File #2584: "2019_Book_UseAndMisuseOfNewTechnologies.pdf"
Testo
1|Foreword|5
1|Preface|7
1|Abbreviations|13
1|Contents|10
1|Contributors|12
1|Part I: Legal Implications of the Use of New Technologies in Law Enforcement Activities and Beyond|17
2|High-Tech Migration Control in the EU and Beyond: The Legal Challenges of “Enhanced Interoperability”|18
3|1 Introduction|18
3|2 The Many Faces of High-Tech Migration Control: Insights from the Practice|20
4|2.1 Digitalisation in Administrative Processes at the Borders|21
4|2.2 Digitalisation and the Everyday Lives of Migrants and Refugees|22
4|2.3 The Militarisation and Virtualisation of Borders|24
3|3 Autonomous Systems at the Border: The Trolley Problem or… Defining Clear Rules Ex Ante|25
3|4 EU Integrated Border Management and the “Security Union”: A Laboratory for High-Tech Migration and Border Control|26
4|4.1 The Architecture of EU’s “Smart Borders”|29
4|4.2 Crafting the EU’s “Smart Borders” as an Interoperable Environment|33
3|5 Interoperability as an Encompassing Goal: Crowding Fundamental Rights and Data Protection Out?|36
3|6 Human Mobility Under EU “Smart” Surveillance: Automation, “Dronization” and Intelligence Sharing|40
3|7 Concluding Remarks on Enhanced Interoperability, the Crisis of Schengen and the Solidarity Principle|45
3|References|47
2|Swords Shielding Security? The Use of Databases in Criminal Cooperation within the European Union: Challenges and Prospects|51
3|1 Shielding Security Through the Sword of Information Cooperation: The Evolving Paradigm for Law Enforcement in the EU|51
3|2 Foil, Sabre, or Sword? The Main Features of EU Information Sharing Tools, with Multiple Cooperation Techniques and Diversified Institutional Settings|53
4|2.1 Functional Taxonomy: Information Cooperation Tools and Police and Judicial Cooperation Techniques in Criminal Matters|53
4|2.2 Institutional Taxonomy: Governing Information Cooperation in Criminal Matters|58
3|3 Unconventional Swords. The Privatization of Information Cooperation for Law Enforcement Purposes (and Its Confinement by the Court of Justice)|59
3|4 Too Many Swords to Handle! Towards Interoperability of EU Information Systems|63
3|5 Concluding Remarks|66
3|References|67
2|What Do Human Rights Really Say About the Use of Autonomous Weapons Systems for Law Enforcement Purposes?|69
3|1 Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Human Rights Law: An Attempt to Introduce a Primitive Debate|69
3|2 Human Rights Implications of the Use of Autonomous Weapons Systems for Law Enforcement Purposes|72
3|3 The Positive Dimension of Human Rights in the Regulation of Autonomous Weapons Systems|75
4|3.1 The Positive Obligation to Protect the Right to Life|76
4|3.2 The Positive Steps in Order to Secure That the Collection of Data Complies with Human Rights Standards|78
3|4 A Human Rights Oriented Regulation|80
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|84
3|References|85
2|Training and Education of Armed Forces in the Age of High-Tech Hostilities|87
3|1 Introduction|88
3|2 Preliminary Reflections on New Technologies and the Regulation of Armed Conflicts|89
3|3 The Relevance of Military Training for the Respect of International Humanitarian Law|91
3|4 The Duty to Provide Adequate International Humanitarian Law Education and Training and High-Tech Hostilities|96
3|5 Conclusions|102
3|References|103
2|Drones at War: The Military Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and International Law|106
3|1 Introduction|106
3|2 Issues of Sovereignty and Consent Under jus ad bellum|108
3|3 Drones Strikes and the Extraterritorial Applicability of Human Rights Treaties|112
