Henrik Spang-Hanssen

0

hssph "at" yahoo "dot" com

Project description

“Internet/Cyberspace Jurisdiction”


Summary

Jurisdiction is a vital and indeed central feature of state sovereignty, for it is an exercise of authority, which may alter or create or terminate legal relationships and obligations. Judicial jurisdiction concerns the power of the court of a particular country to try cases in which a foreign factor is present. In general, the exercise of civil jurisdiction has been claimed by states upon far wider grounds than has been the case in criminal matters.

The applicant has been recommended by a Danish legal professor to do the research at the Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law (NRCCL). He is a Danish Supreme Court Lawyer. He is also a previously student at the Technical University of Denmark.

The latter has great significance for the project, as it requires knowledge on law as well as computer technology, software and programming. “In Nordic IT-law this schism is mostly overlooked. In areas, where a legal rule is generally formulated and does not take aim at edp, difficulties especially occur. Here the lawyer, who has no technical education, gets special difficulties when going to deal with the edp-related facts, in a similar way he would require of himself in other areas of law.

This schism has until now caused many problems as statutes for most Nordic foundations do not allow projects to be cross-disciplinary.

He has researched from August 1998 to December 1999 at Santa Clara University and Stanford University, both Silicon Valley, California and from May 2000 at NRCCL. A paper on “Cyberspace Jurisdiction in the U.S.” was delivered to University of Oslo in February 2001. It is published as a book in November 2001 (431 pages, Complex 5/01, Oslo) and can also be downloaded from the applicant’s homepage.

The next part of the research will in overall deal with areas outside US and the deal with,

a) the question of which jurisdiction or court in a certain case ought to make the decision in a dispute where both parties have used cross-border, international networks of computers, e.g. the Internet, to make communication or do business; and

b) the question of when a competent court ought to leave the matter to other courts to decide a certain dispute because of the special conditions related to communication/business done through worldwide networks of computers, where more than one court has jurisdiction.

The project also implements a technical knowledge to a political and legal evaluation of the suitability of personal jurisdiction rules and whether it is realistically possible technically to splitting the international computer-networks into jurisdictions. Can one rely on and split into jurisdictions on basis of for eexample filters or firewalls, when considering the lifespan of software and computer technic is only seven to ninth months?

A professor at NRCCL recommend as strongly as possible the project, which has until now been supported by own means. The Research center emphasizes and points out the applicant’s skills, including the published rapport, his enthusiasm, and his knowledge, and his methodical way of studying . The center notes the project is cross-disciplinary, but requires legal scholars with technical knowledge, rather than technicians trying to be lawyers. For the time being the applicant has an advantage in respect to other research on the issue in at least Europe.

An American Cyberspace Law professor has by a single view in the rapport on Cyberspace Jurisdiction in U.S. expressed that the book contained legal news and surveys also to him.

The method to be used, and which will have to be worked out in the project can at this place best be described as International Technical and Comparative. No books on source and legal research have dealt with this method that is a fundamental requirement to be able to deal with legal issues on the international computer-networks and its technical limitations, if the wish is a realistic legal result. The IT-legal discipline contains four parts: legal theory, a technical part, legal dogmatic, and legal politics

Legal method is the line of action the courts and any others, whom have to decide a legal question, must use.

It must also from a politically point of view be examined whether filters and other technical solutions can be required of a foreign persons websites outside a certain nation -- because the foreign website also can be accessed in that nation -- if that person wish to avoid to be called for a court in that nation. China has tried another path by making a national firewall, however the Chinese government have had to admit that the users have abilities to come bypass the wall.

The nations different rules on personal jurisdiction and their different methods to keep a border requires different methods and analyze, and therefore it is impossible until the research is finished to outline those legal research methods that is necessary for the research and thus upfront to outline such requirement to a legal research method that many foundations requires before supporting a research.

+++++++++++

1. The projects main aim:

On February 2001, the applicant to Oslo University delivered a rapport on the issue of “Cyberspace (Personal) Jurisdiction in US”, which has been printed as a book (431 pages) in the series CompLex 5/01 (Oslo). The book can be downloaded from my homepage.

