| | RKR, welcome aboard, Ryan! Realize first of all that this thread and a couple others related are interminably long because these are among the few areas where we all actually disagree. So, don't make too much of this. (Tipping waitresses was another and perhaps equally as meritorious.)
This topic thread is about jurisdiction, a narrow engagement over one word. Your post opens many other avenues. Therefore, I respond to your #19 in a different topic. See "Police Forces and Courts of Law" in the Dissent Forum.
Jim Henshaw: You confound the word "jurisdiction." There are two kinds: exclusive and inclusive. The only definition offered here is that jurisdiction is created by law. What, then is law, given, as I have noted, that we have three (or four) "books" of law: criminal, civil, and private (and private international).
That last is the one that I think offers the most insight into the questions you raise. I have repeatedly pointed out -- as you did, also -- that when international entities (Ford, Siemens, ABB, Sumitomo) engage in business, they shop for national laws under which to interpret their contracts.
The problems (so-called) with the Internet reflect the other side of that problem. American states attempt to regulate online activity, to no avail, of course. On the other hand, working with Microsoft and Google, the government of China maintains repressive control over the expression of political ideas. On the other other hand, Russia is totally unregulated and totally criminal. Never visit a dot.ru site unless you want to turn your computer into a node on malware. So, as you say, shopping for a jurisdiction requires some application of judgement.
|
|
