Logo image
Splintering: A fractured internet and what it means for the rule of law
Journal article   Open access

Splintering: A fractured internet and what it means for the rule of law

Brendan Walker-Munro and Tim McFarland
Court of Conscience, Vol.17(1), pp.1-21
17/11/2023
url
Splintering: A Fractured Internet and What it Means for the Rule of LawView
Published (Version of record)Free to Read Open

Related links

Metrics

31 Record Views

Abstract

Criminal law Criminal procedure Administrative law Criminal justice Law enforcement Law reform
Internet governance involves actors from all sectors of society: international, State-based, private sector and civil society bodies working with and against each other to balance and rebalance the interests of States, governments, commercial organisations and private citizens through the exercise of formal governmental authority, commercial control, technical know-how and social influence. Far from the popular image of the internet as a borderless, world-spanning communications free-for-all, this mass of competing interests has resulted in an internet criss-crossed by boundaries both hard and soft, defined by law or politics or technology, creating and dividing communities, opening and closing communications channels between people across the world. At the same time, the internet has also become part of the landscape of modern conflict, with States and non-State actors using it to conduct and defend against cyberattacks, coordinate military operations, gather intelligence, deliver humanitarian aid, disseminate IHL, broadcast press reports and propaganda, and so on. It is no surprise, then, that actions which create or remove borders on the internet frequently lead to consequences which may enliven domestic or international legal obligations of the party concerned. This paper surveys the legal aspects of decisions by State and non-State actors to interfere, or refrain from interfering, with internet communications in relation to conflict in ways which bear consequences for the rule of law. Its two purposes are to show that domestic considerations appear to be a central consideration for entities which seek to shape internet communications, and to identify areas which deserve further, more detailed research.

Details

Logo image