The next part of the research will in overall deal with areas outside US and the deal with,

a) the question of which jurisdiction or court in a certain case ought to make the decision in a dispute where both parties have used cross-border, international networks of computers, e.g. the Internet, to make communication or do business; and

b) the question of when a competent court ought to leave the matter to other courts to decide a certain dispute because of the special conditions related to communication/business done through worldwide networks of computers, where more than one court has jurisdiction

2 Subordinate aims:

3. Background for the Project

3.1 The aim of jurisdictional rules and exercise of jurisdiction.[5]

It follows from the nature of the sovereignty of states, that a state must not intervene in the domestic affairs of another state.[6]

Judicial jurisdiction concerns the power of the court of a particular country to try cases in which a foreign factor is present. In general, the exercise of civil jurisdiction has been claimed by states upon far wider grounds than has been the case in criminal matters.[7]

In the US the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-residents has been based on US Supreme courts decisions since 1945, requiring the non-resident has ”minimum contacts” with the forum state.[8] The drastic changes of previous jurisdictional rules were reasoned on the fact of large amount of cross-bordering commerce, which made previously jurisdictional rules out of date.

Other foreign states started reacting to the US ”effect doctrine” by the end of the 1970s and early 1980s by enacting blocking legislation.[9] The European Union, in particular, has taken a strong stance on the US approach.[10]

However, the European Union itself has also wrestled with the question of exercising jurisdiction over corporations not based in the Community in the field of competition law.[11]

In the Wood Pulp case the Advocate General in the European Court of Justice argued for accepting the effects principle of jurisdiction in cases where acts done by foreigners abroad had direct, substantial and foreseeable effects within the state concerned.[12]

The Court of Justice rejected the argument and took the view that the companies concerned had acted within the EU and were therefore subject to Community law. It noted that where producers from third states sell directly to purchasers within the Community and engage in price competition in order to win orders from those customers, it constitutes completion within the Community.[13] A legal scholar holds, that the Court in its decision, concerning the interpretation of the territoriality principle, have stretched it far and in reality used the effect principle.[14]

In Denmark, the jurisdictional rules are found in the Act of Civil Procedure, the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (The Brussels convention), and as for arbitration in e.g. the New York Convention of 1958.[15]

3.2 Jurisdictional rules must be examined – American theories

Should technical filters functionality and stability be the decisive for jurisdictional rules and make a split of the Internet into jurisdiction?

Some legal scholars find this to be the solution of the jurisdictional question at the moment (2001). Yet, even China, which has made a closed network, has at the latest had to admit its national ”firewall”[16] does not work sufficient.

Should a court in Iran be allowed to issue an injunction or decision on the contents of a Danish Internet-provider and a Danish person, which in English has issued an less flattering website on the Koran and claim the decision to be executed?

Two cases from France and Germany are excellent examples of the chaos caused by antiquated jurisdictional-rules and emphasize the problems that have evolved by the locale and national networks connection to the Internet, which is international and build to be borderless.

On November 20th 2000 a French court held that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over a California corporation even though this company does not do business in France. At the same time the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance[17] ordered Californian Yahoo to continuously remove all nazistic material from its American websites at . The court reasoned its decision with the fact that French people had the possibility to get access to defendants American website whereby French people would be harmed.

June 7th 2001 a Federal District Judge in US[18] rejected to follow a French claim that the case should be dismissed and decided to hear the whole case. The US decision states: ”While filing a lawsuit in a foreign jurisdiction may be entirely proper under the laws of that jurisdiction, such an act nonetheless may be ’wrongful’ from the standpoint of a court in the United States if its primary purpose or intended effect is to deprive a United States resident of its constitutional rights.”

The French government has on June 13th 2001 put forward the law proposal “Projet de Loi sur la Societe de l’information,” which among others should minimize the liability of Internet Service Providers.[19]

Germany had in 1995-1999 a similar type of case against the President of CompuServe-Germany. The court in Munich[20] sentenced the President to 2 years in jail and payment of DM 100,000, since the German company as a subsidiary of CompyServe-US allowed access to the latters American Internet services, between which German police had found photos of violence and childpornography on websites belonging to some newsgroups.[21] A German Appeal Court[22] acquitted the President and stated that he had tried to block German access, but had given up, since blocking had showed to be unmanageable.

