BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL
border-crossing events and transactions—“airplane crashes, mass torts, multistate insurance coverage, or multinational commercial transac- tions”—where the Consent Principle and the Effects Principle collide, set- ting off small explosions. As long as these remain on the surface—at the margin—the system as a whole is stable. If, however, these collisions start to occur throughout the entire volume of the balloon, no longer confined to a narrow band at the surface, the heat generated becomes overwhelming and the balloon explodes.
All conduct in cyberspace has geographically far-flung effects on peo- ple and institutions around the world; on this Unexceptionalists and Ex- ceptionalists agree. In cyberspace, there will continually be conflicts be- tween a principle that permits sovereigns to regulate on the basis of those effects, and a principle that sovereigns can only regulate where they have the consent of the regulated. The “prevailing concepts of territorial sover- eignty” evolved in a world in which these explosions between the Effects Principle and the Principle of Consent only presented themselves at the margins of the legal system, impacting a relatively small number of trans- actions. A world in which all actors, and all transactions, at all times, are subject to rules to which they have not consented, is not “functionally identical” to that world. We have a different problem before us now.
VIII. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Against Cyberanarchy has been one of the most influential and oft- cited pieces in the cyberspace law canon.103 I remain, however, unper-
103 Against Cyberanarchy has been called, among other things, a “trenchant” and “wither- ing” critique of the regulation skeptics’ claims, Netanel, supra note 35, at 402, and a “de- cisive response to the widespread view that cyberspace is not regulable.” CASS R. SUN- STEIN, REPUBLIC.COM 204 (Princeton Univ. Press 2001). As of this writing (March, 2002) it has been cited, according to a LEXIS search (LEXIS, Lawrev Library), nearly one hundred times. It has also become a staple of cyberspace law courses. For just a small sample of the courses for which Professor Goldsmith’s article is required reading, see, e.g., Andrew L. Shapiro, Harvard Law School, New Media, Law, and Democracy,
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/columbia/cgi/syllabus.cgi; University of Melbourne Law School, Electronic Commerce Law, Reading Guide (Spring 2001 Semester) available at http://graduate.unimelblaw.com.au/gradlaw2002.nsf/docs/4H33EB355; Susanna Fischer, Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, Cyberlaw, Syllabus (Spring 2000 Semester) available at http://faculty.cua.edu/fischer/cyberlawsyl.htm; Pamela Samuelson, University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Cyberlaw,
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/courses/fall00/cyberlaw/cybersyllabus.html; Michael Froomkin, University of Miami School of Law, The Internet and the State (Fall