Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T20:30:34.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Autonomy of Law and the Formation of Network Standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Thomas Vesting

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the recent discussion on Internet law and regulation it has often been argued that technical standards have a significant impact on the variety and diversity of the Net's communication flows. This Article extends this argument, focusing on the ability to constrain Net communication through “code” and “architecture” imposed by network technology, i.e., by a source of rule-formation and rule-making beyond the traditional law of nation-states. Although I am generally sympathetic to the position that a novel “Lex Informatica” poses new legal and political challenges for nation-states, it should, however, be clear from the outset that the attention for “code” and “architecture” is something different to a paraphrase of the ever-expanding role of technology in modern society. This has to be emphasized because the discourse of “the technological”, which was already a prominent subject in the anti-modernist debate during the Weimar Republic, still casts a shadow on the contemporary legal discussion about the role of technical standards on the Internet. Lawrence Lessig, for example, confronted with a strict anti-governmentalism of cyber-libertarians in the mid-nineties, argues in Code and other Laws of Cyberspace that the Internet is regulated by “code”, i.e. “the software and hardware that make Cyberspace what it is”. “Code” itself is embedded in an environment of economic power and corresponding political interests. In a nutshell Lessig paints a picture in which the Internet is developing towards an intolerable density of control by powerful coalitions of technical experts and economic enterprises. This view may be convincing in some respects, but with his accent on “code”, Lessig comes very close to the anti-modernist reaction to the growing significance of film and radio in the early 20th century, inasmuch as both strands are based on the misconception of a technological superstructure steering the (media) world and its further evolution.

Type
Public Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 6 , 01 June 2004 , pp. 639 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See, e.g., Joel R. Reidenberg, Governing Networks and Rulemaking in Cyberspace, 45 Emory Law Journal 911, 917 (1996); Andrew L. Shapiro, The Control Revolution, New York 1999, p. 14, 15 et seq.; Lawrence Lessig, Code and other Laws of Cyberspace, New York 1999.Google Scholar

2 Reidenberg, Joel R., Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology, 76 Texas Law Review 553, 554, 566.Google Scholar

3 For the relationships between technology and politics see, e.g., John P. Mc Cormick, Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism. Against Politics as Technology, Cambridge 1999, p. 4, 31 et seq.; Stephen Holmes, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism, Cambridge 1993, p. 42, 44 et seq.; in a broader perspective Stefan Breuer, Anatomie der Konservativen Revolution, Darmstadt 1993, pp. 70–78.Google Scholar

4 Lessig, Lawrence, Code and other Laws of Cyberspace, New York 1999, p. 6.Google Scholar

5 See e. g. Ingeborg Villinger, Wo liegt Berlin?, in: Rudolf Maresch (ed.), Medien und Öffentlichkeit, München 1996, pp. 248–259.Google Scholar

6 Froomkin, Michael, : Towards a Critical Theory of Cyberspace, 116 Harvard Law Review 751, 778 (2003).Google Scholar

7 Benkler, Yochai, From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation, 52 Federal Communications Law Journal 561, 568 (2000); see also Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas, New York 2001, pp. 23–25, where he distinguishes between content, code, and physical layer.Google Scholar

8 Lessig (supra note 7), p. 23.Google Scholar

9 The difference between technological environment and different communication media is introduced in Niklas Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Bd. 1, Frankfurt 1998, pp. 190 – 412, 302; see further Michael Hutter, The Commercialization of the Internet, in: Christoph Engel/Kenneth H. Keller (eds.), Understanding the Impact of Global Networks and Local Social, Political and Cultural Values, Baden-Baden 2000, pp. 73 – 92; Dirk Baecker, Networking the Web, in: Engel/Keller (eds.), supra, pp. 93 – 111, 96, distinguishes between the Net as a social phenomenon, a phenomenon of communication, and the Net as a technical phenomenon.Google Scholar

10 See, e.g., Bolter, Jay David, Writing Space, The Computer, Haypertext, and the History of Writing, Hillsdale 1991; Mike Sandbothe, Pragmatische Medienphilosophie, Weilerswist 2001, pp. 182 – 205.Google Scholar

