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

Q1 Social Sciences
C. Vander Maelen
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
From opt-in to obligation? Examining the regulation of globally operating tech companies through alternative regulatory instruments from a material and territorial viewpoint
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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