Obstacles and Solutions to Internet Jurisdiction a Comparative Analysis of the EU and US Laws

In an era of information technology, businesses, through the use of the boundlessInternet, can enter into International electronic contracts from anywhere in the world. The potentialfor cross-border disputes in electronic contracts is obviously much greater than in a paper-basedenvironment, where a high degree of commercial contracts are domestic in nature. Can thetraditional rules on jurisdiction, which are geographically orientated and generally rely on the placeof performance, apply to the modern electronic contract disputes? This paper will analyse the EUand US approaches for determining jurisdiction in e-contracting cases and discuss the possibility ofproposing specific jurisdiction rules for online contracts

The Continuing Conundrum of International Internet Jurisdiction

International law has long been concerned with resolving issues of international jurisdiction; however, the unique circumstances involved in Internet cases have thrown a wrench in the traditional machinary of international jurisdiction law. Domestic courts continue to struggle with the issue, and the international community has dragged its feet on developing a uniform standard for determining international Internet jurisdiction. Further complicating matters, states often have divergent substantive Internet regulations and policies. This Note discusses and analyzes the leading cases and theories on international Internet jurisdiction and concludes that none of the current proposed solutions alone provide a satisfactory solution. Nevertheless, an international resolution on internet jurisdiction that borrows elements from each of these proposals could be successfully established

Obstacles and Solutions to Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis of the EU and US Laws

In an era of information technology, businesses through the use of the boundless Internet can enter into international electronic contracts from anywhere in the world. The potential for cross-border disputes in electronic contracts is obviously much greater than in a paper-based environment, where a high degree of commercial contracts are domestic in nature. Can the traditional rules on jurisdiction, which are geographically orientated and generally rely on the place of performance, apply to the modern electronic contract disputes? This paper will analyse the EU and US approaches for determining jurisdiction in e-contracting cases and discuss the possibility of proposing specific jurisdiction rules for online contracts

Committee Jurisdiction, Congressional Behavior and Policy Outcomes

The literature on congressional committees has largely overlooked the impact of jurisdictional fights on policy proposals and outcomes. This paper develops a theory of how legislators balance the benefits of expanded committee jurisdiction against preferred policy outcomes. It shows why a) senior members and young members in safe districts are most likely to challenge a committee’s jurisdiction; b) policy proposals may be initiated off the proposer’s ideal point in order to obtain jurisdiction; c) policy outcomes will generally be more moderate with jurisdictional fights than without these turf wars. We empirically investigate these results examining proposed Internet intellectual property protection legislation in the 106th Congress

Personal Jurisdiction Over The Internet: How International Is Today's Shoe

<p align="left"><span style="font-size: small;">With the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web, a novel question of procedural law has taken the legal arena by storm: how do we effectively apply traditional concepts of personal jurisdiction to the seamless world of cyberspace? In a world where politically recognized territorial boundaries will typically lead the discussion into where a party may be haled into court as a result of its activities, the Internet presents us with an anomaly of that traditional principle. Courts are now being launched into the unchartered waters of cyberspace where the traditional concept of personal jurisdiction often finds itself lost at sea. </span></p

Picking Fights in Missouri: Baldwin\u27s Non-Rule Embraces the Minority Approach to Internet Libel Jurisdiction

The competing standards of Internet libel jurisdiction reflect the tensions between the forum state\u27s interest in providing convenient recovery for its injured residents and the defendant\u27s constitutional right to foresee where he might be subject to jurisdiction. In an effort to pursue these two goals as well as integrate modem Internet-related concerns, lower courts have derived numerous divergent tests for Internet libel jurisdiction, leaving the issue in a state of disorder and ambiguity. To analyze this problem, this Note will first survey the historical background of traditional personal jurisdiction principles, with particular emphasis on the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s Calder effects test. Then, this Note will discuss how the lower courts have interpreted and misinterpreted Calder, as they attempt to incorporate Internet-related issues and merge the effects test with other personal jurisdiction standards. Finally, this Note will examine Baldwin\u27s reasoning in light of the competing standards for Internet libel jurisdiction and will recommend what future courts can do to resolve the still-unsettled issues of Internet jurisdiction in Missouri

Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Is a Home Page Enough to Satisfy Minimum Contacts?

This paper reviews the Internet in general and the law concerning personal jurisdiction. Recent federal cases are considered in which Internet home pages have been both successfully and unsuccessfully asserted as a basis for personal jurisdiction. Thereafter, the law in this area is summarized and the various viewpoints on the issue are presented, including opinions posted on the Internet itself. Lastly, this paper summarizes the issue of personal jurisdiction and the Internet and presents some possible recommendations for the Internet user

The Internet, Personal Jurisdiction, and DAOs

Global connectivity is at an all-time high, and sovereign state law has not fully caught up with the technological innovations enabling that connectivity. TCP/IP—the communications protocol allowing computers on different networks to speak with each other—wasn’t adopted by ARPANET and the Defense Data Network until January 1983. That’s only forty years ago. And the World Wide Web wasn’t released to the general public until August 1991, less than thirty-five years ago. The first Bitcoin block was mined on January 3, 2009, less than fifteen years ago. Legal doctrine doesn’t develop that fast, especially in legal systems heavily based around judicial precedent like the United States. The disconnect between the global, instant connectivity that internet-based technology makes possible and traditional legal and State regulatory actors has never been more apparent. In the past year, the United States, through its administrative agencies controlled by the Executive branch, has brought numerous enforcement actions against Web3 and crypto projects. Some of these projects and their members have been based in the United States, and others have, at best, limited connections to the United States’s territorial borders. This Essay calls attention to the way the Internet, and Web3 in particular, has raised constitutional concerns about how United States agencies approach personal jurisdiction. Understanding these constitutional limits is critical for anyone considering forming or participating in a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (“DAO”). Intentional, thoughtful consideration of the issues presented here will ensure that DAOs and their members take on legal obligations in the United States knowingly and responsibly. A corollary is also true: DAOs and their members should fully consider their possible defenses and rights when confronted with the next overreaching enforcement action