11 Shapiro (supra note 1), p. 14.Google Scholar

12 Noam, Eli, Beyond Liberalization: From the Network of Networks to the System of Systems, in: Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem/Thomas Vesting (eds.), Perspektiven der Informationsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1995, pp. 49 – 59.Google Scholar

13 See Günther, Gotthard, Das Bewusstsein der Maschinen, Baden-Baden 1963, pp. 69 – 70; Luhmann (supra note 9), p. 529, 530.Google Scholar

14 See, e. g., Joseph Farrell/Garth Saloner, Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces, 40 Journal of Industrial Economics 9, 9 (1992); Phillip Genschel, Standards in der Informationstechnik, Frankfurt/New York 1995, pp. 25 – 31.Google Scholar

15 David, Paul A., The Internet and the Economics of Network Technology Evolution, in: Christoph Engel/Kenneth H. Keller (eds.), Understanding the Impact of Global Networks and Local Social, Political and Cultural Values, Baden-Baden 2000, pp. 39 – 71, 46 et seq.; see further Sören Delfs, Innovation – Standardisierung – Recht (Das Beispiel Internet), in: Martin Eifert/Wolfgang Hoffman-Riem (eds.), Innovation und rechtliche Regulierung, Baden-Baden 2002, pp. 171 – 213.Google Scholar

16 David (supra note 15), p. 48.Google Scholar

17 David (supra note 15), p. 48.Google Scholar

18 Stanley M. Besen/Joseph Farrell, Choosing How to compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization, 8 Journal of Economic Perspectives 117, 117 (1994).Google Scholar

19 Shapiro (supra note 1), p. 16.Google Scholar

20 Hutter, Michael, Efficiency, Viability and the new Rules of the Internet, 11 European Journal of Law and Economics 5 (2001).Google Scholar

21 Carl Shapiro/Hal R. Varian, Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Boston 1999, p. 229.Google Scholar

22 See Arthur, Brian, Increasing Returns and the New World of Business, 74 Harvard Businesss Review 100 (1996); Carl Shapiro/Hal R. Varian (supra note 21), pp. 173 – 225 et seq.; Kevin Kelly, New Rules for the New Economy, New York 1998, pp. 23 – 38.Google Scholar

23 David (supra note 15), p. 49.Google Scholar

24 These trends are described for various societal fields in Gunter Teubner (ed.), Global Law without a State, Aldershot 1997.Google Scholar

25 See, e.g., Sommer, Joseph H., Against Cyberlaw, 15 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1145, 1151 (2000).Google Scholar

26 Guéhenno, Jean-Marie, The End of the Nation-State, Minneapolis 1995, p. 58.Google Scholar

27 Reidenberg (supra note 2), p. 566.Google Scholar

28 Reidenberg, (supra note 2), p. 567; close to that position Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Rechtliche Regulierung von Informationstechnologien und Standardsetzung, Computer und Recht 1999, pp. 395 – 404, 398; see more generally Joerges/Ladeur/Voß (eds.), Integrating Scientific Expertise into Regulatory Decision-Making, Baden-Baden 1997.Google Scholar

29 Shapiro (supra note 1), pp. 13 et seq.Google Scholar

30 Lessig, Lawrence, Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace, 45 Emory Law Journal 869, 896, 897 (1996).Google Scholar

31 Lessig (supra note 1) pp. 6, 63 – 108.Google Scholar

32 Lessig (supra note 7), p. 35.Google Scholar

33 See Luhmann, Niklas, Das Recht der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt/Main 1993; Gunther Teubner (ed.), Autopoetic Law, Berlin 1988; Jiri Priban/David Nelken, Law's New Boundaries, Dartmouth, 2001.Google Scholar

34 For “meaning-systems” generally see Niklas Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford California 1995, pp. 59 – 102.Google Scholar

35 See, e.g., Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the mirror of nature, Princeton 1979; and, from a hermeneutic perspective, Gianni Vattimo, Jenseits der Interpretation, Frankfurt/New York 1997.Google Scholar

36 Luhmann (supra note 34), pp. 210 – 254.Google Scholar

37 Luhmann (supra note 34), pp. 34 – 36.Google Scholar

38 Luhmann (supra note 9), p. 92 et seq., 776 et seq.Google Scholar

39 Bateson, Gregory, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chicago 2000, pp. 399 et seq.; Luhmann (supra note 34), pp. 448 – 449, 40 – 41; Baecker (supra note 9), p. 95.Google Scholar

