This chapter elects as its focus the need to balance human rights in English residual jurisdiction rules for cross-border torts via social media. Private international law applies a pluralist, pragmatic approach in supporting both the rights and interests of EU and non EU domiciled litigants in establishing and defending claims and the interests of states in exerting jurisdictional competence or in striking out such claims. In particular, the role of the national courts in determining and interpreting residual jurisdiction over such internet torts has implications for the balance between particular human rights – those concerned with freedom of expression, the protection of privacy and the right to a fair hearing and fair access to a court. This chapter considers how the specific rights of freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial should be integrated into English residual jurisdiction rules. This chapter concludes that an approach which balances particular human rights into judicial techniques of residual jurisdiction has a range of benefits in private law’s contribution to internet regulation.
Edited by David Mangan and Lorna E. Gillies
Social media enables instant access to individual self-expression and the sharing of information. Social media issues are boundless, permeating distinct legal disciplines. The law has struggled to adapt and for good reason: how does the law regulate this medium over the public/private law divide? This book engages with the legal implications of social media from public and private law perspectives and outlines how the law, in various legal sub-disciplines and with varying success, has endeavoured to adapt existing tools to social media.