ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2106-5594
Current Organisation
Bond University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 11-2009
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-10-2011
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPQ001
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2001
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-2013
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 20-08-2012
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPS021
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 03-2016
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 29-06-2018
Abstract: The law of Internet jurisdiction is facing a crisis. While there is widespread and growing recognition that we cannot anchor Internet jurisdiction in the outdated, typically overstated, and often misunderstood, territoriality principle, few realistic alternatives have been advanced so far.This article seeks to provide an insight into the conceptual mess that is the international law on jurisdiction focusing specifically on the concepts of sovereignty and jurisdiction, with limited attention also given to the impact of comity, and international human rights law. These issues are studied through the lens of the so-called Google France case that comes before the CJEU in 2018. The article argues that we may usefully turn to the Swedish “lagom” concept – which allegedly stems from Viking era drinking etiquette – as a guiding principle for how we approach Internet jurisdiction.
Publisher: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH
Date: 08-05-2023
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 27-09-2015
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPV024
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2005
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 16-04-2020
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 19-05-2012
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPS013
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 31-05-2012
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPS012
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 16-06-2015
DOI: 10.1093/IJLIT/EAV007
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 02-2016
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPW001
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 11-2018
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPY024
Publisher: Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
Date: 07-03-2015
DOI: 10.5617/OSLAW2567
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 18-09-2016
Abstract: The April 2016 issue of the Stanford Law Review (Volume 68, Issue 4) contains an interesting article by Assistant Professor Andrew Keane Woods. In that article, titled ‘Against Data Exceptionalism’, Woods seeks to challenge the view that the nature of data is incompatible with existing territorial notions of jurisdiction. He argues that the nature of data is not unique, and that existing jurisdictional principles rooted in territoriality can be applied to data.This is my response to his claims. I argue that Woods fails to refute ‘data exceptionalism’, and that his description of relevant jurisdictional issues is based on a misunderstanding leading to a conflation of different jurisdictional questions.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 09-2017
Abstract: Algorithms impact important aspects of our lives and of society. There are now strong concerns about algorithmic manipulation, used by domestic actors or foreign powers, in attempts to influence the political process, including the outcome of elections. There is no reason to think that Australia is immune or protected from such activities and we ought to carefully consider how to tackle such threats – threats that go to the very heart of a democratic society. In this article, we examine the potential introduction of a Commonwealth offence of ‘dishonest algorithmic manipulation for electoral gain’.
Publisher: Oxford University PressNew York
Date: 20-10-2017
DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780190685515.003.0010
Abstract: The chapter provides a summary of Australian privacy law including the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles. After describing the national legal context and fundamental principles governing Australia’s federal system of government with power distributed among six states, two territories, and the federal government, it describes laws separately governing law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The authors suggest that, although the Australian government has a range of powers to obtain private-sector data, those powers appear primarily aimed at obtaining specific data for specific purposes. Little was found by way of direct unmediated access by the government to private-sector data or government access to private-sector data in bulk.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 23-04-2012
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPS003
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 20-07-2011
DOI: 10.1093/IJLIT/EAR007
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 09-2017
Publisher: Bond University
Date: 2015
DOI: 10.53300/001C.6928
Abstract: Most businesses have an online presence, but an online presence brings a legal risk exposure. The extent and type of risks that businesses expose themselves to vary depending on the industry as well as how they structure their online presence. This article examines a selection of legal risks facing businesses engaging in online sales and marketing of food and wine products. It also presents strategies for managing those risks.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-01-2016
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2016
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 13-02-2020
DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198826491.003.0005
Abstract: Any processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union should be carried out in accordance with this Regulation, regardless of whether the processing itself takes place within the Union. Establishment implies the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements. The legal form of such arrangements, whether through a branch or a subsidiary with a legal personality, is not the determining factor in that respect.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 08-2016
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPW013
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 02-2019
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPZ002
Publisher: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt
Date: 31-12-2022
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-2019
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPZ006
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2007
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 08-2016
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPW018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-1989
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 12-2009
DOI: 10.1111/J.1748-121X.2009.00127.X
Abstract: This paper discusses issues associated with international ranking of law journals. Some catalysts for the development of international journal ranking are highlighted, reasons for ranking are discussed and a range of ranking methodologies are analysed. The paper illustrates the problems associated with international journal rankings and the negative consequences that inevitably flow from such exercises. The paper was prompted by the Australian Research Council's (ARC)'s recent Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) scheme which, as one of its components, requires international journal ranking. While ex les are drawn from the ERA scheme, the paper's discussion is general and much broader in scope. That is because schemes like the ERA will come and go, but the issues of international journal rankings will remain.
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 2017
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 30-06-2015
Abstract: In this article I will address a somewhat eclectic selection of data privacy topics that I think are of particular significance, including:Some international developments in the data privacy law area Extraterritoriality issues including the ‘jurisdictional lasagne’ The recently decided Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case on the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ ‘Big Data’ and the Internet of Things andThe concept of ‘consent’.
