‘Customary internet-ional law’: Creating a body of customary law for cyberspace. Part 2: Applying custom as law to the Internet infrastructure

The shift in socio-economic transactions from real space to cyberspace through the emergence of electronic communications and digital formats has led to a disjuncture between the law and practices relating to electronic transactions. The speed at which information technology has developed require a faster, more reactive and automatic response from the law that is not currently met by the existing law-making framework. This paper suggests the development of special rules to enable Internet custom to form legal norms to fulfill this objective. In Part 2 of this article, I will construct the customary rules to Internet law-making that are applicable to electronic transactions by adapting customary international law rules; apply the suggested rules for determining customary Internet norms and identify some existing practices that may amount to established norms on the Internet, specifically practices relating to the Internet Infrastructure and Electronic Contracting.     

The European Court of Justice in Bolagsupplysningen: The Brussels I Recast Regulation's jurisdictional rules for online infringement of personality rights further clarified

In the European Union the Brussels Ibis Regulation governs the jurisdiction of Member State courts in civil and commercial matters. The reference for a preliminary ruling coming from the Estonian Supreme Court in the Bolagsupplysningen case offered the European Court of Justice another opportunity to develop its interpretation of the special ground for non-contractual obligations (article 7.2). The European Court of Justice's Grand Chamber ruled that legal persons, like natural persons, have the option of bringing a claim based on the infringement of personality rights by an online publication before the courts of the Member State where their centre of interests is located. It laid down that the centre of interests of a legal person pursuing an economic activity is determined by reference to the place where the company carries out the main part of its economic activities. The victim of a tortious internet publication can only seek an order for rectification and removal of the incorrect information in the courts that have jurisdiction over the entirety of the harm sustained and not before the courts that only enjoy jurisdiction with regard to the damage suffered in their territory.