3|4 The Existence of an Armed Conflict and the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law: Which Implications?|115
4|4.1 Drones and Neutrality: New Technologies, Old Questions|117
4|4.2 The Battlefield and Its Boundaries: No Easy Definition|119
3|5 Concluding Remarks|122
3|References|123
1|Part II: The Role of Courts and Other Actors in Defining Normative Standards for Technology-Related Challenges|126
2|The EU as a Global Standard Setting Actor: The Case of Data Transfers to Third Countries|127
3|1 Introduction|127
3|2 Restrictions to Cross-Border Data Transfers Under EU Law|129
3|3 The Adequacy Assessment|132
4|3.1 The Schrems Judgment and the New Privacy Shield|132
4|3.2 A Fundamental Rights Framework for Assessing Adequacy|134
3|4 The Adequacy Assessment in Data Transfers for Non-commercial Purposes|135
3|5 Adequate Protection in the Context of National Security Exceptions: The Case of Onward Transfers|137
4|5.1 Onward Transfers Under EU Law|138
4|5.2 Onward Transfers in the New Privacy Shield|141
3|6 Conclusive Remarks|144
3|References|145
2|The Passenger Name Record Case: Profiling Privacy and Data Protection Issues in Light of CJEU’s Opinion 1/15|147
3|1 Introduction|147
3|2 The CJEU’s Opinion 1/15: Article 16(2) TFEU as a Necessary Legal Basis…|150
3|3 …and the Compatibility of the Agreement with the TFEU and the EUCFR|152
3|4 The Potential Implications of Opinion 1/15 on the EU PNR Framework|157
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|159
3|References|161
2|The European Court of Human Rights Shaping Family Life in Cross-border Surrogacy: The Paradiso et Campanelli Case|163
3|1 Introduction|163
3|2 The Paradiso et Campanelli Case|165
3|3 The Inexistence of de Facto Family Life|167
4|3.1 Risk of a Merely Quantitative Assessment of de Facto Family Life|167
4|3.2 Risk of a Decline in the Autonomous Relevance of de Facto Family Life|168
3|4 The Immediate Consequence of the Non-existence of Family Life: No Balance Between Protection of Family Unity and the State Margin of Appreciation|171
3|5 Difficulties in Balancing the Protection of Family Unity Against the State Margin of Appreciation|173
3|6 Behind the Difficult Balance Between Protection of Family Unity and the State Margin of Appreciation: Surrogate Motherhood as a Technological Development|175
3|References|177
2|Hybrid Governance or… Nothing? The EU Code of Conduct on Combatting Illegal Hate Speech Online|179
3|1 Introduction|179
3|2 The Policy and Governance Framework for Combatting Illegal Hate Speech Online|181
4|2.1 The Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online|181
5|2.1.1 Participatory Approach|183
5|2.1.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning|185
5|2.1.3 Soft Law and Voluntariness of Participation|187
4|2.2 German Network Enforcement Act|188
3|3 Internet Service Providers as “Gatekeepers”?|191
3|4 Conclusions: Internet Service Providers as ‘Guardians’|194
3|References|195
2|The Construction of a Normative Framework for Technology-Driven Innovations: A Legal Theory Perspective|197
3|1 Some Introductory Considerations Through the Lens of Privacy|198
3|2 The Normativity of Law from Writing to Technology|200
4|2.1 Law, Written Texts and Interpretation|200
4|2.2 Norms Without Interpretation: The Dark Side of Technological Normativity|202
4|2.3 What Is Left of Law? The Rule of Law Put to Test by Technology|203
3|3 The Legal Theory of Design: Towards a “Hybrid Normativity”|205
4|3.1 The Code in Lessig’s Pluralistic Perspective|205
4|3.2 Minimum Taxonomy of Technological Regulations|208
3|4 From Robots’ Liability to Humans’ Responsibility|212
4|4.1 The Case of Robots: Do We Have to Forget Asimov?|212