40 Luhmann (supra note 34), p. 448.Google Scholar

41 A case study of “structural coupling” and its theoretical problems is presented by Michael Hutter, Structural Coupling between Social Systems: Art and Economy as Mutual Sources of Growth, 7 Soziale Systeme 290 (2002).Google Scholar

42 With its foundation in modern mathematical science (Galilei, Descartes, Hobbes, etc.) see, e.g., I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science, Harvard 1985, pp. 105–175.Google Scholar

43 Scott, James C., Seeing like a State, New Haven and London 1998, p. 316; Karl H. Hörning, Experten des Alltags, Weilerswist 2001.Google Scholar

44 Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge 1996, see pp. 104–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 P. Samuelson/R. Davis, The Digital Dilemma: A Perspective on Intellectual Property in the Information Age, Washington 2000, p. 5, http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/digdilsyn.pdf.Google Scholar

46 For a theoretical approach to social conventions as a prerequisite of legal rules see Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Negative Freiheitsrechte und gesellschaftliche Selbstorganisation, Tübingen 2000, pp. 72 – 80; from an economic point of view see, e. g., Robert Sugden, Spontaneous Order, 3 Journal of Economic Perspectives 85 (1989); Steve Fleetwood, Order without Equilibrium: A Critical Realist Interpretation of Hayek's Notion of Spontaneous Order, 20 Cambridge Journal of Economics 729 (1996); more generally see Scott (supra note 43), pp. 309 – 341; for a discussion of the role of spontaneous rule-formation on the Internet see, e.g., Mark A. Lemley, The Law and the Economics of Internet Norms, 73 Chicago-Kent Law Review 1257 (1998).Google Scholar

47 See Berman, Harold J., Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Cambridge 1983, pp. 333 – 356.Google Scholar

48 Sommer (supra note 25), p. 18 et seq.Google Scholar

49 See, e.g., Wickersham, G., The Police Power: A Product of the Rule of Reason, 27 Harvard Law Review 297, 316 et seq. (1914).Google Scholar

50 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Das Umweltrecht der Wissensgesellschaft, Berlin 1995, pp. 11 – 15.Google Scholar

51 Scott (supra note 43), p. 425; Ian Hacking, The self-vindication of the Laboratory Sciences, in: Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago 1992, pp. 29 – 64.Google Scholar

52 See generally M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, Chicago, 1964; an overview of Michael Polany's thought is given by J. H. Gill, The Tacit Mode: Michael Polanyi's Postmodern Philosophy, New York 2000.Google Scholar

53 Luhmann (supra note 34), p. 478.Google Scholar

54 Berman (supra note 47), pp. 545 – 558, 548.Google Scholar

55 Polanyi, Michael, The Tacit Dimension, Gloucester 1966, pp. 53 et seq.Google Scholar

56 Polanyi (supra note 55), pp. 3 – 25.Google Scholar

57 Polanyi, Michael, Knowing and Being, Chicago 1969, 56; see also Gill (supra note 52), pp. 63 et seq.Google Scholar

58 A case-study of what I have in mind is Robert C. Ellickson, Order without Law, Harvard 1991.Google Scholar

59 See Vismann, Cornelia, Akten: Medientechnik und Recht, Frankfurt/Main 2000, pp. 269 – 299.Google Scholar

60 Wolf, Rainer, Der Stand der Technik, Opladen 1986, pp. 31 – 159, 99 et seq.Google Scholar

61 Wolf (supra note 60), p. 120 et seq.Google Scholar

62 These issues are discussed by, e.g., Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright, Amherst 2001; Lessig (supra note 7), pp. 250 – 261; Yochai Benkler, Coase's Pinguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Form, 112 Yale Law Journal 369 (2002); Thomas Vesting, Common Knowledge in the “Information Age”, RCS Discussion papers, Florence 2001.Google Scholar

63 See Hutter (supra note 20), pp. 5 – 22; Delfs (supra note 15), pp. 199 et seq.; Froomkin (supra note 6), pp. 20 et seq.Google Scholar

