Lessons for the Hague: Internet Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort Cases in the European Community and the United States, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 1 (2004)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing use of the Internet, all on-line users, web site owners, e-commerce companies and consumers alike, feel the need to be able to rely on clear standards for a potential contract or tort lawsuit following the Internet presence that could lead to multinational litigation. This goal could be achieved if the negotiations of the Hague Convention on international jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters succeed in harmonizing the rules of the different legal systems around the globe, or at least create a minimum standard for legal cases which would benefit greatly e-commerce and Internet litigation. The author argues that the global character of the Internet does not present an obstacle to regulation. He then proceeds in a more detailed description and examination of the different systems of jurisdictional law, the current solutions as well as the proposed approaches for jurisdiction with regard to Internet litigation in tort and contract cases in the United States and the European Union. Concluding that the current American doctrine lacks certainty as well as foresee ability while providing ground for developing modern approaches, the author then argues that the European solution provides a better set of rules-especially for consumer contracts-and only the European solution can be used as a foundation for an international solution and best suits today's demands in multinational e-commerce and Internet tort cases. However, a slightly modified American/Canadian "targeting" test provides helpful criteria as well as a strong base concept with regard to Internet-related litigation and should therefore be integrated into an international solution for multinational litigation for a solid international solution to be acheived. By implementing this American/Canadian approach, the subsequent rules will provide foreseeability as well as the necessary flexibility to include new technologies and developments will be ensured. Finally, the status of the negotiations of the Hague Convention and the possible obstacles and problems of the current solutions is presented, along with a proposed solution aiming to institute a clear set of rules to establish foreseeability and certainty, while simultaneously establishing a concept that provides the flexibility to incorporate future developments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".