Model Laws for Electronic Domain
1. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
2. UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International
Contracts and two model laws, i.e.,
- Model Law for Electronic Commerce (1996)
- Model Laws for Electronic Signatures (2001)
International Convention for Crime in Cyberspace
The International Convention for Crime in Cyberspace refers to several legal
frameworks aimed at addressing cybercrime and enhancing international cooperation in
combating offenses committed via electronic means.
a. UN Charter 1943 - Article 2: Seven Principles
Article 2 of the UN Charter outlines fundamental principles that govern the conduct
of member states. The three vital principles relevant to the context of cybercrime
include:
1. Principle of Sovereignty: Each state has the right to govern itself without external
interference, which is crucial in discussions about jurisdiction and enforcement
in cyberspace.
2. Principle of Non-Intervention: States must refrain from using force or coercion
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, which is
particularly pertinent when considering state-sponsored cyber activities.
3. Principle of Self-Defense: States have the right to defend themselves against
armed attacks, which can extend to defending against significant cyberattacks
that threaten national security.
b. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1980
c. Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime - Budapest Convention, 2003
The Budapest Convention is the first international treaty aimed at addressing
internet and computer crime by harmonizing national laws, improving investigative
techniques, and increasing cooperation among nations.
• The convention categorizes offenses into distinct groups:
o Offenses against confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data
and systems.
o Computer-related offenses.
o Content-related offenses.
o Offenses related to infringement of copyright and other related rights.
o Miscellaneous provisions for ancillary liability and sanctions
• Article 25 emphasizes mutual assistance among countries in investigations and
prosecutions related to cybercrime.
• The convention has faced criticism for being UK-centric and for provisions like
Article 32(3), which allows access to information outside the EU's jurisdictional
purview, leading some countries, including India, to hesitate in adopting its
guidelines.
d. African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, 2014
Int conventions for determining Jurisdiction
a. The Brussels Convention
• Originally established in 1968, provides a framework for jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters among EU
member states. It has undergone revisions, notably being replaced by the Brussels I
Regulation, but its principles continue to influence international agreements.
• All members of the European Union that ratified the Brussels Convention are bound
by its provisions. This creates a uniform legal framework for jurisdiction within the EU
• The impact of the Brussels Convention extends beyond its signatories. Non-EU
countries that engage in trade or legal agreements with EU member states may also
be influenced by its regulations, leading to broader compliance with its standards
globally
• The Brussels Convention replaced earlier frameworks, including the 1969
convention, to streamline jurisdictional rules and enhance legal cooperation among
EU states Jurisdictional Rules
• Article 2: Establishes that individuals domiciled in an EU member state can be sued
in that state’s courts, regardless of their nationality. This principle ensures that
jurisdiction is primarily based on domicile rather than nationality
• Article 5: Provides specific rules for determining jurisdiction based on the location of
parties involved:
• Article 5(1): Jurisdiction is exercised where a defendant is domiciled.
• Article 5(2): In cases of tortious harm, jurisdiction is determined by the
location where the harm occurred or where damage was sustained
• The Brussels Convention's approach contrasts with Section 20 of the Civil Procedure
Code (CPC), which focuses on jurisdiction based on the defendant's place of
residence, business operations, or the cause of action
• If parties have predetermined jurisdiction through a contract, their autonomy is
respected. This means that if a contract specifies a particular court for dispute
resolution, that agreement will generally be upheld under the Brussels framework
b. Rome convention on choice of law
c. Hague convention on PIL
d. Hague choice of court convention
e. Russia has proposed an International Code of Conduct for Information Security,
which aims to establish norms and responsibilities for states in the digital realm
f. In 2016, China enacted its Cybersecurity Law, which significantly impacts
information security, media regulation, and freedom of speech.
g. EU Convention on cyber security and personal data protection covers (i) Electronic
transactions (ii) Personal data protection (identifies person in cyberspace) (iii)
Cybersecurity and cybercrime, e-governance and all.
Asten Invt Ltd v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal)
The case involved a dispute where a spyware was introduced in London, leading to
questions about the appropriate jurisdiction for resolving the matter. This introduction
was pivotal as it established a connection to England, which became significant in
determining jurisdiction.
Russian Court Jurisdiction: One argument presented was that since the place of origin
of the dispute was Russia, the Russian courts should have jurisdiction over the matter.
This is a common assertion in international disputes, where parties often argue for their
home jurisdiction based on origin.
Brussels Convention Application: Ultimately, the court held that due to the Brussels
Convention, the court in England would exercise jurisdiction. The Brussels Convention
provides a framework for determining jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters among
EU member states. It stipulates that parties can agree to submit to the jurisdiction of a
particular court, which, in this case, was upheld by the English court despite the Russian
origin of the dispute.
