Paradigms of Internet Regulation in the European Union and China

AkadR a.Z. Dr. Christoph Krönke; Michael W. Müller LL.M. (Cambridge); Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wenguang Yu; Wei Tian

doi:10.5771/9783845293820

Summary

This volume collects papers resulting from a joint project between Ludwig Maximilian University Munich and Renmin University of China on “Paradigms of Internet Regulation in the European Union and China”. Based on a thorough analysis of certain regulatory instruments in their constitutional and political context, the volume aims at unfolding the full spectrum of options for configuring the law of the internet. For this purpose, the papers look at internet regulation in the EU and China from various perspectives. Some provide comparative case studies on topics such as freedom of speech on the internet or the regulation of internet services; others de-scribe legal achievements and developments, for example the draft European Digital Charter. A third category of papers aims at analyzing the development of internet regulation from a more global perspective, proposing potential research paradigms.

With contributions by

Prof. Dr. Chen Xuan; Prof. Dr. Ding Xiaodong, LL.M. (Yale); AkadR a.Z. Dr. Christoph Krönke; Michael W. Müller, LL.M. (Cambridge); Dr. Walther Michl, LL.M. (King’s College); Dr. Laura Münkler; Tian Wei; Daniel Wolff; Prof. Dr. Xiong Bingwan, LL.M. (Harvard); Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yu Wenguang.

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Edition: 1/2018
Copyright year: 2018
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-5187-7
ISBN-Online: 978-3-8452-9382-0
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Language: English
Pages: 192
Product type: Edited Book

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 11
Introductory Note No access Pages 13 - 14
Authors:
Authors:
1. Background: Cyberlibertarianism and Cyberpaternalism No access
  Authors:
2. Regulatory Frameworks No access
  Authors:
3. The Project No access
  Authors:
4. Internet Content Control No access
  Authors:
5. Regulating Internet (Based) Services No access
  Authors:
6. Perspectives: Space, Territory and Fundamental rights as Paradigms of Internet Regulation No access
  Authors:
7. Acknowledgments No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. A. Internet No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Internet Regulation No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Regulatory Paradigms No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. A. Intention No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Mechanisms No access
    Authors:
4. C. Intensity No access
  Authors:
5. III. Paradigm-Shifts in the Development of Internet Content Control in Europe No access
  Authors:
6. A. Open Internet (-2000) No access
  Authors:
7. B. Access Denied (2000-2005) No access
  Authors:
8. C. Access Controlled (2005-2015) No access
  Authors:
9. D. Access Contested (2015 –) No access
  Authors:
10. Conclusion No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. A. Definition of Illegal Hate Speech No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Three Models of Intermediary Liability No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Preliminary Comparative Conclusion No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. A. Factual Impracticality and Legal Restraints No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Impact on Internet Innovation No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Chilling Effect on the Freedom of Speech No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. A. National Law and International Human Rights Norms as the Outer Boundary No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Openness, Transparency and Accountability as Internal Constraints No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Balance of Multi-Interests and Involvement of Multi-Stakeholders in Internet Governance Regime No access
    Authors:
5. Conclusion No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. I. The Qvod Case No access
  Authors:
3. II. The Definition of an ISP and its Legal Obligations No access
  Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. A. Accomplice Responsibility No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Accessory with Neutral Conduct No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Perpetrator by Action or Omission No access
    Authors:
  4. D. Ideal Concurrence (Idealkonkurrenz) No access
    Authors:
5. Conclusion No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. I. Stakeholders and Interests No access
  Authors:
3. I I. Traditional Approach: Data Protection No access
  Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. A. What would “Data Property” mean and why might we need it? No access
    Authors:
5. B. Conceptual Problems and Constitutional Concerns No access
  Authors:
6. Conclusion No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. I. Why protecting personal data? No access
  Authors:
3. II. What is personal data? No access
  Authors:
4. III. How to protect personal data? No access
  Authors:
5. Conclusions No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. A. Rulings of the Ji’nan Case No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Rulings of the Guangzhou Case No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Rulings of the Beijing Case No access
    Authors:
  4. D. Comment No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. A. The Applicability of PBefG to New Form of Transport Service No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Formal Violation No access
      Authors:
    2. The Lack of State Control and the Risk of Unsafe and Unfair Rides No access
      Authors:
    3. Distorted Competition and the Threat to the Paramount Interests of the Public No access
      Authors:
  3. C. The Legal Nature of the Ride-hailing Platform Company No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. A. The Decision Making Capacity of the Judiciary No access
    Authors:
  2. B. The Regulatory Capacity of Old Law over the Digital Economy No access
    Authors:
  3. C. The Competition between the Incumbent and New Entrants No access
    Authors:
5. Closing Thoughts No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. A. Internet Governance and Internet Regulation No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Paradigms as Basic Assumptions of Internet Regulation No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Recent Developments in Internet Regulation – A Paradigm Shift? No access
    Authors:
  4. D. Space as One Possible Paradigm of Internet Regulation No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. A. Space as Paradigm of Regulation in General No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Three Challenges of Internet Regulation Regarding Space No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Space as One Formative Idea behind Internet Regulation No access
    Authors:
  4. D. How to Use the Metaphor of Space as a Concept of Internet Regulation No access
    Authors:
4. Conclusion No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. A. Territory as basis of statehood No access
    Authors:
  2. B. The territorial principle of jurisdiction No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. A. Use of force No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Denial of infrastructure No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Content-related blocking and take-down No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. A. Private-law claims No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Public interests No access
    Authors:
5. Conclusion No access
  Authors:
Authors:
1. Introduction No access
  Authors:
2. I. The problem Identified, The Aim of the Initiators and the Central Instrument to achieve it No access
  Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. A. The Classical Liberal Conception of Fundamental Rights, the Debate on Horizontal Effect and the Duty to Protect No access
    Authors:
  2. B. The Doctrinal Reasons against a Direct Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights No access
    Authors:
  3. C. The Underlying Distinction between State and Society No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. A. Challenging the Distinction between State and Society and Problems of the Liberal Conception of Fundamental Rights No access
    Authors:
  2. B. Fundamental Objections to Direct Horizontal Effect No access
    Authors:
  3. C. Some Unsolved Practical Problems of a Direct Horizontal Effect No access
    Authors:
5. Conclusion No access
  Authors: