internet Governance and the Jurisdiction of States; Justification of the Need For an International Regulation of Cyberspace’, ICFAI Journal of Cyber Law (Hyderabad) 3–4, no. VIII (2009): 34–48.
112 Article 29, para. 5, pt. B, that allows a state when requested to render legal aid in the case of cybercrime prevention or persecution to deny it if: ‘the requested Party considers that execution of the request is likely to prejudice its sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests’.
113 Including regional IGF initiatives (Asia Pacific Regional IGF (APrIGF), Caribbean Internet Governance Forum, Central Africa IGF, Commonwealth IGF, East Africa IGF (EAIGF), European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDig), Latin America and Caribbean IGF, West Africa IGF) and twelve national IGF initiatives. For their full list see http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/regional-igfs (accessed December 25, 2010).
114 J. Malcolm, ‘Appraising the Success of the Internet Governance Forum’, Internet Governance Project, November 21, 2008, Paper IGP08-003, http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf (accessed December 25, 2010).
115 CoE sub-groups on new media, covering such issues as: new media, public service media governance, cross-border Internet, protection neighbouring rights of broadcasting organizations, information society, media diversity, public service media, CoE new media website, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/ (accessed December 25, 2010).
116 V. Reding, ‘The Future of Internet Governance: Towards an Accountable ICANN’; Commissioner Reding's Weekly Videomessage Theme, May 4, 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/text/message_20090504.pdf (accessed December 25, 2010).
117 Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, September 30, 2009, http://www.icann.org/en/affirmation.htm (accessed December 25, 2010) (with respect to the GAC competence).
118 See e.g. J. Mathiason, ‘A Framework Convention: An Institutional Option for Internet Governance’, Internet Governance Project Paper IG P04-002, 2004, http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/igp-fc.pdf (accessed December 25, 2010); Segura-Serrano, ‘Internet Regulation and the Role of International Law’.
119 Including key principles of state responsibility for cyber-attacks, with reference to the existing international cybercrime and counter-terrorism agreements; sequence of jurisdictional principles applicable to actions performed over the Internet, preferably with reference to existing e-commerce and international private law standards; reference to existing (both hard and soft-law) tools for international protection of privacy and application of human rights on-line.
120 Not adhering to the ethical industry standards might result in losing customers and eventually in economic loss.