Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Solution to the Conflict of Criminal Jurisdictions Over Cyber Crimes

Document Type : Article

Authors

Esmail Baghban 1
Babak Pourghahramani 2
Fateme Ahadi 3

1 Ph.D Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.335813.2971
Abstract
Conflict of laws in the cyber space is a very fundamental challenge since the lack of clear demarcation in this area and ultimately the impossibility of implementing "territorial jurisdiction" - as a key factor in determining jurisdiction - leads to the application of other jurisdictional principles. When this applies to several countries and two or more states consider themselves competent to prosecute a crime, there is a "positive conflict of laws" in cyberspace. This paper examines this issue using an analytical-descriptive method, and seeks to find out what are the causes of these jurisdictional conflicts, what are their solutions and whether the establishment of rules in this field is conceivable or should the conflict be resolved on a case-by-case basis?

Keywords

conflict of laws
cyber jurisdiction
positive conflict
negative conflict
prohibition of double punishment
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Clough, J. (2011). Principles of Cybercrime. London:Cambridge University Press. 2nd edition.
    3. Clark, R. S. (2004). The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Wayne L. Rev.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bassiouni, M. C. (1974). Theories of Jurisdiction and Their Application in Extradition Law and Practice. International Law Journal, 5(2), 1-61.
    3. Brenner, S. W., Koops, .J. (2004). Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction. Journal of High Technology Law, IV (1), 1-46.
    4. Cottim, A. A. (2010). Cybercrime, Cyber terrorism and Jurisdiction: An Analysis of Article 22 of the COE Convention on Cybercrime. European Journal of Legal Studies, 2(3), 56-71.
    5. Goodman, M.D., Brenner, S.W. (2002).The Emerging Consensus on Criminal Conduct in Cyberspace. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 10(2), 139-153.
    6. Grabosky, P. (2004). The Global Dimension of Cybercrime. Global Crime, 6(1), 146-157.
    7. Hopkins, S. L. (2003). Cybercrime Convention: A Positive Beginning to a Long Road Ahead. Journal of High Technology Law, 2(1),101-122.
    8. Mihaela, A., Ion, Flamanzeanu(2010). Analysis Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings to the European Union Legal Framework. Agora international journal of juridical sciences, 4(2), 201-219.
    9. Patrone, I. (2013). Conflicts of jurisdiction and judicial cooperation instruments: Eurojust’s role. ERA Forum, 14(2), 215–225.
    10. Schomburg Wolfgang (2012).Criminal matters: transnational ne bis in idem in Europe—conflict of jurisdictions—transfer of proceedings. ERA Forum, 13(3), 311 -324.

     

    1. C) Documents
    2. Council of Europe,Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime (2001).
    3. EU Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA, art. 10/4, 2005 O.J. (L 69/67).
    4. EU Council Framework Decision 2009/426/JHA, art. 7/2, 2009 O.J. (L 138/14).
    5. United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime, Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime.xvii, (February 2013).

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Bastani, B. (2003). computer and Internet crimes, a new manifestation of delinquency. Tehran: Behnam Publications (In Persian).
    3. Bay, H. A., & Pourghahramani, B. (2008). jurisprudence and legal review of computer crimes. Tehran: Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture (In Persian).
    4. Biabani, G., & Hadian Far, S. R. (2004). Descriptive Dictionary of Criminal Sciences. Tehran: Publications of the Applied Research Center for Crime Detection and Security of the Naja Intelligence Agency (In Persian).
    5. Hosseinpour, P., & Sabernejad, A. (2014). Freedom of Information in Cyber Space from the Perspective of International Law. Tehran: Majd Publications (In Persian).
    6. Masoudi, A. (2003). Information security in cyber space. Tehran: Kitab Mah publication (In Persian).
    7. Pourghahramani, Babak and Sabernejad, Ali (2013). privacy in cyberspace from the perspective of international law, Tehran: Majd Publishing House (In Persian).
    8. Shirzad, K. (2008). Computer Crimes. Tehran: Behineh Faragir Publishing (In Persian).
    9. Zandi, M. R. (2009). preliminary research in cyber crimes. Tehran: Jungle Publications (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Abdolahi, Esmail and Moradi, Sakineh (2014). Criminal Jurisdiction in Cyber Space.Bushehr Police Science Quarterly, 6(20), 40-59 (In Persian).
    3. Jalali Farahani, Amirhossein (2004).Spam, the black effect of advertising in electronic messaging systems. Research Center of the Islamic Council, No. 8451 (In Persian).
    4. Pourghahramani, B., & Sabernejad, A. (2012).The necessity of developing international rules to fight against cyber war. 4th International Virtual Conference on Iran and World Developments. Qazvin: Farvardin (In Persian).
    5. Raji, S. M. H. (2006).Looking at the Law of Electronic Commerce. Gowah Legal Journal Quarterly. 6-7, 65-69 (In Persian).
    6. Razavi, M. (2016).Cybercrimes and the role of the police in preventing these crimes and detecting them. Police Science Quarterly. 32, 120-140 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 3
Autumn 2024
Autumn 2024
Pages 1825-1843

  • Receive Date 18 December 2021
  • Revise Date 14 March 2022
  • Accept Date 22 May 2022

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us