قانونگذاری در فضای سایبر: رویکرد حقوق بین‌الملل و حقوق ایران

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت علمی گروه حقوق بین الملل دانشگاه قم

2 کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه قم

10.22066/cilamag.2017.27971

چکیده

از بدو ورود فضای سایبر به زندگی بشریت، مقوله قانونگذاری و شناخت قانونگذار صالح در این فضا، چالش جدی بوده است. شیوه قانونگذاری در فضای سایبر، مبتنی بر دو نوع نگرش متفاوت به حاکمیت در فضای سایبر است. نگرش نخست، مبتنی بر انحصار دولت­ها در عرصه قانونگذاری فضای سایبر است و نگرش دوم که ملهم از دکترین میراث مشترک بشریت است، مخالف ورود انحصاری دولت­ها به این عرصه است. هر یک از این دو رویکرد، موجد روش‌های قانونگذاری مختلفی در فضای سایبر است. روش‌های قانونگذاری ملی، بین‌المللی و خودانتظامی در زمره روش­های قانونگذاری در فضای سایبر به شمار می‌آیند. اگرچه توسل به هر یک از روش­های قانونگذاری با اشکالاتی در عرصه اجرا روبه‌روست، در این میان می‌توان رویکردی بینابین و مختلط را برگزید تا ضمن رفع نواقص دیگر روش­ها، زمینه را برای نیل به تفاهم میان کشورها و گروه­های فعال در زمینه فضای سایبر هموار سازد. نگرش دولت جمهوری اسلامی ایران، اساساً مبتنی بر شیوه قانونگذاری ملی است. بااین­حال، عملکرد ایران در سطح بین‌المللی و به­ویژه در اتحادیه بین‌المللی مخابرات، حاکی از پذیرش روش مختلط در قانونگذاری در فضای سایبر است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Legislation in Cyberspace from the Prospect of International Law and the Iranian Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Yasser Ziaei 1
  • Ehsan Shakibnejad 2
1 Assistant Professor, International Law Department, Qom University
2 MA in International Law, Qom University
چکیده [English]

Since the advent of cyberspace in human life, the issues of legislation and recognition of competent legislative power have been two controversial matters. The method of legislation for cyberspace is based on two hypotheses about governance in cyberspace. The first theory is based on States’ monopoly in governance on cyberspace and the second theory which is inspired of the doctrine of Common Heritage of Mankind is contrary with exclusive competence of States to this field. Each of these two approaches causes different methods of legislation for cyberspace. The methods of national, international and self-regulation legislation are in the category of legislative methods for cyberspace. Although resort to each of legislative methods will face with difficulties in execution stage, it is possible to adopt a balanced and mixed approach capable of resolving the defects of all methods and also providing mutual understanding between states and active groups in fields of cyberspace. The Islamic Republic of Iran approach is fundamentally based on the method of national legislation in cyberspace, but the activity of Iran in international community and in particular International Telecommunication Union indicates acceptance of mixed method in legislation for cyberspace.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cyberspace
  • Legislation
  • Jurisdiction of Legislation
  • Doctrine of Common Heritage of Mankind
  • Law of Iran

الف) فارسی

  • افضلی، رسول، محمدباقر قالیباف و میثم احمدی فیروزجائی؛ «تبیین تحولات مفهوم مرز در فضای سیاسی مجازی»، پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، دوره 45، شماره 1، 1392.
  • جلالی فراهانی، امیرحسین؛ درآمدی بر آیین دادرسی کیفری جرایم سایبری، خرسندی، 1389.
  • دی آنجلیز، جینا؛ جرایم سایبر، ترجمه: سعید حافظی و عبدالصمد خرم‌آبادی، دبیرخانه شورای عالی اطلاع‌رسانی، 1383.
  • متین‌دفتری، احمد؛ سیر تحول حقوق بین‌الملل دریایی (از گروسیوس تا کنفرانس‌های ژنو)، گنج دانش، 1387.

 

ب) انگلیسی

- Books

  • Andrew D. Murray, The Regulation of Cyberspace, Routledge Cavendish, Oxon, 2007.
  • Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010.
  • David J. Bederman, The Spirit of International Law, University of Georgia Press, Athens, 2002.
  • David S. Wall, Cybercrime: The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2008.
  • Graham J. H. Smith, Internet Law and Regulation, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2002.
  • Hu Ling, Shaping the Virtual State: Internet Content Regulation in China (1994-2009), University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2011.
  • Jovan Kurbalija, An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo Foundation, Malta, 2014.
  • Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books, New York, 2000.
  • M. Gercke, Understanding Cybercrime: A Guide for Developing Countries, ITU Development Sector’s ICT Applications and Cybersecurity Division, Switzerland, 2011.
  • Stein Schjolberg, Solange Ghernaouti-hélie, A Global Protocol on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime, Cybercrimedata, Oslo, 2009.
  • William A. Schabas, Nadia Bernaz, Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2011.

