Sovereignty in cyberspace: lex lata vel non?

Globalization has not conquered sovereignty. Instead, the notion of sovereignty occupies center stage in discussions concerning the normative architecture of cyberspace. On the diplomatic level, the term is generally cast in its broadest sense, one that signifies freedom from external control and influence. For instance, when western States raise the issue of human rights in cyberspace, those occupying the opposite side of the negotiating table fall back on sovereignty-based arguments. Mention of sovereignty in consensus documents is consequently often the price that liberal democracies pay for recognition of their policy priorities, such as individual freedoms and the availability of self-help measures in response to hostile cyber operations Unfettered by the constraints of political agendas and negotiating tactics, the international law academy has tended to approach the notion from a normatively analytical perspective. For legal scholars, the question of how the principle of sovereignty, as well as its derivate rules, govern cyber activities by and against States has become a dominant topic on the research agenda. This article assesses a recent controversy over whether sovereignty is a primary rule of international law, sets forth the authors’ views on sovereignty violations in cyberspace, and highlights several resultant policy issues

Conflict of laws – The “proper law of a tort” and the Internet

The author looks at changes to English conflict of laws in torts in the context of the continued development of the Internet and the relevance of domestic boundaries, with reference to case law from United States and Europe. Article by Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti published in Amicus Curiae - Journal of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and its Society for Advanced Legal Studies. The Journal is produced by the Society for Advanced Legal Studies at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London

Mending the Imaginary Wall Between Indonesia and Malaysia the Case of Maritime Delimitation in the Waters Off Tanjung Berakit

Due to its geographical location, Indonesia shares border areas with at least ten neighbouring countries with which maritime boundaries must be settled. As of March 2011, Indonesia is yet to finalize its maritime boundaries with various States including Malaysia with which four maritime boundaries need to be settled: the Malacca Strait, the South China Sea, the Sulawesi Sea, and the Singapore Strait (off Tanjung Berakit). It is evident that pending maritime boundaries can spark problems between Indonesia and Malaysia. The dispute over the Ambalat Block in 2005 and 2009 and an incident in the waters off Tanjung Berakit on 13 August 2010 are two significant examples. This paper discusses the incident in the waters off Tanjung Berakit, but will be preceded by a description of the principles of coastal States' maritime entitlement pursuant to International law of the sea. Following the discussion, this paper provides suggestions for settling maritime boundaries in the area from technical/geospatial and legal perspectives

How to draw a line between journalism and propaganda in the information wars era? Case note on the Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 in Case T-262/15 Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev v Council of the European Union. College of Europe Case Notes 02/2018

In recent years, we have been able to observe a shift in the EU’s sanctions policy from broad economic sanctions, affecting the entire population of the country, to more targeted sanctions, directed at individuals connected to problematic political regimes1. Those restrictive measures have immediate effects on the individuals concerned and are, at times, capable of jeopardising their lives. A number of cases, including the seminal judgement in the Kadi and Al Barakaat2 cases, have shown that those sanctions can be challenged before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) from a fundamental rights perspective and that EU standards in relation to the right to a hearing, judicial protection and property cannot be abrogated.3 The recent Kiselev4 case provides a good opportunity to analyse how the EU is coping with its difficult task of striking a balance between different competing interests: foreign policy objectives, international law obligations and fundamental rights. Following the settled case-law on sanctions, the General Court had to analyse whether the freedom of expression, as one of the fundamental rights protected by EU law and by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), could be restricted in the interest of foreign policy objectives. The Kiselev judgment follows the line of recent similar judgements on sanctions and can be viewed, to some extent, as a missed opportunity to further analyse the differences between propaganda and journalism