4|4.2 Some Conclusive Thoughts: A Framework for Operators and Authorities|214
3|References|217
1|Part III: Addressing Violations Deriving from the Use of New Technologies: Issues of Responsibility and Judicial Protection|221
2|Who Is to Blame for Autonomous Weapons Systems’ Misdoings?|222
3|1 Introduction|223
3|2 Structural Problems with Responsibility Ascription for AWS’ Misdoings|224
3|3 Individual Criminal Responsibility|228
4|3.1 Direct Responsibility|228
4|3.2 Superior Responsibility|233
3|4 State Responsibility|235
3|5 Corporate Responsibility|236
4|5.1 Tort Liability for International Crimes|237
4|5.2 Product Liability|238
4|5.3 No-Fault Liability|239
3|6 Concluding Remarks|240
3|References|241
2|Attribution to State of Cyber Operations Conducted by Non-State Actors|244
3|1 Introduction|244
3|2 Distinction Between De facto Organ of the State and Acts Perpetrated Under the Instructions, Direction or Control of the State|247
3|3 Diversity of Approaches on the Attribution of Acts Conducted Under the Instructions, Direction or Control of the State|248
4|3.1 The ICJ’s Nicaragua Case and the “Effective Control” Test|248
4|3.2 The ICTY’s Tadić Case and the “Overall Control” Test|251
4|3.3 The ILC Articles on Responsibility of States|255
4|3.4 The Armed Activities and Bosnian Genocide Cases: Restating the “Effective Control” Test|256
5|3.4.1 The Armed Activities Case|257
5|3.4.2 The Bosnian Genocide Case|257
4|3.5 Analysing and Navigating the Various Approaches|259
3|4 Applying the Various Approaches to Cyber Operations|260
4|4.1 2007 Estonia DDoS Attacks|261
4|4.2 Private Cybersecurity Companies|263
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|264
3|References|265
2|The Use of Unarmed Drones in UN Peacekeeping Operations: Issues of Attribution|267
3|1 Introduction and Scope of the Chapter|267
3|2 The United Nations and the Use of Drones: From “Drones for Good” to “Drones for Peace”|269
4|2.1 The Use of UUAVs in Humanitarian Actions|269
4|2.2 The Use of UUAVs in Peacekeeping Operations|271
3|3 The MONUSCO Experience with UUAVs|273
3|4 Legal Challenges Posed by the (Mis)Use of UUAVs in UN Peacekeeping Operations|276
3|5 Attributing the Wrongdoings Committed by Private Actors Operating the Drones to the UN. An Analysis Under the 2011 Draft Articles|280
3|6 Conclusive Remarks|283
3|References|284
2|Digital Rights and Jurisdiction: The European Approach to Online Defamation and IPRs Infringements|286
3|1 Introduction|286
3|2 Asserting Jurisdiction Over EU Cross-Border Online Defamation and Online IPRs Infringements: The Brussels I-bis Regime|290
4|2.1 The General Fora: Party Autonomy and the Defendant’s Domicile|291
4|2.2 The Special Forum of Locus Commissi Delicti: From the “Ubiquity Theory” to the “Mosaic Approach”|294
4|2.3 The Interpretation of “Place Where the Harmful Event Occurred or May Occur” with Regard to Online Defamation: The eDate and Martinez and BOÜ/Ilsjan Rulings|295
4|2.4 The “Locus Delicti” vis-à-vis Online IPRs Infringements: The Wintergeister Case on Trademark|300
5|2.4.1 The “Locus Delicti” vis-à-vis Online Copyright Infringements: The Pinckney Ruling|302
5|2.4.2 The Hejduk Case|307
3|3 Conclusive Remarks: The Need for a European “Less is More” Normative Approach|308
3|References|311
4|Further Readings|313
2|Enforcing the Right to Be Forgotten Beyond EU Borders|314
3|1 Introduction|314
3|2 The “Right to Be Forgotten” in the GDPR|315
3|3 The Scope of Application of the GDPR: What Is Meant by “Reach Beyond EU Borders”?|316
4|3.1 The Main Connecting Factor Triggering the Applicability of the GDPR: Establishment of the Controller or Processor in the Union|317
4|3.2 Subsidiary Connecting Factors: The Offering of Goods or Services and the Monitoring of Behaviour|319