The lower court decision initiated Germany to adopt a multimedia Act with the aim to protect online service companies from liability for material, which passes their networks. The adoption of the Act might have influenced the decision of the Appeal Court.

Some legal scholars in the US have the opinion, that there must be made one specific worldwide legislation for disputes involving communication/commerce via computers network, because otherwise any jurisdiction on Earth can hold it is the proper one; and thus imply the risk that several jurisdiction at the same time decide a dispute[23] – a lex Cyberspace similar to the previous lex Mercatoria[24] - or that disputes relating to Cyberspace is better solved by alternative dispute resolutions outside the courts.[25]

Other scholars in US have the opinion that the jurisdictional question should be solved by technical solutions, e.g. filters and thereby make a ”zoning” of the network.[26]

A third group of legal scholars in US hold that the innovation of the worldwide computers network does not give any reason for adjustment of previously rules on personal jurisdiction.

The US Supreme Court has several times emphasized that the “Internet is an international system” and rejected to use a “near community” criterion, since “a community standards criterion as applied to the Internet would mean that any communication available to a nation-wide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message”. [27]

On basis of the huge amount of US cases the US courts have acquired lots of knowledge and experience in cases involving Cyberspace and American case law has made several drastic changes caused by this knowledge of the fast evolving and changing technical worldwide borderless networks of computers. The US Supreme Courts decision in the case Reno contains several pages of technical facts findings and further reference to the lower courts decision with 19 pages of technical facts findings. [28]

It is my opinion that the problems reviewed through ten years in US between the fairly independent fifty states on the question of personal jurisdiction can give important guidance to courts outside US.

The Commission of the European Union has several times noted that the Community has to shift from a consumer-view, and thus give up the destination principle, and in future as far as cross-border Internet-commerce is concerned in stead use the view of the businesses – the country of origin principle.

The innovation of the Internet and Cyberspace has made the question of personal jurisdiction much more important than at any time before, since the use of the Internet nearly always involve international aspects. The starting point in every case involving the Internet should be that the case is international rather than national.

4. Sources, Theories and Theses

It seem in articles from US related to the subject of personal jurisdiction that the scholars only take into consideration US’s own legal regime, while rules and non-common law regimes outside US is being neglected.[29]

In Europe no real theories on the projects subject have yet been worked out. There seem not be found any collection of different theories on the projects subject. An article of 1995 from US stated that there only existed ”84 articles discussing legal issues in Cyberspace”.[30]

A part of the project is to make a review on different theories on the question of jurisdiction in international cases involving Cyberspace. The applicant has written a small and limited draft (38 pages) to chapter to illustrate those theories, which, at least in the United States, has been discussed in relation to Cyberspace/Internet.

Also, legal theories concerning the project will depend on the technical limitations at any given time of splitting the international computer-networks into jurisdictions.

As for foreign defendants and jurisdictional rules the latter will only have any real value, if courts decisions later can be executed.

If any given nations jurisdictional rules in practice does not have any limits, then the rules will have no real value and should in stead just state it will catch any non-resident.

Then it will be for the court that is to execute the decision to decide the “real” jurisdictional question determining whether the first courts decision can be acknowledged. Such a regime has never been the witch of any countries legislators.

In the Introduction-chapter in my book “Cyberspace Jurisdiction in the U.S. I argue:

The innovation of the Internet and Cyberspace has made the question of personal jurisdiction much more important than at any time before, since the use of the Internet nearly always involve international aspects. The starting point in every case involving the Internet should be that the case is international rather than national.

It would be preferable for Internet users if any action on the Internet could be covered by the same rules worldwide, an International Internet Law in such a way that it didn’t matter where on Earth the case was brought into court. However, this is not possible because each country has its own special local interests, politics and laws.

