¹ See Andrew D. Murray, The Regulation of Cyberspace 60–69 (2007).Google Scholar

² See Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, Internetvölkerrecht, 47 Archiv des Völkerrechts (AVR) 261, 263–274 (2009).Google Scholar

³ See e.g. Hans-Georg Dederer, ICANN und die Dominanz der USA, 47 AVR 367 (2009); Wolfgang Kleinwächter, From Self-Governance to Public-Private Partnership: The Changing Role of Governments in the Management of the Internet's Core Resources, 36 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1103 (2003); Id., Beyond ICANN vs. ITU: Will WSIS Open New Territory for Internet Governance?, in Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration 31, 36 (Don McLean ed., 2004); Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, Multilevel Internet Governance Involving the European Union, Nation States and NGOs, in Multilevel Regulation and the EU 145 (Andreas Follesdal, Ramses A. Wessel & Jan Wouters eds., 2008).Google Scholar

⁴ See Kohl, Uta, Jurisdiction and the Internet (2007).Google Scholar

⁵ See the WTO, Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, WTO Doc. WT/L/274 of 30 September 1998.Google Scholar

⁶ See Tietje, Christian & Nowrot, Karsten, Das Internet im Fokus des transnationalen Wirtschaftsrechts: Normative Ordnungsstrukturen für den E-Commerce, 47 AVR 328 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷ See Christopher C. Joyner & Catherine Lotrionte, Information Warfare as International Coercion: Elements of a Legal Framework, 12 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 825 (2001); Wolff Heintschel v. Heinegg, Informationskrieg und Völkerrecht, in Brücken bauen und begehen: Festschrift für Knut Ipsen 129 (Volker Epping, Horst Fischer & Wolff Heintschel v. Heinegg eds., 2000); Antonio Segura-Serrano, Internet Regulation and the Role of International Law, 10 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (MPYUNL) 191, 220–231 (2006).Google Scholar

⁸ Michael N. Schmitt, Wired Warfare: Computer Network Attack and jus in bello, 84 International Review of the Red Cross 365 (2002); Jenny Doge, Cyber Warfare: Challenges for the Applicability of the Traditional Laws of War Regime, 48 AVR (2010; forthcoming).Google Scholar

⁹ See Armin von Bogdandy, Founding Principles, in Principles of European Constitutional Law, 11, 14–18 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2^nd ed., 2009), who discerns even three functions of legal principles; see also Id., General Principles of International Public Authority: Sketching a Research Field, 9 GLJ 1909, 1910–1914 (2008); András Jakab, Re-Defining Principles as “Important Rules”: A Critique of Robert Alexy, in On the Nature of Legal Principles 145, 155–159 (Martin Borowski ed., 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Droit international public (9^th ed. 2008), para. 334.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Schmahl, Stefanie, Zwischenstaatliche Kompetenzabgrenzung im Cyberspace, 47 AVR 284, 313 (2009).Google Scholar

¹² See Brownue, Ian, Principles of Public International Law 16 (7^th ed., 2008); Dupuy (note 10), para. 331.Google Scholar

¹³ Antonio Cassese, International Law 193–194 (2nd ed., 2005).Google Scholar

¹⁴ UNTS, vol. 999, 171, 178.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 5, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹⁶ UNTS, vol. 999, 171, 178.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Eur. Court H.R., Perrin v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 October 2005, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2005-XI.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Eur. Court H.R., Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), Judgment of 10 March 2009, Application 3002/03 and 23676/03, para. 27.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Id. Google Scholar

²⁰ Eur. Court H.R., Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A, No. 216, para. 59; Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (note 18), para. 40.Google Scholar

²¹ Eur. Court H.R., Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, Judgment of 22 April 2010, Application 40984/07, para. 95.Google Scholar

²² Nicola Wenzel, Opinion and Expression, Freedom of, International Protection, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL, Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2009), para. 14, available at http://www.mpepil.com/.Google Scholar

²³ See Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights 47–48 (2002): principles as optimization requirements; see also Martin Borowski, The Structure of Formal Principles – Robert Alexy's “Law of Combination”, in On the Nature of Legal Principles (note 9), 19, 20–22.Google Scholar

²⁴ Eur. Court H.R., Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, Judgment of 8 April 2008, Application 21151/04, para. 68.Google Scholar

