Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

General Principles of Public Order and Morality and the Domain Name System: Whither Public International Law?

  • Article
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article discusses the dispute settlement procedure set up by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to assess whether applied-for generic top-level domain names (gTLDs) are contrary to accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognised under general principles of international law. The standard of general principles of international law for morality and public order exemplifies the introduction of a legal yardstick to assess gTLDs. First, the article argues that this standard was carefully crafted to fulfil, in theory, the goals of the settlement procedure. In practice, however, it is unclear whether such general principles are apt to articulate, in a legal form, the norms of public order and morality. Second, the article demonstrates that the expert panels adopted different approaches in deciding the cases brought before them either by prioritising the protection of the users’ health online over freedom of expression or by focusing on preserving freedom of expression under the human rights paradigm. The expert panels construed their mandates differently and implicitly applied different concepts and bodies of public international law into their framing of a new area of regulation. The analysis underlines that one should be cautious when conceptualising and balancing competing interests in the domain name space, such as, on the one hand, the availability of information online and economic considerations and, on the other, the accommodation of public interest concerns in the Internet’s root zone. The article concludes by emphasising that international law is not a panacea for highly debatable policy issues in Internet governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. E.g., Brandshaw et al. (2015), p. 5; Pauwelyn et al. (2012); Klabbers (2011).

  2. Wilson (2009), p. 319.

  3. Post (2009), pp. 142–162.

  4. Lipton and Wong (2012); Partridge and Arnot (2011–2012).

  5. Easton (2012), p. 274.

  6. Art. 3.2.1 gTLD Applicant Guidebook, ICANN (4 June 2012) p. 3.4, http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb. Accessed 1 March 2016 (AGB).

  7. For similar thoughts Post (2009), p. 160 discussing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

  8. New gTLD Program Explanatory Memorandum, ‘Standards for Morality and Public Order Research’ (30 May 2009), https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/morality-public-order-30may09-en.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  9. For a further discussion on this see Sect. 5.1.

  10. Art. 3.2.3, p. 3.9 AGB.

  11. Art. 3.4.4, p. 3.16 and Art. 13(b)(iii), p. 8 AGB.

  12. Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Afilias Limited (Ireland), Case No. EXP/409/ICANN/26, Expert Determination of 6 November 2013 (Prof. George A. Bermann (Chair); Prof. Attila Massimiliano EnricoTanzi (co-expert); Mr Erik G.W. Schäfer (co-expert)), para. 59.

  13. According to Sect. II, Art. 3(1) ‘any proposal of an expert by the Centre shall be made by the Centre either through an ICC national committee or otherwise. The Centre’s role normally ends on notification of the proposal unless the Centre is asked to appoint the proposed expert and/or administer the procedure pursuant to Sections III and IV’. Further, Sect. III, Art. 7(1) indicates that ‘any appointment of an expert by the Centre shall be made by the Centre either through an ICC national committee or otherwise’. http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/icann-new-gtld-dispute-resolution/. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  14. For details of the Panellists appointed by the ICC see nn. 23, 26, 32, 73 below.

  15. Art. 3.2.2.3, p. 3.6 AGB.

  16. Art. 3.2.5, p. 3.9 AGB.

  17. Art. 3.2.5, p. 3.10 AGB.

  18. Art. 3.4.5, p. 3.16 AGB.

  19. Art. 3.4.6, p. 3.17 AGB.

  20. Art. 21(d), p. P-11 AGB.

  21. According to the information available at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/determination. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  22. Independent Objector v. DotHealth Limited, Application I.D. 1-11783236 regarding ‘.HEALTH’; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. IG Group Holdings PLC (UK), Application I.D. 1-1332-82635 regarding ‘.BROKER’; TD Ameritrade v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-8453627 regarding ‘.IRA’; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-8453627 regarding ‘.IRA’; Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-8453627 regarding ‘.IRA’; Prudential Financial Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-68316 regarding ‘.MUTUALFUNDS’; TD Ameritrade v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-68316 regarding ‘.MUTUALFUNDS’; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-68316 regarding ‘.MUTUALFUNDS’; Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-68316 regarding ‘.MUTUALFUNDS’; Prudential Financial Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-17694 regarding ‘.RETIREMENT’; TD Ameritrade v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-17694 regarding ‘.RETIREMENT’; Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-17694 regarding ‘.RETIREMENT’; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Application I.D. 1-1845-17694 regarding ‘.RETIREMENT’.

  23. Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Ruby Pike, LLC (USA), Case No. EXP/412/ICANN/29, Expert Determination of 11 December 2013 (Mr. Piotr Nowaczyk (Chair); Prof. August Reinisch (co-expert); Mr. Ike Ehiribe (co-expert)).

