4 ms·
The problem with all these approaches is that they sidestep what the internet is and isn't and change the rules as they see fit when they want a certain outcome
by gego 9y ago
The problem with all these approaches is that they sidestep what the internet is and isn't and change the rules as they see fit when they want a certain outcome.
If the internet is a digital territory made up of computer ETS, then we first have do solve the question of how to determine, who'se territory it is.
If it is only a communication tool to reach physical objects on a countries soil, then the usual treaties regulate a very different approach as the one taken.
Going back to the territory problem, a state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Good luck trying to use this on the internets.
State agents can't even identify themselves in a secure way so I could also nuke them virtually when they enter my virtual home... all the questions like taxation or citizen rights not even mentioned - you see the problems?!
States use arbitrary interpretations of clauses of often mutually exclusive treaties covering civil and criminal law to basically claim, that each one has dominion over all of the internets.
The real situation is more like international spaces, where states have some control over their systems, just like coastlines and out in the high seas it's everyone on it's own with the states neither willing nor able to enforce the rights of their citizens...
- ubernostrum 9y agoAh, I see. You're going to derive a system contrary to Westphalian states from first principles in an effort to show why it's unjust that someone who hacks computers in Country A from Country B can be arrested and prosecuted by Country B, since the entire notion of state sovereignty is flawed! Let me know when your treatise on this is finished.
- gego 9y agoDon't attack, just verify. The system is in place (hint: high seas), the states, especially those not in a state of denial of the applicability of international law, have to offer definitions for their regulations, especially those in Roman law countries, where the first section is always definitions... not doing so allows them to be challenged by other states. In other news the kind of system you think is used is exactly why there ARE international treaties... to avoid those situations. But perhaps you are right and we should have more cases based upon the Pinnochet precedent... e.g. Int. extradition of US border officials looking into protected communication a british lawyer takes to his client in the us - something that is prohibited and punishable both in civil and criminal law in most of the world?!