Geopolitics, jurisdiction and surveillance
Open accessAbstract
The internet is a forum for geopolitical struggle as states wield power beyond their terrestrial territorial borders through the extraterritorial geographies of data flows. This exertion of power across multiple jurisdictions, and via the infrastructure of transnational technology companies, creates new challenges for traditional forms of regulatory governance and the protection of human rights.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When the US uses extraterritorial sanctions to block non-US firms' trade and financial dealings with a target country, it coercively turns national measures into global ones and breaches other states' sovereignty.
“It is quite another for the government to use extraterritorial sanctions to block trade and financial activities by non-US companies against that target country—in other words, to coercively turn national actions into global measures, in breach of the sovereignty of other states (Mann & Daly, 2020).”
From Illusions of techno-nationalism. (2022) · cites this paper as Mann & Daly, 2020
The Introduction discusses US attempts to exert power over extraterritorial conduct, and Main Contributions describes US use of internet companies to extend its power beyond its borders. Neither passage addresses extraterritorial sanctions blocking non-US firms’ trade or financial dealings, or says that such measures breach other states’ sovereignty. Searches for sanctions, trade restrictions, and sovereignty found no passage establishing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 27 · Cited by 38
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., & Walker, R. B. J. (2014). After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12048 · DOI
- Boister, N. (2015). Further reflections on the concept of transnational criminal law. Transnational Legal Theory, 6(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2015.1042232 · DOI
- Braithwaite, I., Callender, T., Bullock, M., & Aldridge, R. W. (2020). Automated and partly automated contact tracing: A systemic review to inform the control of COVID-19. The Lancet Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30184-9 · DOI
- Brenner, S. W. (2009). Cyber Threats: The emerging fault lines of the nation state. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385014.001.0001 · DOI
- Brown, I., & Marsden, C. T. (2013). Good governance and better regulation in the information age. MIT Press.
- Cartwright, M. (2020). Internationalising state power through the internet: Google, Huawei and geopolitical struggle. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020. · DOI
- 1494 · DOI
- Casarosa, F. (2020). Transnational collective actions for cross-border data protection violations. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020. · DOI
- 1498 · DOI
- Daly, A. (In press). Neo-Liberal Business-As-Usual or Post-Surveillance Capitalism With European Characteristics? The EU's General Data Protection Regulation in a Multi-Polar Internet. In R. Hoyng & G. P. L. Chong (Eds.), Communication Innovation and Infrastructure: A Critique of the New in a Multipolar World. Michigan State University Press.
- DeNardis, L., & Hackl, A. M. (2015). Internet governance by social media platforms. Telecommunication Policy, 39, 761-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.04.003 · DOI
- Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world. Oxford University Press.
- Gstrein, O. (2020). Mapping power and jurisdiction on the internet through the lens of government-led surveillance. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020. · DOI
- 1497 · DOI
- Hildebrandt, M. (2013). Extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce in cyberspace?: Bodin, Schmitt, Grotius in cyberspace. University of Toronto Law Journal, 63(2), 196-224. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.1119 · DOI
- Johnson, D., & Post, D. (1996). Law and borders: The rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 48(5), 1367-1402. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229390 · DOI
- Kennedy, S., & Warren, I. (2020). The legal geographies of extradition and sovereign power. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020. · DOI
- 1496 · DOI
- Mann, M., Daly, A., & Molnar, A. (2020). Regulatory arbitrage and transnational surveillance: Australia's extraterritorial assistance to access encrypted communications. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.3 · DOI
- 1499 · DOI
- Mann, M., & Warren, I. (2018). The digital and legal divide: Silk Road, transnational online policing and southern criminology. In K. Carrington, R. Hogg, J. Scott, & M. Sozzo (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of criminology and the global south (pp. 245-260). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65021-0_13 · DOI
- Schiller, D. (2011). Special commentary: Geopolitical-economic conflict and network infrastructures. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4(1), 90-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2011.544085 · DOI
- Svantesson, D. (2013). A 'layered approach' to the extraterritoriality of data privacy laws. Geopolitics, jurisdiction and surveillance Internet Policy Review | http://policyreview.info 10 September 2020 | Volume 9 | Issue 3 International Data Privacy Law, 3(4), 278-286. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipt027 · DOI
- Svantesson, D. (2014). Sovereignty in international law -how the internet (maybe) changed everything, but not for long. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 8(1), 137-155. https://journals.muni.cz/mujlt/article/view/2651
- Svantesson, D. J. B. (2017). Solving the internet jurisdiction puzzle. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198795674.001.0001 · DOI
- Taylor, L., Sharma, G., Martin, A., & Jameson, S. (Eds.). (2020). Data Justice and COVID-19: Global Perspectives. Meatspace Press. https://shop.meatspacepress.com/product/data-justice- and-covid-19-global-perspectives
- Thumfart, J. (2020). Private and public just wars: Distributed cyber deterrence based on Vitoria and Grotius. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020. · DOI
- 1500 · DOI
- Vazquez Maymir, S. (2020). Anchoring the Need to Revise Cross-Border Access to E-Evidence. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020. · DOI
- 1495 · DOI
- Warren, I. (2015). Surveillance, criminal law and sovereignty. Surveillance & Society, 13(2), 300-305. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i2.5679 FOOTNOTES · DOI
- Authors
- Mann, M., & Daly, A.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- University of Strathclyde (GB)
- Venue
- Internet Policy Review
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2197-6775 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3086850939
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 19.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Internet Policy Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Queensland University of Technology
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Security, Politics, and Digital Transformation
- Keywords
- geopolitics, extraterritorial jurisdiction, internet governance, surveillance, data flow, human rights, regulatory governance, state power
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