Therefore, my thesis is, that whenever an action on the Internet is taken and all participants live in the same country, court in that country will use the law (directly or by analogy) of that country – or the country’s decision-makers will make a law to deal with the national Internet-matter. Law decision-makers will of obvious reasons not in such a “pure” national-related case accept that national law should become non-valid just because a national defendant argues that Internet had been used and should have it owns rules.

Furthermore, it is my thesis that in cases where borders are crossed and an issue is dealt with in a international treaty, the rules of this treaty would also be used for the Internet case if it can be done without to much use of analogy - or small easy quick amendments might be made. I do not believe it is practical to make whole new treaties for the Internet, as that would take decades.

Therefore my conclusion is that special International Internet Law will be needed only for areas where the Internet fundamentally has created new issues and in cases where borders have been crossed. Furthermore, no nation in the world will accept that its inhabitants can be judged and/or convicted anywhere in the world for every action on the Internet.

There has to be set up some guidance for Internet users, so they know where to expect with fairness to be sued. Thus it would be reasonable if every court in the world before making its final decision viewed what international aspect the decision would make for people outside the jurisdiction and thus whether the decision would comply with international fair play and substantial justice.

Dealings on the Internet in the rapport of February 2001 is divided into the following three groups:

0

The italicized fields are of special interests when dealing with the issue of personal jurisdiction and Cyberspace/Internet.

As for these fields, the project will make a survey on which court has jurisdiction in a specific dispute, where both parties have used worldwide networks of computers. Further, when should a competent court let other courts make the decision of a decision involving facts relating to communication/commerce through worldwide networks of computers?

5. Methods

The focus of the project is in overall international and a comparative project on a totally undecided legal topic.

As for method used on US material – computerized ”Known Topic Approach”, see Introduction-chapter in “Cyberspace Jurisdiction in the U.S.”

The method to be used, and which will have to be worked out in the project can at this place best be described as International Technical and Comparative. No books on source and legal research[31] have dealt with this method that is a fundamental requirement to be able to deal with legal issues on the international computer-networks and its technical limitations, if the wish is a realistic legal result. In the French Yahoo-case and the US Supreme Court case Reno the courts required from experts put forward extensive technical rapports on the Internets technical functionality as basis for the courts decision. The decision in the French Yahoo-case was in reality a technicality order, rather than a legal order, as it demanded use of filters on the American website. – Legal method is the line of action the courts and any others, whom have to decide a legal question, must use.[32]

The IT-legal discipline contains four parts: legal theory, a technical part, legal dogmatic, and legal politics. [33] Yet, not even this statement in professor Mads Bryde Andersen newly issued book (over 900 pages) on the IT law deals with the question of jurisdiction and technical.[34]

In Silicon Valley the software and computer technology changes so fast that anything older than 7-9 month is regarded as antique – this influence the lapse of legal theories.

Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig belong to the group of legal scholars that think legal rules with regard to the Internet in many relations only can be made with the use of technical solutions – Opposite professor David G Post who thinks the international borderless networks of computers only can be regarded as one single jurisdiction. [35]

The nature of legal rules points to factual relations and without knowledge of such it is impossible to use a legal rule, that is, one can only regulate with rules, if one knows, what has to be regulated and how. In Nordic IT-law this schism is mostly overlooked. In areas, where a legal rule is generally formulated and does not take aim at edp, difficulties especially occur. Here the lawyer, who has no technical education, gets special difficulties when going to deal with the edp-related facts, in a similar way he would require of himself in other areas of law. [36]

A chapter of the total rapport for the research will deal with possible technical solutions for splitting international computer-networks into different jurisdictions.

”Comparative law offers the only way by which law can become international and consequently a science.”[37] ”Comparatists all over the world are perfectly unembarrassed about their methodology, and see themselves as being still at the experimental state… A detailed method cannot be laid down in advance…comparative law, which not only shows up the emptiness of legal dogmatism and systematic, but develops a new and particular system, related to demands for suitable rules in live and therefore is functional and appropriate.”[38]

As for any other comparative analyze, the research rapport will review relevant selected jurisdictional rules for different nations.