3|4 The Connecting Factors Employed by the GDPR in the Light of Public International Law|320
4|4.1 A Classification of Connecting Factors Employed in the GDPR|320
4|4.2 The Reach of the GDPR and International Law Limits to Extraterritoriality|321
3|5 The Implementation of the “Right to Be Forgotten”: Determining the Territorial Scope of Delisting|324
4|5.1 Overview of the Alternatives: Local Implementation, Global Implementation and Geographic Filtering|324
4|5.2 Delisting Before the CJEU: Case C-507/17 Google v. CNIL|327
4|5.3 The Problem with Geographic Filtering|328
4|5.4 Searching for a Nuanced Approach|329
4|5.5 The Inevitable Shortcomings of Flexibility|332
3|6 Conclusive Remarks|333
3|References|334
2|Overflying Justiciability? Drones and Avoidance Doctrines Before National Courts|336
3|1 Introduction|337
3|2 Avoidance Doctrines|338
4|2.1 Origin and Peculiarities of Non-justiciability Theories|339
4|2.2 Avoidance Doctrines Applied to Targeted Killing Cases|340
3|3 Access to Justice and Reparation in International Law|342
3|4 Countering Avoidance Doctrines’ Rationale|347
4|4.1 Contextual Discomfort, Territorial Jurisdiction and Combat Immunity|347
4|4.2 Internal Versus External Perspective (or Constitutionalism Versus International Law)|349
3|5 Alternative Pathways to Justice|351
3|6 Conclusions: Targeted Killings and Avoidance Doctrines as Intertwined Façades|355
3|References|357
1|Part IV: Conclusions|361
2|New Technologies in International (and European) Law—Contemporary Challenges and Returning Issues|362
3|References|368
1|Correction to: The Construction of a Normative Framework for Technology-Driven Innovations: A Legal Theory Perspective|370
2|Correction to: Chapter 10 in: E. Carpanelli, N. Lazzerini (eds.), Use and Misuse of New Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_10|370
1|Preface|7
1|Abbreviations|13
1|Contents|10
1|Contributors|12
1|Part I: Legal Implications of the Use of New Technologies in Law Enforcement Activities and Beyond|17
2|High-Tech Migration Control in the EU and Beyond: The Legal Challenges of “Enhanced Interoperability”|18
3|1 Introduction|18
3|2 The Many Faces of High-Tech Migration Control: Insights from the Practice|20
4|2.1 Digitalisation in Administrative Processes at the Borders|21
4|2.2 Digitalisation and the Everyday Lives of Migrants and Refugees|22
4|2.3 The Militarisation and Virtualisation of Borders|24
3|3 Autonomous Systems at the Border: The Trolley Problem or… Defining Clear Rules Ex Ante|25
3|4 EU Integrated Border Management and the “Security Union”: A Laboratory for High-Tech Migration and Border Control|26
4|4.1 The Architecture of EU’s “Smart Borders”|29
4|4.2 Crafting the EU’s “Smart Borders” as an Interoperable Environment|33
3|5 Interoperability as an Encompassing Goal: Crowding Fundamental Rights and Data Protection Out?|36
3|6 Human Mobility Under EU “Smart” Surveillance: Automation, “Dronization” and Intelligence Sharing|40
3|7 Concluding Remarks on Enhanced Interoperability, the Crisis of Schengen and the Solidarity Principle|45
3|References|47
2|Swords Shielding Security? The Use of Databases in Criminal Cooperation within the European Union: Challenges and Prospects|51
3|1 Shielding Security Through the Sword of Information Cooperation: The Evolving Paradigm for Law Enforcement in the EU|51
3|2 Foil, Sabre, or Sword? The Main Features of EU Information Sharing Tools, with Multiple Cooperation Techniques and Diversified Institutional Settings|53
4|2.1 Functional Taxonomy: Information Cooperation Tools and Police and Judicial Cooperation Techniques in Criminal Matters|53
