Application of American Jurisdictional Rules in the Context of the Internet
(2002)Department of Law
- Abstract
- Private international law, or conflict of laws as it is usually referred to in the U.S., is an historically old body of law. As long as cross-border trade has been practiced, disputes have arisen which needed their ordering and resolution. The traditional jurisdictional doctrine was based on territoriality, i.e. the serving of a suit upon the person of the defendant while he was physically present within the forum state. Over the course of the 20th century, especially the latter half, the way interstate business was conducted saw dramatic changes which in turn compelled corresponding changes in the traditional jurisdictional doctrine. Enter the Internet, a public international network of networks whose impact on society and cross-border... (More)
- Private international law, or conflict of laws as it is usually referred to in the U.S., is an historically old body of law. As long as cross-border trade has been practiced, disputes have arisen which needed their ordering and resolution. The traditional jurisdictional doctrine was based on territoriality, i.e. the serving of a suit upon the person of the defendant while he was physically present within the forum state. Over the course of the 20th century, especially the latter half, the way interstate business was conducted saw dramatic changes which in turn compelled corresponding changes in the traditional jurisdictional doctrine. Enter the Internet, a public international network of networks whose impact on society and cross-border business patterns is orders of magnitude greater than anything coming before it. However, as courts tried to master this changed situation, it soon became apparent that this time a change in jurisdictional doctrine was not so easily accomplished. Existing jurisdictional rules and principles were premised on geography and physical location, and were seemingly impossible to meaningfully interpret and apply in a fair and just manner to the virtual and ''borderless'' Internet medium. Courts have struggled since. In this thesis I examine U.S. Internet jurisdiction case law with the ultimate goal of concluding whether or not courts in the U.S. are in fact managing a change in the jurisdictional doctrine, and whether or not this change is bringing about workable standards for determining personal jurisdiction in the Internet context. I conclude that the legal reasoning of the courts suggests that they are increasingly revisiting traditional jurisdictional rules and principles in seeking to accomplish fair and just results in Internet jurisdiction cases. In connection with this, two approaches, the targeting-based approach and the effects-based approach, are concurrently emerging as jurisdictional standards at the expense of the long-prevalent Zippo approach. These standards are no panacea, although they do more effectively deal with the problems and challenges of Internet jurisdiction and bring greater clarity to this opaque area of the law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1562948
- author
- Wennerberg Andersson, Fredrik
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2002
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Internationell privaträtt
- language
- English
- id
- 1562948
- date added to LUP
- 2010-03-08 15:55:30
- date last changed
- 2010-03-08 15:55:30
@misc{1562948,
abstract = {{Private international law, or conflict of laws as it is usually referred to in the U.S., is an historically old body of law. As long as cross-border trade has been practiced, disputes have arisen which needed their ordering and resolution. The traditional jurisdictional doctrine was based on territoriality, i.e. the serving of a suit upon the person of the defendant while he was physically present within the forum state. Over the course of the 20th century, especially the latter half, the way interstate business was conducted saw dramatic changes which in turn compelled corresponding changes in the traditional jurisdictional doctrine. Enter the Internet, a public international network of networks whose impact on society and cross-border business patterns is orders of magnitude greater than anything coming before it. However, as courts tried to master this changed situation, it soon became apparent that this time a change in jurisdictional doctrine was not so easily accomplished. Existing jurisdictional rules and principles were premised on geography and physical location, and were seemingly impossible to meaningfully interpret and apply in a fair and just manner to the virtual and ''borderless'' Internet medium. Courts have struggled since. In this thesis I examine U.S. Internet jurisdiction case law with the ultimate goal of concluding whether or not courts in the U.S. are in fact managing a change in the jurisdictional doctrine, and whether or not this change is bringing about workable standards for determining personal jurisdiction in the Internet context. I conclude that the legal reasoning of the courts suggests that they are increasingly revisiting traditional jurisdictional rules and principles in seeking to accomplish fair and just results in Internet jurisdiction cases. In connection with this, two approaches, the targeting-based approach and the effects-based approach, are concurrently emerging as jurisdictional standards at the expense of the long-prevalent Zippo approach. These standards are no panacea, although they do more effectively deal with the problems and challenges of Internet jurisdiction and bring greater clarity to this opaque area of the law.}},
author = {{Wennerberg Andersson, Fredrik}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Application of American Jurisdictional Rules in the Context of the Internet}},
year = {{2002}},
}