²⁵ Eur. Court H.R., Von Hannover v. Germany, Judgment of 24 June 2004, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2004-VI, paras. 57–58.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Ehlers, Dirk, General Principles, in European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 25, 53 (Dirk Ehlers ed., 2007).Google Scholar

²⁷ But see Articles 15, 16 of the Charter of Human Rights of the European Union, O.J. 2007 C 303/1; moreover, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GA Res. 2200 [XXI] of 16 December 1966) as well as Article 1 of the European Social Charter of 18 October 1961 (Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 35) guarantee the social right to work.Google Scholar

²⁸ Eur. Court H.R., Times Newspapers Ltd (note 18), para. 37 and passim. Google Scholar

²⁹ Eur. Court H.R., Megadat.com SRL (note 24), paras. 62–64.Google Scholar

³⁰ Eur. Court H.R., Paeffgen GmbH v. Germany, Judgment of 18 September 2007, Application 25379/04 et al., sub The Law 1.Google Scholar

³¹ UNTS, vol. 55, 188, 224–228.Google Scholar

³² UNTS, vol. 1869, 183, 197.Google Scholar

³³ See e.g. WTO Appellate Body, EC – Computer Equipment, Report of 5 June 1998, WT/DS62/AB/R; WTO Panel, EC–IT Products, Report of 16 August 2010, WT/DS375/R, WT/DS376/R & WT/DS377/R.Google Scholar

³⁴ UNTS, vol. 1969, 183, 199.Google Scholar

³⁵ WTO Appellate Body, US – Gambling, Report of 7 April 2005, WT/DS285/AB/R, paras. 158–213.Google Scholar

³⁶ See also WTO Panel, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, Report of 12 August 2009, WT/DS/363/R, paras. 7.1209, 7.1220.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, The WTO Constitution and Human Rights, 19 Journal of International Economic Law 19 (2000); Id., Human Rights, Constitutionalism and the World Trade Organization, 19 Leiden Journal of International Law 633 (2006).Google Scholar

³⁸ Markus Krajewski, Verfassungsperspektiven und Legitimation des Rechts der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) 188–193 (2001); Armin von Bogdandy, Law and Politics in the WTO, 5 MPYUNL 609, 655–657 (2001).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Article XX(a) GATT, Article XIV(a) GATS.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ WTO Appellate Body, US – Gambling (note 35), paras. 304–327; China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, Report of 21 December 2009, WT/DS/363/AB/R, paras. 237–249.Google Scholar

⁴¹ WTO Appellate Body, US – Gambling (note 35), para. 373(D)(iv).Google Scholar

⁴² See Eur. Court H.R., Liberty et al. v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 1 July 2008, Application 58243/00, para. 52; Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 May 2010, Application 26839/05, para. 118, where the Court makes, however, no distinction between private life and correspondence.Google Scholar

⁴³ Eur. Court H.R., Copland v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 3 April 2007, Application 62617/00, paras. 41–42.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ EP and Council Directive 2006/24 of 15 March 2006, O.J. 2006 L 105/54.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Eur. Court H.R., Wypych v. Poland, Judgment of 25 October 2005, Application 2428/05; see also 6. v. Finland, Judgment of 27 January 2009, Application 33173/05, para. 52, with regard to the publication of a judgment on the internet, and Human Rights Committee, Sayadi & Vinck v. Belgium, Views of 29 December 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006, para. 10.12, with regard to the publication of personal data on a UN sanctions list via the internet.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Eur. Court H.R., Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A, No. 31, para. 31; Airey v. Ireland, Judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A, No. 32, para. 32; X and Y v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A, No. 91, para. 32; see also Benediktsdóttir v. Iceland, Judgment of 16 June 2009, Application 38079/06, sub The Law 3 I; Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, Personal Rights and the Prohibition of Discrimination, in European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (note 26), 67, 76.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., von Hannover (note 25), paras. 57–58, for a conflict between privacy and freedom of the press.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Eur. Court H.R., X and Y v. the Netherlands (note 46), para. 27; K. U. v. Finland, Judgment of 2 December 2008, Application 2827/02, para. 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ K. U. v. Finland (note 48).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ K. U. v. Finland (note 48), paras. 40–50.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bernard H. Oxman, Jurisdiction, in MPEPIL (note 22, 2007), para. 11.Google Scholar