4|2.2 Institutional Taxonomy: Governing Information Cooperation in Criminal Matters|58
3|3 Unconventional Swords. The Privatization of Information Cooperation for Law Enforcement Purposes (and Its Confinement by the Court of Justice)|59
3|4 Too Many Swords to Handle! Towards Interoperability of EU Information Systems|63
3|5 Concluding Remarks|66
3|References|67
2|What Do Human Rights Really Say About the Use of Autonomous Weapons Systems for Law Enforcement Purposes?|69
3|1 Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Human Rights Law: An Attempt to Introduce a Primitive Debate|69
3|2 Human Rights Implications of the Use of Autonomous Weapons Systems for Law Enforcement Purposes|72
3|3 The Positive Dimension of Human Rights in the Regulation of Autonomous Weapons Systems|75
4|3.1 The Positive Obligation to Protect the Right to Life|76
4|3.2 The Positive Steps in Order to Secure That the Collection of Data Complies with Human Rights Standards|78
3|4 A Human Rights Oriented Regulation|80
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|84
3|References|85
2|Training and Education of Armed Forces in the Age of High-Tech Hostilities|87
3|1 Introduction|88
3|2 Preliminary Reflections on New Technologies and the Regulation of Armed Conflicts|89
3|3 The Relevance of Military Training for the Respect of International Humanitarian Law|91
3|4 The Duty to Provide Adequate International Humanitarian Law Education and Training and High-Tech Hostilities|96
3|5 Conclusions|102
3|References|103
2|Drones at War: The Military Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and International Law|106
3|1 Introduction|106
3|2 Issues of Sovereignty and Consent Under jus ad bellum|108
3|3 Drones Strikes and the Extraterritorial Applicability of Human Rights Treaties|112
3|4 The Existence of an Armed Conflict and the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law: Which Implications?|115
4|4.1 Drones and Neutrality: New Technologies, Old Questions|117
4|4.2 The Battlefield and Its Boundaries: No Easy Definition|119
3|5 Concluding Remarks|122
3|References|123
1|Part II: The Role of Courts and Other Actors in Defining Normative Standards for Technology-Related Challenges|126
2|The EU as a Global Standard Setting Actor: The Case of Data Transfers to Third Countries|127
3|1 Introduction|127
3|2 Restrictions to Cross-Border Data Transfers Under EU Law|129
3|3 The Adequacy Assessment|132
4|3.1 The Schrems Judgment and the New Privacy Shield|132
4|3.2 A Fundamental Rights Framework for Assessing Adequacy|134
3|4 The Adequacy Assessment in Data Transfers for Non-commercial Purposes|135
3|5 Adequate Protection in the Context of National Security Exceptions: The Case of Onward Transfers|137
4|5.1 Onward Transfers Under EU Law|138
4|5.2 Onward Transfers in the New Privacy Shield|141
3|6 Conclusive Remarks|144
3|References|145
2|The Passenger Name Record Case: Profiling Privacy and Data Protection Issues in Light of CJEU’s Opinion 1/15|147
3|1 Introduction|147
3|2 The CJEU’s Opinion 1/15: Article 16(2) TFEU as a Necessary Legal Basis…|150
3|3 …and the Compatibility of the Agreement with the TFEU and the EUCFR|152
3|4 The Potential Implications of Opinion 1/15 on the EU PNR Framework|157
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|159
3|References|161
2|The European Court of Human Rights Shaping Family Life in Cross-border Surrogacy: The Paradiso et Campanelli Case|163
3|1 Introduction|163
3|2 The Paradiso et Campanelli Case|165
3|3 The Inexistence of de Facto Family Life|167
4|3.1 Risk of a Merely Quantitative Assessment of de Facto Family Life|167
4|3.2 Risk of a Decline in the Autonomous Relevance of de Facto Family Life|168
