From opt-in to obligation? Examining the regulation of globally operating tech companies through alternative regulatory instruments from a material and territorial viewpoint

Q1 Social Sciences
C. Vander Maelen
{"title":"From opt-in to obligation? Examining the regulation of globally operating tech companies through alternative regulatory instruments from a material and territorial viewpoint","authors":"C. Vander Maelen","doi":"10.1080/13600869.2020.1733754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Modern society’s ever-increasing reliance on technology raises complex legal challenges. In the search for an efficient and effective regulatory response, more and more authorities – in particular the European Union – are relying on alternative regulatory instruments (ARIs) when engaging big tech companies. Materially, this is a natural fit: the tech industry is a complex and rapidly-evolving sector and – unlike the rigid classic legislative process – ARIs allow for meaningful ex ante anticipatory constructions and ex post enforcement due to their unique flexibility. However, from a territorial point of view several complications arise. Although the use of codes of conduct to regulate transnational private actors has a rich history, the way in which such codes are set out under articles 40 and 41 of the EU’s GDPR implies a ‘hardening’ of these soft law instruments that has repercussions for their relationship to the principles of territorial jurisdiction. This contribution serves as a first step for further research into the relationship between codes of conduct, the regulation of the tech industry and the territorial aspects related thereto.","PeriodicalId":53660,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2020.1733754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Modern society’s ever-increasing reliance on technology raises complex legal challenges. In the search for an efficient and effective regulatory response, more and more authorities – in particular the European Union – are relying on alternative regulatory instruments (ARIs) when engaging big tech companies. Materially, this is a natural fit: the tech industry is a complex and rapidly-evolving sector and – unlike the rigid classic legislative process – ARIs allow for meaningful ex ante anticipatory constructions and ex post enforcement due to their unique flexibility. However, from a territorial point of view several complications arise. Although the use of codes of conduct to regulate transnational private actors has a rich history, the way in which such codes are set out under articles 40 and 41 of the EU’s GDPR implies a ‘hardening’ of these soft law instruments that has repercussions for their relationship to the principles of territorial jurisdiction. This contribution serves as a first step for further research into the relationship between codes of conduct, the regulation of the tech industry and the territorial aspects related thereto.
从选择加入到义务?从物质和地域的角度,通过替代监管工具检查全球运营的科技公司的监管
现代社会对技术日益增长的依赖带来了复杂的法律挑战。为了寻求高效和有效的监管回应,越来越多的当局——尤其是欧盟——在与大型科技公司打交道时依赖于替代监管工具(ARIs)。从本质上讲,这是一个自然的契合:科技行业是一个复杂且快速发展的行业,与严格的传统立法程序不同,ARIs由于其独特的灵活性,允许有意义的事前预期构建和事后执行。然而,从领土的角度来看,出现了一些复杂情况。尽管使用行为准则来规范跨国私人行为体有着悠久的历史,但欧盟GDPR第40条和第41条规定这些准则的方式意味着这些软法律工具的“硬化”,这对它们与领土管辖权原则的关系产生了影响。这一贡献是进一步研究行为准则、科技行业监管与相关领域之间关系的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信