Caused by time limits only some few nations jurisdiction-rules can be dealt with.

Only jurisdictional rules dealing with persons and corporations outside the courts forum will be dealt with.

At this place should be noted, that several jurisdictional rules is without interest for the project, e.g. subsidiary jurisdictional rules involving real property, since such is a tangible object. On the other hand must other subsidiary jurisdictional rule dealing with e.g. trademarks be included, since a particular nations law might indicate that its trademark-jurisdictional rule imply that use of a domain name or mark on a website similar to a trademark can be allow use of the jurisdictional rule; and thus exercise of personal jurisdiction over the non-resident.

Jurisdictional rules for criminal cases are opt out, since such rules has is based on other social politics than in civil cases.

Thus, the research will not deal with every jurisdictional rule in the selected nations, but only those rules, which by their kind and on with basis in case law seem probable to become actual in cases involving parties that have communicated/done business electronically.

Reasoned from the conclusion of the thesis the research will only deal with areas, which is covered by the italic script in the above tables, since these fields have special interest when dealing with personal jurisdiction and Internet/Cyberspace.

Thus, sales of tangible objects through the Internet will excluded, since the item will be delivered as any other physical shipment and the use of the Internet only can be regarded as a modern form of post order deliverance. Furthermore, the question of subject matter jurisdiction, choice law, etc. is excluded.

As for nations belonging to the group of civil law countries, normal legal research methods will be used, that is review of the text of the law, preparatory work,[39] case law and relevant subsidiary sources. As for nations belonging to the group of common law, the American made ”case-method” will be used. [40]

It is not the aim with the research to analyze into every detail the text of every of the chosen nations jurisdictional rules, comma to comma, to find valid law – the orientated method. [41]

A comparative lawyers must take account not only of legislative rules, judicial decisions, the ”law in the books”, and also of general conditions of business, customs, and practices, but in fact of everything whatever which helps to mould human conduct in the situation under consideration. [42]

Comparative law can have several goals. [43] This project will in primarily use the ”the applied version”[44], that is how a specific problem can most appropriately be solved under the given social and economic – and as for computers – technical circumstances.

There will be made a micro comparative[45] analyze of the problems that the jurisdictional rules causes in relation to dealings on the Internet in cross-border actions. Further, will be mentioned the possibilities of the Internet and the computer technical.

The aim of comparative law is to discover which solutions of a problem is the best[46] – here jurisdictional rules in relation to the international Internet/Cyberspace – and the problem and interest orientated approach will be used. [47] Thus, it will be examined whether each selected jurisdictional rule is appropriate or not in relation with Internet dealings.

At the same time will be examined whether the chosen nations’ courts in connection to the jurisdictional question – as in US – separate this question from the question of choice of law, or these questions are considered together in the court decisions.

The large amount of cases from US show the importance for the court to understand the technicality of the computer-networks, which brings a whole new aspect to the courts to consider when deciding the question of personal jurisdiction – if a fair decision is to be made.

As a starting point the types of cases will be divided after the pattern used in the rapport of February 2001, that is

a) Internet web-sites or electronic communications as ground for exercise of jurisdiction:
Defamatory statements

b) Business as ground for exercise of jurisdiction:
Alien doing business on-line
Is a web-site alone sufficient for exercise of personal jurisdiction?
Unfair Business and competition
On-line casino business[48]

However, the division and outline must be determined by the way each nation’s jurisdictional rules are constructed. ”The actual comparison is the most difficult part of any work in comparative law and the process is so much affected by the peculiarities of the particular problem and of its solutions in the different systems that it is impossible to lay down any firm rules about it.”[49]

After making a separate objective report for each legal system a comparatist have ”to build a system…For this one needs to develop a special syntax and vocabulary…The system must be very flexible.”[50] ”A system of comparative law will seem to be rather a loose structure.”[51]

Furthermore, the research will review whether courts with regard to the question of personal jurisdiction make a determination of whether exercise in the concrete case would be in accordance with ”fair play and substantial justice”, which is a requirement in the US.

A rough review of court decisions outside US seem to show that this point of view have had some influence in certain cases involving international cross-border aspects.