3|4 The Immediate Consequence of the Non-existence of Family Life: No Balance Between Protection of Family Unity and the State Margin of Appreciation|171
3|5 Difficulties in Balancing the Protection of Family Unity Against the State Margin of Appreciation|173
3|6 Behind the Difficult Balance Between Protection of Family Unity and the State Margin of Appreciation: Surrogate Motherhood as a Technological Development|175
3|References|177
2|Hybrid Governance or… Nothing? The EU Code of Conduct on Combatting Illegal Hate Speech Online|179
3|1 Introduction|179
3|2 The Policy and Governance Framework for Combatting Illegal Hate Speech Online|181
4|2.1 The Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online|181
5|2.1.1 Participatory Approach|183
5|2.1.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning|185
5|2.1.3 Soft Law and Voluntariness of Participation|187
4|2.2 German Network Enforcement Act|188
3|3 Internet Service Providers as “Gatekeepers”?|191
3|4 Conclusions: Internet Service Providers as ‘Guardians’|194
3|References|195
2|The Construction of a Normative Framework for Technology-Driven Innovations: A Legal Theory Perspective|197
3|1 Some Introductory Considerations Through the Lens of Privacy|198
3|2 The Normativity of Law from Writing to Technology|200
4|2.1 Law, Written Texts and Interpretation|200
4|2.2 Norms Without Interpretation: The Dark Side of Technological Normativity|202
4|2.3 What Is Left of Law? The Rule of Law Put to Test by Technology|203
3|3 The Legal Theory of Design: Towards a “Hybrid Normativity”|205
4|3.1 The Code in Lessig’s Pluralistic Perspective|205
4|3.2 Minimum Taxonomy of Technological Regulations|208
3|4 From Robots’ Liability to Humans’ Responsibility|212
4|4.1 The Case of Robots: Do We Have to Forget Asimov?|212
4|4.2 Some Conclusive Thoughts: A Framework for Operators and Authorities|214
3|References|217
1|Part III: Addressing Violations Deriving from the Use of New Technologies: Issues of Responsibility and Judicial Protection|221
2|Who Is to Blame for Autonomous Weapons Systems’ Misdoings?|222
3|1 Introduction|223
3|2 Structural Problems with Responsibility Ascription for AWS’ Misdoings|224
3|3 Individual Criminal Responsibility|228
4|3.1 Direct Responsibility|228
4|3.2 Superior Responsibility|233
3|4 State Responsibility|235
3|5 Corporate Responsibility|236
4|5.1 Tort Liability for International Crimes|237
4|5.2 Product Liability|238
4|5.3 No-Fault Liability|239
3|6 Concluding Remarks|240
3|References|241
2|Attribution to State of Cyber Operations Conducted by Non-State Actors|244
3|1 Introduction|244
3|2 Distinction Between De facto Organ of the State and Acts Perpetrated Under the Instructions, Direction or Control of the State|247
3|3 Diversity of Approaches on the Attribution of Acts Conducted Under the Instructions, Direction or Control of the State|248
4|3.1 The ICJ’s Nicaragua Case and the “Effective Control” Test|248
4|3.2 The ICTY’s Tadić Case and the “Overall Control” Test|251
4|3.3 The ILC Articles on Responsibility of States|255
4|3.4 The Armed Activities and Bosnian Genocide Cases: Restating the “Effective Control” Test|256
5|3.4.1 The Armed Activities Case|257
5|3.4.2 The Bosnian Genocide Case|257
4|3.5 Analysing and Navigating the Various Approaches|259
3|4 Applying the Various Approaches to Cyber Operations|260
4|4.1 2007 Estonia DDoS Attacks|261
4|4.2 Private Cybersecurity Companies|263
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|264
3|References|265
2|The Use of Unarmed Drones in UN Peacekeeping Operations: Issues of Attribution|267
3|1 Introduction and Scope of the Chapter|267
3|2 The United Nations and the Use of Drones: From “Drones for Good” to “Drones for Peace”|269