I’m the Leader! How Shared Leadership Leads to Territoriality

Although research on shared leadership is growing (Zhu, Liao, Yao, & Johnson, 2018), to date, little to no research has focused on how differing expectations of the role of the leader and the role of the followers impact the leader, the followers, and the team as a whole. Shared leadership is typically presented as a benefit to both leaders and followers; however, there can be a dark side too. The purpose of this study is to examine the dark side of shared leadership through leaders’ perceptions of their group and feelings of territoriality when faced with misaligned leadership expectations. Participants were placed in a group where leadership was either be expected to be individual or shared. Based on theory, it was predicted that in the control condition, the followers and the leader would expect the same form of leadership, and in the experimental condition, leaders would expect individual leadership, and followers would expect shared leadership. The leaders’ scores on measures of psychological territorial infringement (PTI) were recorded and used to determine the degree of territoriality that occurred over the leadership position. Measures of appreciation, group effectiveness, and satisfaction with the group were used to determine PTI’s effects on the leaders’ perception of their group. This study found that leaders do experience greater territoriality over their position when followers attempt shared leadership and the leader expects individual leadership. Additionally, this study found that higher territoriality negatively impacted the leader’s satisfaction with their group. The findings of this study have significant implications for both the shared leadership and PTI literatures in that it has further explored the dark side of shared leadership and has applied and found evidence of psychological territoriality over a perceived position

Trademark Enforcement within the European Union: The Development of Provisions Concerning Counterfeit Goods in Transit

The article aims to examine the legal situation relating to counterfeit goods in transit and the responsibilities of intermediaries in the transport of such goods within the European Union (EU). Reference will be made to regulations that preceded Regulation 1383/2003 and the amendments brought about by such regulations. The development of laws concerning border measures within the EU has been rapid, however, despite the implementation of Regulation 1383/2003, the problem of counterfeit goods passing through the EU still stands. Furthermore, in Philips/Nokia, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that goods coming from non-member states and held by customs under suspended procedures could be detained if suspected that they may be diverted into the EU markets. However, the manufacturing fiction doctrine may not be taken into consideration when assessing infringement, as actual proof of infringement is required. This places a high burden of proof on trademark owners, as the mere existence of an indication that the goods will be put on the EU market is not sufficient. There must be substantive evidence such as advertising, offer for sale, or actual sale. The issue with this approach is the difficulty for trademark owners to prove or have access to the information to meet this burden of proof as only the parties involved in the transshipment have the relevant information. This article aims to make several proposals in respect of remedying counterfeits in transit within the EU. It will provide analysis that will contribute to the balancing between the Customs regulation and international trade obligations

“It Keeps Going and Going and Going”: The Expansion of False Advertising Litigation Under the Lanham Act

To improve the conduction band alignment and explore the influence of the buffer-absorber interface, we here investigate an alternative buffer for Cu2ZnSnS4 (CZTS) solar cells. The Zn(O, S) system was chosen since the optimum conduction band alignment with CZTS is predicted to be achievable, by varying oxygen to sulfur ratio. Several sulfur to oxygen ratios were evaluated to find an appropriate conduction band offset. There is a clear trend in open-circuit voltage Voc, with the highest values for the most sulfur rich buffer, before going to the blocking ZnS, whereas the fill factor peaks at a lower S content. The best alternative buffer cell in this series had an efficiency of 4.6% and the best CdS reference gave 7.3%. Extrapolating Voc values to 0 K gave activation energies well below the expected bandgap of 1.5 eV for CZTS, which indicate that recombination at the interface is dominating. However, it is clear that the values are affected by the change of buffer composition and that increasing sulfur content of the Zn(O, S) increases the activation energy for recombination. A series with varying CdS buffer thickness showed the expected behavior for short wavelengths in quantum efficiency measurements but the final variation in efficiency was small

Poisoned heritage for the new Commission: The rule of law question. EPC Discussion Paper, 10 December 2019

The rule of law question will most likely become a central EU issue during the mandate of the new European Commission. Member states are increasingly beginning to question, attack and/or ignore previously agreed common policies, political priorities or common principles. These challenges are usually more political – sometimes even ideological – than legal, thus the Commission’s legalistic reactions are not necessarily adequate