- Articles

  • A. V. Lowe, “Blocking Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The British Protection of Trading Interests Act”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 75, No. 2, 1981.
  • Alex Mills, “Towards a Public International Perspective on Private International Law: Variable Geometry and Peer Governance”, Faculty of Laws, 2012.
  • Andrew Linklater, “Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State”, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 2, 1996.
  • Antonio Segura-Serrano, “International Regulation and the Role of International Law”, Max Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol. 10, 2006.
  • Anupam Chander & Madhavi Sunder, “The Romance of the Public Domain”, California Law Review, vol. 92, 2004.
  • Armando A. Cottim, “Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism and Jurisdiction: An Analysis of Article 22 of the COE Convention on Cybercrime”, European Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 2, Issue 3, 2010.
  • Steve Coughlan, Robert J. Currie, Hugh M. Kindred, Teresa Scassa, “Global Reach, Local Grasp: Constructing Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Age of Globalization”, (2007) 6 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, Canada, 2006.
  • Rebecca E. Casey, “ICANN or ICANN’t Represent Internet Users”, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, 2008.
  • David G. Post, “Against ‘Against Cyberanarchy’”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 17, 2002.
  • David R. Johnson & David Post, “Law and Borders- The Rise of Law in Cyberspace”, Stanford Law Review, vol. 48, Issue 5, 1996.
  • Dina Koutouki, “Human Rights: Benefits of Information Technology”, University of New Brunswick Law Journal, No. 48, 1999.
  • “The Future US Role in Internet Governance: 7 Points in Response to the U.S. Commerce Dept.’s “Statement of Principles”, Concept Paper by the Internet Governance Project, www.internetgovernance.org, 28 July, 2005.
  • Jack Goldsmith, “Regulation of the Internet: Three Persistent Fallacies”, Chicago-Kent Law Review, vol. 73, 1998.
  • Jack Goldsmith, “The Internet and the Legitimacy of Remote Cross-Border Searches”, University of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 16, 2001.
  • Jack L. Goldsmith, “Against Cyberanarchy”, University of Chicago Law Review, No. 40, 1998.
  • Jack L. Goldsmith, “The Internet and the Abiding Significance of Territorial Sovereignty”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 5, Issue 2, 1998.
  • James R. Pielemeier, “Why General Personal Jurisdiction over 'Virtual Stores' Is a Bad Idea”, Quinnipiac Law Review, vol. 27, 2009.
  • Jennifer A. Zerk, “Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere from Six Regulatory Areas”, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, No. 59, 2010.
  • John H. Jackson, “Sovereignty - Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept”, Georgetown Law Faculty Publications, vol. 97, 2010.
  • John W. Berry, “The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): A Global Challenge in the New Millennium”, Network of Illinois Learning Resources in Community Colleges, vol. 56, 2006.
  • Kelly A. Gable, “Cyber-Apocalypse Now: Securing the Internet against Cyberterrorism and Using Universal Jurisdiction as a Deterrent”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 43, Issue 1, 2010.
  • Mohammad Hadi Sohrabi-Haghighat, “New Media and Social-political Change in Iran”, CyberOrient, vol. 5, 2011.
  • Molly Land, “Toward an International Law of the Internet”, New York Law School Legal Studies, vol. 5, 2013.
  • Neil W. Netanel, “Cyberspace Self-Governance: A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic Theory”, California Law Review, vol. 88, Issue 2, 2000.
  • Noel Cox, “The Regulation of Cyberspace and the Loss of National Sovereignty”, Information and Communications Technology Law, vol. 11, 2002.
  • Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack, “Principles of International Internet Law”, German Law Journal, vol. 11, 2010.
  • Solange Ghernaouti-Helie, “We Need a Cyberspace Treaty”, Inter Media, vol. 38, Issue 3, 2010.
  • Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, “The Shape of Governance: Analyzing the World of Internet Regulation”, Virginia Journal of International Law, No. 43, 2002-2003.
  • W. Michael Reisman, “Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law”, Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, vol. 84, Issue 1, 1990.
  • Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “Legal Implications of Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace”, 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, 2012.

 

- Awards

  • Bundesgerichtshof, Toeben (Federal Court), Award 12 December 2000.
  • Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, Award 10 December 2002.
  • Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, UEJF et Licra c/ Yahoo! Inc., Award 20 November 2000
  • Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean Inc., Award 15 February 2005.
  • Inset Systems Inc. v. Instruction Set Inc., Award 17 April 1996.
  • Martiz Inc. v. Cybergold Inc., Award 19 August 1996.
  • Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing Inc., Award 19 June 1996.
  • R. v. Stephane Laurent Perrin EWCA Crim 747, 2002, Award 22 March, 2002.
  • South West Africa (Diss. Op. Tanaka), Second Phase, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 6, 1996.
  • United States of America v. Aleksey VladimirovichIvanov, Crim. No. 3:00CR00183 (AWT), Award 6 December 2001.

 

- Treaties

  • Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention, Budapest, (Adopted 2001, Entered into Force 2004).
  • Final Acts of the World Conference on International Telecommunications, Dubai, (Signed 2012, Will enter into force 2015).
  • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (Entered into force 2009).

 

- Acts

  • Act of Moniteur Belge - Belgisch Staatsblad, 10 February 1999.
  • Decision of the Arab Justice Ministers Council, 19th session, 2003.
  • UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment, 1996.
  • ITU Global Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA), International Telecommunication Union, 2007.
  • USA PATRIOT Act, 2001.
  • Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, 2005.
  • 18 U.S. Code § 2252.
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1466A.

 

- Reports

  • Comment from the Administration of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Fourth Draft of the Secretary-General’s Report for the Fifth World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology Policy Forum, 2013.
  • Recommendations of the Conference on Combating Cybercrime in the GCC Countries, 2007.
  • The Letter from Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, Consultation on “Enhanced Cooperative Issues Pertaining Action on International Public Policy to the Internet”, 14 December 2010.