4|2.1 The Use of UUAVs in Humanitarian Actions|269
4|2.2 The Use of UUAVs in Peacekeeping Operations|271
3|3 The MONUSCO Experience with UUAVs|273
3|4 Legal Challenges Posed by the (Mis)Use of UUAVs in UN Peacekeeping Operations|276
3|5 Attributing the Wrongdoings Committed by Private Actors Operating the Drones to the UN. An Analysis Under the 2011 Draft Articles|280
3|6 Conclusive Remarks|283
3|References|284
2|Digital Rights and Jurisdiction: The European Approach to Online Defamation and IPRs Infringements|286
3|1 Introduction|286
3|2 Asserting Jurisdiction Over EU Cross-Border Online Defamation and Online IPRs Infringements: The Brussels I-bis Regime|290
4|2.1 The General Fora: Party Autonomy and the Defendant’s Domicile|291
4|2.2 The Special Forum of Locus Commissi Delicti: From the “Ubiquity Theory” to the “Mosaic Approach”|294
4|2.3 The Interpretation of “Place Where the Harmful Event Occurred or May Occur” with Regard to Online Defamation: The eDate and Martinez and BOÜ/Ilsjan Rulings|295
4|2.4 The “Locus Delicti” vis-à-vis Online IPRs Infringements: The Wintergeister Case on Trademark|300
5|2.4.1 The “Locus Delicti” vis-à-vis Online Copyright Infringements: The Pinckney Ruling|302
5|2.4.2 The Hejduk Case|307
3|3 Conclusive Remarks: The Need for a European “Less is More” Normative Approach|308
3|References|311
4|Further Readings|313
2|Enforcing the Right to Be Forgotten Beyond EU Borders|314
3|1 Introduction|314
3|2 The “Right to Be Forgotten” in the GDPR|315
3|3 The Scope of Application of the GDPR: What Is Meant by “Reach Beyond EU Borders”?|316
4|3.1 The Main Connecting Factor Triggering the Applicability of the GDPR: Establishment of the Controller or Processor in the Union|317
4|3.2 Subsidiary Connecting Factors: The Offering of Goods or Services and the Monitoring of Behaviour|319
3|4 The Connecting Factors Employed by the GDPR in the Light of Public International Law|320
4|4.1 A Classification of Connecting Factors Employed in the GDPR|320
4|4.2 The Reach of the GDPR and International Law Limits to Extraterritoriality|321
3|5 The Implementation of the “Right to Be Forgotten”: Determining the Territorial Scope of Delisting|324
4|5.1 Overview of the Alternatives: Local Implementation, Global Implementation and Geographic Filtering|324
4|5.2 Delisting Before the CJEU: Case C-507/17 Google v. CNIL|327
4|5.3 The Problem with Geographic Filtering|328
4|5.4 Searching for a Nuanced Approach|329
4|5.5 The Inevitable Shortcomings of Flexibility|332
3|6 Conclusive Remarks|333
3|References|334
2|Overflying Justiciability? Drones and Avoidance Doctrines Before National Courts|336
3|1 Introduction|337
3|2 Avoidance Doctrines|338
4|2.1 Origin and Peculiarities of Non-justiciability Theories|339
4|2.2 Avoidance Doctrines Applied to Targeted Killing Cases|340
3|3 Access to Justice and Reparation in International Law|342
3|4 Countering Avoidance Doctrines’ Rationale|347
4|4.1 Contextual Discomfort, Territorial Jurisdiction and Combat Immunity|347
4|4.2 Internal Versus External Perspective (or Constitutionalism Versus International Law)|349
3|5 Alternative Pathways to Justice|351
3|6 Conclusions: Targeted Killings and Avoidance Doctrines as Intertwined Façades|355
3|References|357
1|Part IV: Conclusions|361
2|New Technologies in International (and European) Law—Contemporary Challenges and Returning Issues|362
3|References|368
1|Correction to: The Construction of a Normative Framework for Technology-Driven Innovations: A Legal Theory Perspective|370
2|Correction to: Chapter 10 in: E. Carpanelli, N. Lazzerini (eds.), Use and Misuse of New Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_10|370