64 An exception is, for instance, the regulation of compatibility-standards for digital TV in §§ 52, 53 German broadcasting law. For the corresponding situation in the U.S. see, Daniel L. Rubinfeld/Hal J. Singer, Open Access To Broadband Networks, 16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 631 (2001).Google Scholar

65 See, e.g., Rudolf Steinberg, Der ökologische Verfassungsstaat, Frankfurt/Main 1998, pp. 185 et seq., 287 et seq.Google Scholar

66 See Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Cambridge 1999; Volker Grassmuck, Freie Software, Berlin 2001, http://mikro.org/events/OS/text/freie-sw.pdf.Google Scholar

67 Benkler, Yochai, The Institutional Ecosystem, 44 Communication of the ACM 84, 88 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 Carl Shapiro/Hal R. Varian (supra note 21), p. 173.Google Scholar

69 Arthur, W. Brian, Increasing returns and the New World of Business, 74 Harvard Business Review 100 (1996); Shapiro/Varian (supra note 21), p. 173 – 225; Kevin Kelly, New Rules for the New Economy, New York 1998, pp. 23 – 38.Google Scholar

70 Shapiro/Varian (supra note 21), p. 177.Google Scholar

71 Stressed particularly by W. Brian Arthur, Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns and Lock-In by Historical Events, 99 The Economic Journal 116 (1989); see also W. Brian Arthur (ed.), Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Michigan 1994.Google Scholar

72 As a case study for a national jurisdiction and its feedback effects on the trans-national legal discussion on Internet issues see Joel Reidenberg, Yahoo and Democracy on the Internet, 42 Jurimetrics 261 (2002).Google Scholar

73 For more details Thomas Vesting, The Network Economy – a Challenge for a New Public Law (Beyond the State), in: Ladeur (ed.), Public Governance in the Age of Globalisation, London 2004; Lessig (supra note 7); Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Postmoderne Rechtstheorie, Berlin 1992, pp. 176 – 213, 207.Google Scholar

74 See, e.g., David (supra note 15), p. 69.Google Scholar

75 Barendt, Eric, Broadcasting Law, Oxford 1995, pp. 32 – 49 et seq.Google Scholar

76 Guéhenno, Jean-Marie, Legal and Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Speech in France, in: Philip S. Cooke (ed.), Liberty of Expression, Washington 1990, pp. 65 – 77.Google Scholar

77 BVerfGE 12, 265; 57, 320; Thomas Vesting, Prozedurales Rundfunkrecht, Baden-Baden 1997, pp. 150 – 159, 168 – 175.Google Scholar

78 Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1967); Benkler (supra note 7), pp. 565 – 568; Cass Sunstein, Republic.com, Princeton and Oxford 2001, pp. 141 – 166; Tarik Tabbara, Kommunikations- und Medienfreiheit in den USA: Zwischen demokratischen Aspirationen und kommerzieller Mobilisierung, Baden-Baden 2003.Google Scholar

79 Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1967) “fairness doctrine” for broadcast media; BVerfGE 12, 265; 57, 320 (“freeflow of information”), sceptical about the modern First Amendment jurisprudence, Reidenberg (supra note 72), p. 272.Google Scholar

80 Luhmann (supra note 33), pp. 124 – 164.Google Scholar

81 See Teubner, Gunther, Global Private Regimes: Neo-spontaneous Law and Dual Constitution of Autonomous Sectors in World Society?, in: Karl-Heinz Ladeur (ed.) Globalization and Public Governance, London 2004.Google Scholar

82 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Innovation der Telekommunikation durch Regulierung, in: Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem (ed.), Innovation und Telekommunikation, Baden-Baden 2000, pp. 57 – 76.Google Scholar

83 See, e.g., Shapiro (supra note 1), p. 14.Google Scholar

84 This argument is stressed – in another context – by Gunter Teubner, Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-centred Constitutional theory?, in: Christian Joerges, Inge-Johanne Sand und Gunther Teubner (eds.) Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance, London 2004.Google Scholar

85 See, e.g., Sunstein, arguing that Internet communication is leading to “fragmentation” with considerable dangers for “democracy”, Sunstein (supra note 77), pp. 3 – 23, 51 – 88.Google Scholar