⁵² See Brownlie (note 12), 299, 301; Dupuy (note 10), paras. 66–73.; Lotus, PCIJ 1927, Series A, No. 10, 1, 18; Eur. Court H.R. (Grand Chamber), Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States, Judgment of 12 December 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-XII, para. 59.Google Scholar

⁵³ European Treaty Series No. 185, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Oxman (note 51), para. 16.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Lotus (note 52) 23; Vaughan Lowe & Christopher Staker, Jurisdiction, in International Law 313, 321–322 (Malcom D. Evans ed., 3^rd ed. 2010); Oxman (note 51), para. 23.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Joined Cases 89/85 et al., Wood Pulp, 1988 E.C.R. 5193, paras. 15–18; Eleanor M. Fox, Modernization of Effects Doctrine: From Hands-Off to Hands-Linked, 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 159, 160, 167, 174 (2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Convention on Cybercrime, Explanatory Report of 8 November 2001, para. 233, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/reports/html/185.htm.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Court of Appeal, [2002] EWCA Crim 747, paras. 2–4; Eur. Court H.R., Perrin (note 17).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Bundesgerichtshof, Toeben (Federal Court), Judgment of 12 December 2000, case 1 StR 184/00, 46 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen (BGHSt) 212 (2001) = 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 624 (2001), also available through http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, UEJF et Licra c/ Yahoo! Inc., Ordonnance de Référé of 20 November 2000, available at: http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tgiparis20001120.htm; see also Joel R. Reidenberg, Yahoo and Democracy on the Internet, 42 Jurimetrics Journal 261 (2002).Google Scholar

⁶¹ See the analysis given by Kohl (note 4), 47–65; from a perspective of private international law see Roth, Isabel, Die Internationale Zuständigkeit deutscher gerichte bei Persönlichkeitsverletzungen im Internet 243–289 (2007).Google Scholar

⁶² Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc., US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 952 F.Supp. 1119, at 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997); Schmahl (note 11), 306–307.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Yahoo (note 60).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See also Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 2 March 2010, case VI ZR 23/09, 63 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1752 (2010), para. 22 (also available through http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/), where the German Federal Court emphasized that readers of the New York Times online edition could choose Germany in a list of countries of residence on registration.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Kohl (note 4) 97; see also Article 15(1)(c) Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L 12/1, according domestic courts jurisdiction over transnational consumer contracts if the other party “directs” commercial activities such as promoting websites to that state.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Toeben, (note 59), 46 BGHST 212, 224 (2001) = 54 NJW 624, 628 (2001).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Eur. Court H.R., Perrin (note 20), Section The Law B.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For a depiction of this scenario see Kohl (note 4), 279–283.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Eur. Court H.R., Perrin (note 17), Section The Law B; Kohl (note 4), 115–163.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Brownlie (note 12), 105; Dupuy (note 10), para. 37.Google Scholar

⁷¹ John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace of 8 February 1996, available at: http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internetcensorshipbills/barlow0296.declaration; see also David R. Johnson and David G. Post, Law and Borders – The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stanford Law Review 1367 (1996).Google Scholar

⁷² See the analysis given by Rolf H. Weber, Shaping Internet Governance: Regulatory Challenges 73–88 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷³ Kleinwächter (note 3), 1106.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Weber (note 72), 51–54.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Article L45, Articles R20-44-34-R20-44-41 Code des postes et des communications électroniques (Posts and Electronic Communications Code), consolidated version available through http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechCodeArticle.do.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ EP and Council Regulation 733/2002 of 22 April 2002, O.J. 2002 L 113/1.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Commission, Call for Expressions of Interest for the Selection of the .eu TLD Registry, Notice of 3 September 2002, O.J. 2002 C 208/6.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Commission Decision 2003/375 of 21 May 2003, O.J. 2003 L 128/29.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See the draft service concession contract annexed to the Call for Expressions of Interests (note 77), at 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Commission Regulation 874/2004 of 28 April 2004, O.J. 2004 L 162/40, last modified by Commission Regulation 560/2009 of 26 June 2009, O.J. 2009 L 166/3.Google Scholar

⁸¹ ICANN, Bylaws as amended of 5 August 2010, Article Xl(2)(1), available at: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.Google Scholar

⁸² See Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Beyond ICANN vs. ITU: Will WSIS Open New Territory for Internet Governance?, in Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration (note 3), 31, 45; Uerpmann-Wittzack, (note 3), 160; for a concept to transform the GAC into an Internet Regulatory Organisation see Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, International Regulation by International Regulatory Organisations – A model for ICANN?, The Global Community: Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2008, vol. I, 113 (2009).Google Scholar

