International internet laws are important to understand in the context of internet transactions. Also, the issue of a foreign court’s jurisdiction over the parties comes up on a regular basis. The international laws include treaties, directives, rules, and regulations. For example, the Hague Conference on Private International Laws has adopted a convention that governs jurisdiction and judgment enforcement among its members. As such, the parties will have the opportunity to select the venue, governing law, and jurisdiction for dispute resolution before executing agreements. This way, a predesignated court would have authority over the parties and could render a final and enforceable judgment. This convention allows the parties to enforce the judgment in the proper jurisdiction. It also applies to non-consumer browse-wrap and click-wrap agreements.
International internet laws can be complicated especially if there are multiple parties involved from different jurisdictions. For example, if the plaintiff is in France, and one defendant is in Germany, and the other is in the United States, a foreign court with proper authority over the case may not grant the protections afforded to the defendants by the United States laws. The court usually evaluates where the violation took place and who was affected by it. It will also evaluate whether the defendant’s actions were intentionally directed towards the plaintiff. In some cases, the courts have been inclined to apply United States laws to foreign litigants based on the facts and evidence. Therefore, it will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
A foreign court will likely have jurisdiction if the online commercial transactions – i.e., e-commerce transactions – had a substantial effect in their country. This is called the Effects Doctrine which holds that a foreign court should have jurisdiction where the effects are felt and damages take place despite the defendant’s citizenship or nationality. This principle has been useful in online harassment and defamation cases.