The Internet has in a pronounced degree recalled the International Private Law, and caused by the often shifts and continuously inventions in the Internet, any effort to make jurisdictional rules in treaties will be futile, since such rules with a overwhelming likelihood with be outdated before the rule comes into force.

6. The aim of the Research

It has no real value for a plaintiff, if a court decide a case, but all other nations courts holds that the case should have been dismissed on the question of jurisdiction and thus rejects to execute the first courts decision.

If the different jurisdictions do not consider the implications of their decisions on the worldwide network of computers - and thus over users outside the particular jurisdiction - the result can very easy become a extremely inefficient and cribbed network,[52] where only material allowed by every nation can be accessed. Such a regime will probably conflict with the UN rules on free speech and respect of other nations people.

The project will end up in a report on, when jurisdictions have to shrink and leave to others to decide a dispute because of the special conditions in the worldwide borderless network of computers.

Further, the project will make a review over US decisions that cannot be used e.g. in Europe with another court system. On the other hand, will the research aim to show which jurisdictional US decisions can be used in e.g. the European Union.

See further the above section on the projects main aim and subordinate aims.

The number of users of the Internet is increasing dramatically – from 300 million in 2000 to estimated 1 billion in year 2005 worldwide – and therefore the matter of making clear rules is urgent, so that users have certainty of where their can expect to be sued (and under which legal systems).

In the US it was estimated circa 45 % of all Christmas sales in 2000 was done through the Internet. A similar pattern can be expected in other nations. Surveys have shown citizens in the Nordic countries to a large extent uses the Internet both in private and when at work.

For the Danish community as well as for others and these citizens and businesses it is extremely important to get clarity on the jurisdictional question in relation to the worldwide network of computers. See furthermore section 1 and 2.

June 5, 2003




[1] The Lugano Convention is overall equal to the Brussels Convention, after the latter was updated by the San Sebastian Convention of 1989

[2] See ftp:// hcch.net/doc/gen_pd7.doc (Visited June 20 2001)

[3] Denmark has chosen to continue to use the Brussels Convention, see preamble no. 21 and 22 in Council Regulation, http:// europa.eu.int/eur_lex/en/lif/dat/2001 /rm_301R0044.html (Visited June 20 2001)

[4] “Microcomparison, by contrast

[to macrocomparison], has to do with specific legal institutions or problems, that is, with the rules used to solve actual problems or particular conflicts of interests”, K.Zweigert & H.Kotz (Translated by Tony Weir), Introduction to Comparative Law, (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998 (3rd Edition)) page 5

[5] Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law (4th Edition, Cambridge University Press) page 452

[6] Ibid. page 454

[7] Ibid. page 457

[8] International Shoe Co. V. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). The issue is thoroughly dealt with on page 29-68 in the applicants rapport of February 2001

[9] International Law page 486

[10] Ibid. page 488

[11] Ibid. page 489

[12] Case A. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission [1988] 4 CMLR 901, 917

[13] International Law page 490

[14] Ibid. page 490

[15] See e.g. Peter Arnt Nielsen, International privat- og procesret page 132 (1997, DJØF)

[16] a computer or computer software that prevents unauthorized access to e.g. private data (as on a company's local area network or intranet) by outside computer users (as of the Internet)

[17] See English translation at http:/ www.cdt.org-speech-001120yahoofrance.pdf (Visited March 16. 2001).

[18] Yahoo! v La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 2001 WL 640418, --F.Supp.2d—(N.D.Cal, 2001)

[19] www. Lsi.industrie.gouv.fr/observat/innov/lsi/pl.htm (Visited June 25. 2001)

[20] Amtsgericht München, Mai 1998 [No. 8340 Ds 465 Js 173158/95] http://www.jura.uni-wuerzburg.de-Lst-sieber-somm-somm-urteil.pdf (Visited March 16. 2001).

[21] The action implemented the American parent company felt it necessary to remove the American newsgroups web-page

[22] Landesgericht München, 17. November 1999 www.publex.de-cgi-bin-prt.cgi-Rechtsquellen-Urteile-Cybercrime-1999crim01.html (Visited March 16. 2001).