⁸³ Article l(2)(11) ICANN Bylaws (note 81).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Kleinwächter (note 3), 1121–1122; Uerpmann-Wittzack (note 3), 156.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Principles of 5 April 2005, available at: http://gac.icann.org/system/files/ccTLDPrinciples0.pdf.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Weber (note 72), 31–36.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Doc. WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev.1)-E, available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Doc. WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/10 (Rev.4)-E, para. 54; available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt10rev4.pdf.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Convention on Cybercrime, supra, note 53.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Convention on Cybercrime, supra, note 53, Preamble, para. 8.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Christoph Schreuer, State Sovereignty and the Duty of States to Cooperate – Two Incompatible Notions?, in International Law of Cooperation and State Sovereignty 163, 170 (Jost Delbrück ed., 2002); Philip Kunig, United Nations Charter, Interpretation of, in MPEPIL (note 22, 2006), paras. 12–14; see also Helen Keller, Friendly Relations Declaration (1970), in MPEPIL (note 22, 2009), para. 30.Google Scholar

⁹² Schreuer (note 91), 170–174; see also Vaughan D. Lowe, International Law 111 (2007).Google Scholar

⁹³ GA Res. 44/25 of 20 November 1989.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ 11^th recital of the Convention's Preamble (note 53).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Eur. Court H.R., Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Judgment of 7 January 2010, Application 25965/04, para. 289.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ K.U. v. Finland, supra, note 49.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ But see Tietje, Christian, The Duty to Cooperate in International Economic Law and Related Areas, in International Law of Cooperation and State Sovereignty (note 91), 45, 63–64: according to whom duties to cooperate are linked to issues of overlapping jurisdictions, which is indeed an important aspect; for different types of cooperation see Lori Fisler-Damrosch, Obligations to Cooperate in the International Protection of Human Rights, in International Law of Cooperation and State Sovereignty (note 91), 15, 24–30.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Doc. WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E, para. 65, available at: http://www.itu.int/dmspub/itus/md/03/wsis/doc/S03-WSIS-DOC-0004!!PDF-E.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Tunis Agenda, supra, note 87; see also Id., paras. 47, 51, 69.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ For a pessimistic appraisal see Kohl (note 4), 251–252.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Barlow, supra, note 71.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See the Memorandum of Understanding of 25 November 1998 between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, available at: http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm; Dederer (note 3), 377–379 and 389–390, accentuates this form of state control.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Available at: http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ ICANN, President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform of 24 February 2002, available at: http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See also Kleinwächter (note 3), 1120–1123; Erich Schweighöfer, Role and Perspectives of ICANN, in Internet Governance and the Information Society 79 (Wolfgang Benedek, Veronika Bauer & Matthias C. Kettemann eds., 2008).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Affirmation of Commitments (note 104), para. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49(a).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49(b).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Geneva Declaration (note 99), para. 49(c); on the role of civil society within the WSIS process itself see Cammaerts, Bart & Carpentier, Nico, The Unbearable Lightness of Full Participation in a Global Context: WSIS and Civil Society Participation, in Towards a Sustainable Information Society 17 (Nico Carpentier & Jan Servaes eds., 2006).Google Scholar

¹¹² Tunis Agenda (note 87), para. 35.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Tunis Agenda (note 87), para. 37.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Tunis Agenda (note 87), para. 72.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See Tunis Agenda (note 87), paras. 40 and 56–62; see also the definition of internet governance given by the Report from the Working Group on Internet Governance of 3 August 2005, Doc. WSIS-II/PC-3/DOC/5-E, paras. 10–12, available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/off5.pdf.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Geneva Declaration (note 99), paras. 17, 20, 35, 60–61.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Tunis Agenda (note 87), paras. 27(b), 39, 41, 45, 71, 83, 88–89.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ See Spain, Anna, Who's Going to Copenhagen?: The Rise of Civil Society in International Treaty-Making, 13 ASIL Insight No. 25 (2009), available at: http://www.asil.org/insights091211.cfm.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Geneva Declaration, supra, notes 108–111; Tunis Agenda, supra, note 112.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ K. U. v. Finland, supra, note 48.Google Scholar