Open Access
Global data flows and conflict of laws : a proposal for a new methodology
Loading...
Files
Cantekin_2020_LAW.pdf (2.88 MB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Florence : European University Institute, 2020
EUI; LAW; PhD Thesis
Cite
CANTEKIN, Kayahan, Global data flows and conflict of laws : a proposal for a new methodology, Florence : European University Institute, 2020, EUI, LAW, PhD Thesis - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/67290
Abstract
This study examines how jurisdiction rules adapt to global data flows. To achieve this objective, a new methodological tool called the General Model of Conflicts Adjudication (GMCA) is formulated and used to analyze developments in American rules of personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction to prescribe which happened in parallel to technological and economic change. Chapter 1 examines how global data flows create economic and social dynamics that complicate the problems that conflict of laws rules must solve and explains the theoretical basis of the GMCA. Chapter 2 tests the explanatory power of the GMCA by using it to analyze the development of American personal jurisdiction rules starting with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of International Shoe (1945). The Chapter traces the adaptation of American conflict rules to technological developments, from the advent of the automobile to the proliferation of multinational corporations and the Internet. Commentary is made on recent important cases, such as Daimler (2014), BNSF Railway (2017), Bristol-Myers Squibb (2017), and Plixer v. Scrutinizer (2018). Apparent patterns in the development of the law and their normative implications are discussed using the GMCA. Chapter 3 focuses on the Microsoft. v. U.S. litigation (2016-2018) that concerned the extraterritorial reach of U.S. court orders in collecting electronic evidence stored in datacenters located abroad. The extensive documentation produced by the various governments, law enforcement agencies, service providers, and user groups that wanted to be involved in the dispute is examined and perceived interests of these stakeholders are determined. Commentary is made on the scholarly suggestions made for the solution of the problem. The CLOUD Act (2018), passed by the U.S. Congress to solve the issue, is examined and the comity-based solution of the Act is assessed within the GMCA. The work concludes with a summary of findings and a suggestion to use the GMCA in studying the ‘Europeanization’ of private international law.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Defence date: 1 June 2020 (Online)
Examining Board: Professor Giovanni Sartor (EUI, Supervisor); Professor Deirdre M. Curtin (EUI); Professor Horatia Muir-Watt (Sciences Po); Professor Dan Jerker B. Svantesson (Bond University)
Examining Board: Professor Giovanni Sartor (EUI, Supervisor); Professor Deirdre M. Curtin (EUI); Professor Horatia Muir-Watt (Sciences Po); Professor Dan Jerker B. Svantesson (Bond University)