X hits on this document

54 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

22 / 23

22

BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 17:1

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,

Syllabus

(Fall

1999

Semester)

available

at

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,

Syllabus

(Fall

2000

Semester)

available

at

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

Document info
Document views54
Page views54
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 03:18:08 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs428
Words9008

Comments