[23] David R. Johnson and David Post, Surveying Law and Borders – The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, Stanford Law Review, 48 Stan.L.Rev 1367 (1996); David G. Post, Anarchy, State, and the Internet 1995 J.Online.L.Art.3 www. Law cornell.edu/jol/post.html (Visited February 24 1999)

[24] I. Trotter Hardy, The Proper Legal Regime For ’Cyberspace’, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 55U.Pitt.L.Rev 993 (1994)

[25] Henry H. Perritt, Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, Villanova Law Review, 41 Vill.L.Rev 1 (1996) mentioning New York Convention (Convention on Enforcement of Commercial Arbitration Awards (1958)); same, The Internet is changing the Public International Legal System, Kentucky Law Journal, 88 KYLJ 885 (1999-2000)

[26] Lawrence Lessig, Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace, Emory Law Journal, 45 Emory.L.J. 869 (1996); same Surveying Law and Borders: The zones of Cyberspace, Stanford Law Review, 48 Stan.L.Rev 1403 (1996)

[27] See e.g. the US Supreme Court case Reno v American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 877-78 (US 1997)

[28] Ibid 849-857 and ACLU v Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824 (E.D.Penn, 1996)

[29] Dan L. Burk, Federalism in Cyberspace, Connecticut Law Review, 28 Conn.L.Rev 1095 (1996)

[30] Matthew R. Burnstein, Conflicts on the Net: Choice of Law in Transnational Cyberspace, 29 Vand.J.Transnat’l L 75 (1996)

[31] Neither Retskilder of Ruth Nielsen (1997, Kbhvn), Rettskilder og juridisk metode of Carl August Fleisher (1998, Oslo) or Retskilderne og den juridiske metode of Jens Evald (2000, Århus) mentions anything about taking into consideration technical limits when dealing with legal methods. Www was invented in 1991.

[32] Retskilderne og den juridiske metode page 129

[33] Mads Bryde Andersen, IT-retten (København, September 2001) section 1.1.c.

[34] See e.g. ibid section 23.1.a and b., chapter on dispute resolutions and the process of courts – 3 pages in big letters

[35] Fleisher quoted on page 256 professor Torsten Echoff: ”it has never been proven that a tribes drum-dance to solve disputes was a poorer solutions-method than what ”we are used to” (Applicants translations)

[36] Mads Bryde Andersen, Förändres juristens arbetsmetoder? (Nordisk årbok i rettsinformatikk 1990) page 116-117

[37]K.Zweigert & H.Kotz, Introduction to Comparative Law, (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998 (3rd Edition)) page 15

[38] Ibid 33

[39] The European Court of Justice has in several decisions reduced or rejected the use of preparatory work, see e.g. pages 186-189 in EU Law, Stephen Weatherill & Paul Beaumont (Penguin Books, London 1999 (3rd Edition))

[40] Invented by the Dean of Harvard Law School, Langdell, see e.g. Introduction to Comparative Law page 244. Compare also application of February 2001 on remarks on legal research in US.

[41] I P Westberg, Avhandlingsskrivande og val af forskningsansats, Festskrift til Per Olof Bolding (Stockholm: Juristförlaget, 1992) page 421, 427-436

[42] Introduction to Comparative Law page 11

[43] Ibid 11

[44] Ibid 11

[45] Ibid 5 points out “Microcomparison, by contrast [to macrocomparison], has to do with specific legal institutions or problems, that is, with the rules used to solve actual problems or particular conflicts of interests.”

[46] Ibid page 8

[47] Avhandlingsskrivande og val af forskningsansats page 436ff

[48] The “Casino-state” Nevada in US has in June 2001 adopted an Act allowing on-line casino on the Internet. The Danish Skatte-, Erhvers- og Justitsministerium has in April 2001 published a 195 pagers rapport on ”Spil i Fremtiden” [Game in Future]www. Skm.dk-pub1-internetspil-indhold.htm

[49] Introduction to Comparative Law page 43

[50] Ibid 44

[51] Ibid 45