Cybercrime jurisdiction

The principles that govern a sovereign’s exercise of jurisdiction to prohibit conduct and to sanction those who violate such prohibitions are well-established as to conduct occurring in the real, physical world. These principles evolved over the last several millennia, as law increased in sophistication and life became more complex. Real-world crime is, almost exclusively, a local phenomenon; the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) are all physically present at a specific geographical point when a crime is committed. The principles that govern the exercise of criminal jurisdiction are therefore predicated on the assumption that “crime” is a territorial phenomenon. Cybercrime makes these principles problematic in varying ways and in varying degrees. Unlike real-world crime, it is not physically grounded; cybercrime increasingly tends not to occur in a single sovereign territory. The perpetrator of a cybercrime may physically be in Country A, while his victim is in Country B, or his victims are in Countries B, C, D and so on. The perpetrator may further complicate matters by routing his attack on the victim in Country B through computers in Countries F and G. The result of these and other cybercrime scenarios is that the cybercrime is not committed “in” the territory of a single sovereign state; instead, “pieces” of the cybercrime occur in territory claimed by several different sovereigns.     

对网络侵权案件的司法管辖权

网络空问的存在及其全球性、管理非中心化的特点,使国际私法中司法管辖权发生动摇,为此,各国都在进行探索,但做法不一,由此在司法实践中引起了一定的混乱.为了探寻新的管辖模式,学者们提出了管辖权相对论、网址来源国法规则、国际礼让原则、最低限度联系原则等不同的观点.针对这种情况,笔者提出了解决网络管辖权争议的几点设想,即充分考虑网站的互动性、限制网络以外的促销或广告、慎选交易对手所居住的地区、尽量利用契约加以约定,注意广告的内容与免责声明等.     

Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction

Documents

Extraterritorial criminal jurisdictionCouncil of Europe, European Committee on Crime Problems     

论仲裁员的管辖权与可仲裁性问题

针对仲裁员的管辖权与可仲裁性这两个容易混淆的问题,结合有关国际公约和各国法律分别进行深入探讨,并对中国当前存在的问题提出了建议.     

香港的海事审判管辖权

根据香港高等法院法令第12条的规定,介绍了香港海事法院的管辖事项的范围、管辖权的行使方式、提出管辖权异议的理由,以及香港海事法院的收费标准等。     

United States' and Australian principles on internet jurisdiction: A case for Australia to consider United States' hegemony on jurisdiction

The United States and Australia have been facing the issue of internet jurisdiction. The United States is an epitome of a country that has considered the challenges posed by the internet to the traditional law. It has developed its own tests to help resolve the issue, which have evolved over time and in comparison with other jurisdictions, and it has been successful. Conversely, the Australian legal system is in a stage of infancy regarding such challenges and has developed its own approach. This paper focuses on the anomalies between the United States' and Australian principles or approaches to internet jurisdiction by analysing and discussing the three leading cases that are benchmarks in the respective jurisdictions. Finding the fundamental difference between the two approaches, the paper elucidates the United States hegemony on internet jurisdiction by comparing the shortcomings of the respective cases. Finally, this paper makes a case for the Australian courts to consider an approach based on the one practised by the United States courts to tackle the ever-evolving issue of internet jurisdiction.     

试论国际刑事管辖权——兼谈对我国的启示

国际刑事管辖权是国家之间确立的对国际犯罪进行缉捕、起诉、审判和惩处的重要管辖体系。本文首先论述了传统的四种国际刑事管辖权,即属地管辖权、属人管辖权、保护性管辖权和普遍管辖权。接着本文阐述了前南国际刑事法庭和卢旺迭国际刑事法庭对国际刑事管辖权的发展,然后,本文分析了《国际刑事法院罗马规约》对国际刑事管辖权的挑战。最后,本文分析了我国的从中引发的相关启示。     

Legal jurisdiction over malware-related crimes: From theories of jurisdiction to solid practical application

As far as malware-related crimes are concerned, extra territorial jurisdiction and the law of extradition need one another to work perfectly, but there has never been a standard universal rule governing them. While Universality Principle can be argued to be the most ideal solution to the problem, it is opposed by the supporters of the notion of self-regulation of the internet, not to mention it lacks the required universal support. Thus the determination of the issues has to be based on the analysis of existing measures of practical applications.     

A rational jurisdiction for cyber terrorism

Cyberspace is a cross-national world that transcends geopolitical national borders. Jurisdiction is the focal point for any dispute arising in the international arena, because it determines which state court has the authority to settle a dispute. The objective of this paper is to analyse territorial and universal jurisdiction principles which can be specifically related to cyberspace to determine which of them is best suited to providing the appropriate jurisdiction in combating cyber terrorism and how conflicts arising between them can be settled. The transnational nature of cyber terrorism offences leads to jurisdictional complexity, thereby investigation and prosecution is difficult. Lack of harmonisation in legislating among countries leads to difficulty in investigation and prosecution of cyber terrorism offences. This paper notes that universal jurisdiction is the most feasible and effective method to deter cyber terrorism.     

网络犯罪刑事管辖权研究

网络空间的全球性、开放性、不确定性和非中心性,使存在于网络空间的网络犯罪对传统的刑事管辖提出了挑战,传统刑事管辖理论似乎难以统领各国网络犯罪管辖实践。对传统刑事管辖理论进行全方位反思,探讨和研究网络犯罪刑事管辖权对理论和实践都具有重要意义。     

公平责任新论

公平责任作为归责原则有自己独立的适用范围,能够弥补过错原则和无过错原则的不足,有其存在的必要性。公平责任与其他归责原则有共同的价值和逻辑起点。公平责任应当以公平为价值目标,以直接的加害行为作为归责基础,而以衡平作为最终确定加害人损害赔偿额的手段。即所谓"公平"是体现在损害赔偿额的确定上,而不是体现在责任成立上。     

我国破产法引入衡平居次原则的思考

衡平居次原则是美国法官在审理子公司破产案件时,对母公司的债权于特定情况下进行劣后处理的法律制度。衡平居次原则充分考虑了控制公司债权的特殊性,规定了债权平等原则的例外,可以有效地防止控制股东在破产程序中滥用控制权侵害债权人利益,具有一定的理论价值和现实意义,我国的破产法律体系应考虑引进衡平居次原则。     

网络名誉权侵权案件管辖权初探

网络是一个虚拟空间,但并不意味着在网上可以为所欲为,不受约束。本文通过对两件网上名誉权侵权案件的剖解,分析了对此类案件管辖问题的法律对策。