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 30-06-2023
Abstract: The concept of sovereignty is more important than ever in the Cyber context, yet it is poorly understood. With this article, we are seeking to contribute towards a shared understanding of the concept of sovereignty by succinctly addressing the following six, interrelated, questions: Who can claim to have sovereignty Over what can one have sovereignty What are the consequences of having sovereignty over something Who can violate sovereignty What is the threshold for violating sovereignty and What are the consequences of violating sovereignty? However, this article is not limited to a descriptive account of the law as it stands today. A purely descriptive account would not provide a full picture of the complex concept of sovereignty, and we have felt it appropriate to enter the territory of law reform options in parts of the discussion. While sovereignty is a technology-neutral concept and the article addresses it as such, particular attention is directed at sovereignty in the cyber context.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 15-12-2012
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 15-11-2018
Abstract: There is a clear trend of a hardening attitude towards digital platforms. In Australia this trend is exemplified by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s current inquiry specifically into digital platforms. Further, it can also be seen in court decisions. Having discussed one such court decision, we give a brief overview of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s digital platforms inquiry. We then seek to bring attention to a selection of particularly relevant European developments that may usefully inform how Australia proceeds in this arena and that may be considered in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s final report due to be provided to the Treasurer on 3 June 2019.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 12-2013
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 14-11-2012
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPR021
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 25-05-2017
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 11-2016
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPW022
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 05-12-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2011
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-2009
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 05-12-2016
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-2014
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPU009
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 30-06-2017
Abstract: Editorial of the Guest Editor.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2014
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-2010
Publisher: Intersentia
Date: 2017
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 19-01-2014
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPT039
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 08-09-2011
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPR016
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 26-05-2011
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPR014
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 02-06-2011
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPR012
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2020
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 11-2019
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPZ027
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 02-2017
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPX003
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 11-06-2014
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPU013
Publisher: Edinburgh University Library
Date: 09-2014
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 30-09-2019
Abstract: On 4th of June 2019, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-18/18 between Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek (an Austrian politician) and Facebook Ireland Limited. The politician had sought to have certain current and future content – argued to be defamatory – blocked by Facebook with worldwide effect. This is arguably the most important Internet speech-related case currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and will doubtlessly influence court reasoning far beyond Europe.This Comment analyses AG Szpunar’s interesting, but problematic, Opinion with particular emphasis on his reasoning in relation to the question of scope of jurisdiction that is, what is the appropriate geographical scope of orders in these circumstances, rendered by a court that has personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-2017
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPX009
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 30-06-2015
Abstract: Editorial of the Guest Editor.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 03-2011
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 23-11-2017
DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198795674.001.0001
Abstract: Internet jurisdiction has emerged as one of the greatest and most urgent challenges online, severely affecting areas as erse as e-commerce, data privacy, law enforcement, content take-downs, cloud computing, e-health, Cyber security, intellectual property, freedom of speech, and Cyberwar. In this innovative book, Professor Svantesson presents a vision for a new approach to Internet jurisdiction––for both private international law and public international law––based on sixteen years of research dedicated specifically to the topic. The book demonstrates that our current paradigm remains attached to a territorial thinking that is out of sync with our modern world, especially, but not only, online. Having made the claim that our adherence to the territoriality principle is based more on habit than on any clear and universally accepted legal principles, Professor Svantesson advances a new jurisprudential framework for how we approach jurisdiction. He also proposes several other reform initiatives such as the concept of ‘investigative jurisdiction’ and an approach to geo-blocking, aimed at equipping us to solve the Internet jurisdiction puzzle. In addition, the book provides a history of Internet jurisdiction, and challenges our traditional categorisation of different types of jurisdiction. It places Internet jurisdiction in a broader context and outlines methods for how properly to understand and work with rules of Internet jurisdiction. While Solving the Internet Puzzle paints a clear picture of the concerns involved and the problems that needs to be overcome, this book is distinctly aimed at finding practical solutions anchored in a solid theoretical framework.
