Transformation of territorial paradigm of a jurisdiction under digitalization

Objective: to develop new approaches to the transformation of the territorial paradigm of jurisdiction in international public and private law under digitalization.

Methods: the research is based on general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, system approach, modeling), as well as an interdisciplinary (convergent) approach, which allowed integrating the categorical apparatus of international public and private law.

Results: the study proved that it is impossible to solve conflict-of-laws and jurisdictional problems of private international law in the digital age without referring to the basic categories of public international law (sovereignty, territory, etc.). The author identified and disclosed a causal relationship between the extraterritorial claims of some states and the retaliatory protectionist policies of others (data localization laws), which is a key impetus for the cyberspace fragmentation (“Balkanization”). It is established that law faces a transition from rigid territorial criteria (“place of execution”, “place of harm”) to flexible assessment categories (“close connection”). The research proved that the territorial paradigm is not abolished, but is adapted by forming legal fictions that “bind” national segments of cyberspace (domain zones, infrastructure) to a state territory. The author showed the inconsistency of recognizing cyberspace as a global public domain similar to the open sea under technological monopoly and geopolitical rivalry.

Scientific novelty: a convergent approach was developed that allows studying the jurisdiction transformation as a consolidated process affecting both public and private international law. The concept of adapting the territorial paradigm was substantiated, which manifests itself not in its abolition, but in the parallel development of two processes: the “grounding" of virtual space through legal fictions and the formation of a new “virtual contour” of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The author proves the decisive role of the state-centric approach and the policy of digital sovereignty as opposed to the model of multistakeholderism. The study also provides a new assessment of the trend of establishing jurisdiction based on “close connection” in private international law and identifies its risks based on legal certainty.

Practical significance: the research results can be used to develop national and international policies based on a state-centered Internet management model; the identified trends (extraterritorial claims, technological monopoly) can be used to predict and prevent threats and develop preventive measures aimed at shaping strategic cyberspace management policies.

1. Adams, J., & Albakajai, M. (2016). Cyberspace: A New Threat to the Sovereignty of the State. Management Studies, 4(6). https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2185/2016.06.003

2. Anselmo, E. (2006). Cyberspace in international legislation: does the Internet development rejects the territoriality principle in international law? Eсоnomicheskie strategii, 2, 24–31. (In Russ.).

3. Bakhin, S. V. (2002). Legal issues of contract unification. Moscow Journal of International Law, 1, 129–143. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2002-1-129-143

4. Benyekhlef, К., & Gelinas, F. (2009). The International Experience in regard to Procedures for Settling Conflicts relating to Buxbaum H.L. Territory, Territoriality, and the Resolution of Jurisdictional Conflict. American Journal of Comparative Law, 57.

5. Copyright in the Digital Environment. (2001). UNESCO Copyright Bulletin, XXXV(4).

6. Huang, J. (2023). Developing Chinese Private International Law for Transnational Civil and Commercial Litigation: The 2024 New Chinese Civil Procedure Law. Netherlands International Law Review, 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00243-3

7. Johnson, D., & Post, D. (1996). Law And Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review*, 1367. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229390

8. Kobrin, S. (1997). Electronic cash and the end of national markets. Foreign Policy, 107(4), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149333

9. Lithgoe, G. (2024). The Rebirth of Territory. Cambridge University Press.

10. Lodder, A. R. (2013). Ten Commandments of Internet Law Revisited: Basic Principles for Internet Lawyers. Information & Communications Technology Law, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2013.852769

11. Matusitz, J. (2014). Intercultural perspectives on cyberspace: An updated examination. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 24(7), 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.849223

12. Menthe, D. C. (1998). Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Theory of International Spaces. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 4(1), 69–103. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=mttlr

13. Mills, A. (2014). Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, 84(1), 187–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/bru003

14. Mueller, M. L. (2020). Against sovereignty in cyberspace. International Studies Review, 22(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz044

15. Parrish, A. (2009). Reclaiming International Law from Extraterritoriality. Minnesota Law Review, 93. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1013740

16. Pierucci, F. (2025). Sovereignty in the Digital Era: Rethinking Territoriality and Governance in Cyberspace. Digital Society, 4(27). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-025-00189-4

17. Razmetaeva, Y., Ponomarova, H., & Bylya-Sabadash, I. (2021). Jurisdictional issues in the digital age. Ius Humani. Law Journal, 10(1), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.31207/ih.v10i1.240

18. Ruohonen, J. (2021). The treachery of images in the digital sovereignty debate. Minds and Machines, 31(3), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09566-7

19. Ryngaert, C. (2016). Introduction: Port State Jurisdiction: Challenges and Potential. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 31, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341405

20. Ryngaert, C. (2023). Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Normative Shifts. German Law Journal, 24, 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.24

21. Samarin, A. A. (2016). Exterritorial action of law: abstract of a Cand. Sci. (Law) thesis. Nizhny Novgorod. (In Russ.).

22. Sharma, S. (2025). International law jurisdiction in cyberspace: Navigating legal frontiers in the digital domain. International Journal of Law, 11(7), 90–99.

23. Strelcov, A. A. (2017). Sovereignty and jurisdiction of a state in the information-communication technologies environment in the context of international security. Mezdunarodnaya Zhizn, 2, 87–106. (In Russ.).

24. Talapina, E. (2018). Law and Digitalization: New Challenges and Prospects. Journal of Russian Law, 2. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.12737/art_2018_2_1

25. Terenteva, L. V. (2019). Cyberspace governance according to the multistakeholder model. Pravo i Eсonomika, 3. (In Russ.).

26. Terenteva, L. V. (2019). Territorial aspect of state jurisdiction and sovereignty in cyberspace. Lex Russica, 4. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2019.149.4.139-150

27. * Принадлежит нежелательной организации в РФ / Belongs to an undesirable organization in the Russian Federation.