Bibliographic record
Abstract
Private international law divides the world into territories, each with its own court system and laws. The internet presents challenges to this neat division. It is difficult to identify where an activity takes place on the internet. Wrongs on the internet leave many questions unanswered in transnational litigation. This paper addresses the private international law aspects of cross-border civil wrongs on the internet. Chapter A introduces the internet, and aims to simplify the technical issues. Chapter B asks which court has jurisdiction in a case of wrongs on the internet. The focus is on two sets of rules commonly applied around the globe: the service abroad provisions and the special jurisdiction provisions. The chapter aims to advance general principles applicable in cases of cross-border wrongs committed on the internet, as to the place where a wrong is committed, and the place where damage is suffered. The issue whether a court can grant an injunction against a foreign defendant in respect of foreign conduct is also explored. The exercise of jurisdiction under the service abroad provisions is discretionary. Chapter C examines the forum (non) conveniens discretion in the context of wrongs on the internet. It concludes that, of the US jurisdictional principles developed in internet cases, the sliding scale test should be treated with caution, but the effects test (targeting) should be a factor that is taken into account, in exercising the discretion. Chapter D asks which law applies to a wrong on the internet, concentrating on the divergent choice of law rules in tort in Australia, Canada, the UK and those proposed in the EU. The two chapters that follow consider wrongs to which the internet environment is particularly susceptible, and which deserve separate treatment: intellectual property infringements (Chapter E) and defamation (Chapter F). The final topic, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments relating to wrongs on the internet, is the subject of Chapter G. The paper rejects the suggestions that new rules should be developed for wrongs on the internet, and concludes that the existing private international law rules are largely workable in the internet context, but require some flexibility in order to be adaptable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".