Publisher: Intersentia
Date: 2017
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 24-02-2011
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPR005
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 20-09-2013
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPT027
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-2008
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 12-09-2013
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPT020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2018
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 08-2017
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPX012
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 08-12-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2002
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 10-10-2014
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPU025
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 2015
DOI: 10.1017/S2398772300001197
Abstract: Eighty years ago, in 1935, a major step was taken in international law the Harvard Research Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime (“Harvard Draft”) was published in the American Journal of International Law . The influence of the Harvard Draft has been nothing but phenomenal and must surely have exceeded the drafters’ wildest ambitions. Indeed, it is fair to say that the structure put forward in the Harvard Draft has represented public international law’s approach to jurisdiction ever since.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 12-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2016
Publisher: American College of Physicians
Date: 12-02-2019
DOI: 10.7326/M18-2854
Publisher: Uniwersytet Gdanski
Date: 15-12-2021
Abstract: International data transfers are both essential for the modern world and a major source of risksto the protection of personal data. In this, we can speak of a clash between an important multifacetedobjective and the protection of a complex fundamental human right with implicationsgoing far beyond that right itself.The goal must be to facilitate data privacy respecting international data transfers. However,agreement on this goal – even if widespread – does not necessarily signal agreement on how wereach that goal. To make progress, we must proceed with caution and yet avoid getting boggeddown in the unavoidable challenges, such as definitional challenges, we will face.This article canvasses a selection of key considerations that ought to be kept in mind whenwe discuss approaches to international data transfers. However, to prepare ground for that discussion,it first sets the scene by examining the so-called Schrems II decision, its larger contextand background, as well as some of the reactions we have seen to that decision.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-2013
Publisher: Lexxion Verlag
Date: 2020
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 11-2017
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPX023
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 12-2011
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 22-12-2015
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPU032
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-2015
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPV005
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2012
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2015
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-2010
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2015
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-01-2011
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 19-05-2013
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPT009
Publisher: Scandinavian Military Studies
Date: 2023
DOI: 10.31374/SJMS.195
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-2013
DOI: 10.1111/RAJU.12022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2002
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2010
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 23-12-2022
DOI: 10.1177/1037969X211052339
Abstract: The European Union (EU) published its proposed Regulation laying down harmonised rules for Artificial Intelligence (the Artificial Intelligence Act) on 21 April 2021. Once it comes into force, this Act will impact upon Australia. It is therefore important that Australians take note of the proposal at this relatively early stage. This article brings attention to the key features of the EU’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act. However, the main aim is to highlight why it is important for Australia and to examine, in some detail, the rules that will determine when the Act applies to Australians.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 13-03-2013
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPT003
Publisher: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.1787/20716826
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 06-12-2013
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPS032
Publisher: Bond University
Date: 19-10-2022
DOI: 10.53300/001C.38924
Abstract: This article is written in honour and in memory of my dear colleague the late Professor Denis Ong — a talented, hard-working, and deservedly leading, authority on equity. Here, I seek to articulate a potential ‘codification’ of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings. While I have been advocating a reform-oriented codification of Australia’s contract law, including the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings, for almost 15 years, the ambition of this article is limited to a restatement of lex lata. On my path to that goal, I start by providing a brief overview of the origins of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings. I then proceed to discuss Professor Ong’s view of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealings before I engage with the modern key cases on the topic. Having outlined my proposed codification of the equitable doctrine of unconscionability, I then say a few words about the relationship between the equitable doctrine of unconscionability and unconscionability under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), before concluding the article with some final observations.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 2005
DOI: 10.1093/IJLIT/EAI002
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 04-05-2020
DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198837138.013.36
Abstract: This chapter seeks to set the scene and make some proposals for how we may make progress in the field of internet jurisdiction. For this purpose, the chapter will focus on three ex les where the matter of internet jurisdiction is a major concern for internet intermediaries. The first relates to the validity of the terms of service that internet intermediaries typically impose on their users, and which typically contain important provisions regarding jurisdiction and applicable law. The second ex le relates to situations in which law enforcement agencies seek access to user data held by internet intermediaries. Such situations give rise to important matters of jurisdiction, not only where the requesting law enforcement agency and the internet intermediary are based in different countries, but may also—as was illustrated in the well-known Microsoft Warrant case—give rise to such issues where the requested data is stored outside the country in which both the law enforcement agency and the internet intermediary are based. The third ex le relates to the matter of geographical scope where an internet intermediary is required to remove, block, take down, delist, de-index, or de-reference content.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 02-2018
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPY003
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 06-07-2015
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPV012
Publisher: Masaryk University Press
Date: 30-06-2016
Abstract: This paper examines and analyses current trends in the field of Internet jurisdiction, including the troubling development of overly broad claims of 'scope of jurisdiction', the increasing interest in so-called geo-location technologies and the tendency of litigants targeting Internet intermediaries. A handful of recent key judgments from around the world are also analysed, and an effort is made to identify and present key projects and other initiatives currently dealingwith the topic of Internet jurisdiction. Based on observations flowing from this analysis, a selection of speculations as to the future of Internet jurisdiction is presented.It will be shown that while the topic of Internet jurisdiction is currently gaining an unprecedented degree of attention and, while progress is being made, there are several serious hurdles in relation to which we have seen little or no progress over the past 20 years. In addition, there are new dangerous trends emerging, adding to the concerns for the future direction of Internet jurisdiction.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-2018
DOI: 10.1093/IDPL/IPY009
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2011
No related grants have been discovered for Dan Svantesson.