Rethinking Jurisdiction

Dan Jerker B Svantesson

Abstract

International law on jurisdiction is a quagmire of gaps, inconsistencies and exaggerated reliance on
outdated sources of law ill-equipped for modern society. The focus on the territorial vs
extraterritorial dichotomy is misguided and harmful, and the territoriality principle is not
appropriate as the jurisprudential foundation of jurisdiction.
This paper argues that the traditional categorisation of three types of jurisdiction needs to be
amended or reconsidered. It also advances an alternative jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction
– applicable for both public, and private, international law – consisting of three core principles.
Further, it brings attention to a selection of novel concepts, including: ‘jurisdictional
interoperability’, ‘bite’ vs. ‘bark’ jurisdiction, ‘scope of jurisdiction’, and ‘lagom jurisdiction’.

Original language	English
Publication status	Unpublished - 9 Aug 2019
Event	Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium - Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia Duration: 9 Aug 2019 → 9 Aug 2019 https://bond.edu.au/event/62256/technology-and-jurisdiction-outer-space-and-cyberspace-colloquium

Conference

Conference	Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium
Country/Territory	Australia
City	Gold Coast
Period	9/08/19 → 9/08/19
Internet address	https://bond.edu.au/event/62256/technology-and-jurisdiction-outer-space-and-cyberspace-colloquium

Access to Document

Technnology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace ProgrammeOther version, 315 KBLicence: Unspecified

Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium
Dan Svantesson (Organiser), Danielle Ireland-Piper (Co-facilitator), Jonathan Crowe (Co-facilitator), Rebecca Azzopardi (Member of programme committee), Nathan Mark (Member of programme committee), William Van Caenegem (Facilitator), Steven Freeland (Participant), Donna Lawler (Participant), Monique Mann (Participant), Rita Matulionyte (Participant), David Rolph (Participant) & Sascha-Dominik Bachmann (Participant)
9 Aug 2019
Activity: Participating in or organising an event › Organising a conference, workshop, ...

Cite this

@conference{797ba68c275041f58458b52545ef4415,

title = "Rethinking Jurisdiction",

abstract = "International law on jurisdiction is a quagmire of gaps, inconsistencies and exaggerated reliance onoutdated sources of law ill-equipped for modern society. The focus on the territorial vsextraterritorial dichotomy is misguided and harmful, and the territoriality principle is notappropriate as the jurisprudential foundation of jurisdiction.This paper argues that the traditional categorisation of three types of jurisdiction needs to beamended or reconsidered. It also advances an alternative jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction– applicable for both public, and private, international law – consisting of three core principles.Further, it brings attention to a selection of novel concepts, including: {\textquoteleft}jurisdictionalinteroperability{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}bite{\textquoteright} vs. {\textquoteleft}bark{\textquoteright} jurisdiction, {\textquoteleft}scope of jurisdiction{\textquoteright}, and {\textquoteleft}lagom jurisdiction{\textquoteright}. ",

author = "Svantesson, {Dan Jerker B}",

year = "2019",

month = aug,

day = "9",

language = "English",

note = "Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium ; Conference date: 09-08-2019 Through 09-08-2019",

url = "https://bond.edu.au/event/62256/technology-and-jurisdiction-outer-space-and-cyberspace-colloquium",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Rethinking Jurisdiction

AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B

PY - 2019/8/9

Y1 - 2019/8/9

N2 - International law on jurisdiction is a quagmire of gaps, inconsistencies and exaggerated reliance onoutdated sources of law ill-equipped for modern society. The focus on the territorial vsextraterritorial dichotomy is misguided and harmful, and the territoriality principle is notappropriate as the jurisprudential foundation of jurisdiction.This paper argues that the traditional categorisation of three types of jurisdiction needs to beamended or reconsidered. It also advances an alternative jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction– applicable for both public, and private, international law – consisting of three core principles.Further, it brings attention to a selection of novel concepts, including: ‘jurisdictionalinteroperability’, ‘bite’ vs. ‘bark’ jurisdiction, ‘scope of jurisdiction’, and ‘lagom jurisdiction’.

AB - International law on jurisdiction is a quagmire of gaps, inconsistencies and exaggerated reliance onoutdated sources of law ill-equipped for modern society. The focus on the territorial vsextraterritorial dichotomy is misguided and harmful, and the territoriality principle is notappropriate as the jurisprudential foundation of jurisdiction.This paper argues that the traditional categorisation of three types of jurisdiction needs to beamended or reconsidered. It also advances an alternative jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction– applicable for both public, and private, international law – consisting of three core principles.Further, it brings attention to a selection of novel concepts, including: ‘jurisdictionalinteroperability’, ‘bite’ vs. ‘bark’ jurisdiction, ‘scope of jurisdiction’, and ‘lagom jurisdiction’.

M3 - Abstract

T2 - Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium

Y2 - 9 August 2019 through 9 August 2019

ER -

Rethinking Jurisdiction

Abstract

Conference

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Related Activities

Technology and Jurisdiction in Outer Space and Cyberspace Colloquium

Cite this