Edited by David Mangan and Lorna E. Gillies
Chapter 12: Getting the balance right: human rights in residual jurisdiction rules of English courts for cross-border torts via social media
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.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.