  24. Pursuant to Arts. 3.2.2.4 and 3.5.4 the Community objection concerns whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. E.g. Independent Objector v. Charleston Road Registry Inc., Application ID 1-1139-2965 regarding ‘.MED’; ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) v. DotHealth LLC, Application ID 1-1684-6394 regarding ‘.HEALTH’. See also the new gTLD Program Explanatory Memorandum, ‘“Limited Public Interest” Objection (Morality and Public Order objection)’ (12 November 2010) pp. 9–10, https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-order-12nov10-en.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  25. P. 3.18 AGB.

  26. TD Ameritrade (USA) v. IG Group Holdings PLC (UK), Case No. EXP/458/ICANN/75, Expert Determination of 11 December 2013 (Prof. Cees van Dam (Chair); Prof. Jan Kleinheisterkamp (co-expert); Mr Assen Zahariev Alexiev (co-expert)), para. 90.

  27. New gTLD Program Explanatory Memorandum, ‘Morality and Public Order Objection Considerations in New gTLDs’ (29 October 2008) p. 3, http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/morality-public-order-draft-29oct08-en.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  28. Ibid., p. 2.

  29. Ameritrade case, supra n. 26, para. 90.

  30. E.g. Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Medistry, LLC (USA), Case No. EXP/414/ICANN/31, Expert Determination of 19 December 2013 (Prof. Fabien Gélinas (Chair); Mr John Gaffney (co-expert); Prof. Guglielmo Verdirame (co-expert)), paras. 98–102. See Vezzani (2014), p. 321.

  31. Dissenting Opinion by Professor August Reinisch relating to the Expert Determination of 11 December 2013 in the Ruby Pike case (12 December 2013), supra n. 23, para. 18.

  32. Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Silver Glen, LLC (USA), Case No. EXP/411/ICANN/28, Expert Determination of 26 November 2013 (Prof. James Crawford (Chair); Prof. Maria Gavouneli (co-expert); Mr James Bridgeman (co-expert)), para. 33; Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Goose Fest, LLC (USA), Case No. EXP/417/ICANN/34, Expert Determination of 16 December 2013 (Dr Stanimir A. Alexandrov (Chair); Dr Maxi C. Scherer (co-expert); Prof. Frédéric Bachand (co-expert)), para. 94; Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Dothealth, LLC (USA), Case No. EXP/416/ICANN/33, Expert Determination of 16 December 2013 (Dr Stanimir A. Alexandrov (Chair); Dr Maxi C. Scherer (co-expert); Prof. Frédéric Bachand (co-expert)), para. 91.

  33. Council of Europe, Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law, ‘Comments Relating to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association with Regard to New Generic Top Level Domains’ (by W. Benedek, J. Liddicoat, N. van Eijk) DG-I (2012) 4 (12 October 2012) p. 6; Council of Europe, Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the Protection of Freedom of Expression and Information and Freedom of Assembly and Association with regard to Internet Domain Names and Name Strings (21 September 2011) para. 7, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835805&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  34. ‘Comments Relating to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association with Regard to New Generic Top Level Domains’, supra n. 33, pp. 6–7; Council of Europe, ‘ICANN’s Procedures and Policies in the Light of Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and Democratic Values’ (by M. Zalnieriute, T. Schneider) DGI (2014) pp. 12, 14.

  35. P. 3.4 AGB.

  36. P. 3.21 AGB.

  37. 2009 gTLD Explanatory Memorandum, supra n. 8, pp. 3–5.

  38. With the exception of the controversial question of the binding effect of provisional measures. See Thirlway (2014), pp. 104–105; Pellet (2012), p. 833.

  39. Berger (2011).

  40. Corten (2009), p. 187.

  41. Thirlway (2014), p. 109.

  42. Cheng (2006), pp. 2–5; Pellet (2012), pp. 833–835; Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 124–127.

  43. Ellis (2011), p. 950; Buergenthal (2007), p. 113.

  44. Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 128–129.

  45. Kolb (2006), p. 7.

  46. McNair (1957), p. 6; Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 130–131; Crawford (2012), p. 35.

  47. Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade in Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14 at p. 151.

  48. Meron (1989), pp. 88–89; Simma and Alston (1988–1989).

  49. Pauwelyn et al. (2012), pp. 530–531.

  50. Wouters and Ryngaert (2009), pp. 127–128; Simma and Paulus (1999), p. 316.

  51. Kolb (2006), p. 7.

  52. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka in South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, ICJ Reports 1966, p. 6 at pp. 294–301.

  53. Crawford (2012), p. 34; Simma and Alston (1988–1989), p. 105.

  54. Pellet (2012), p. 835; Kolb (2006), p. 29.

  55. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987), 1465 UNTS 85.

  56. Convention to Supress the Slave Trade and Slavery (adopted 25 September 1926, entered into force 9 March 1927), 60 LNTS 254.

  57. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951), 78 UNTS 277.

  58. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981), 1249 UNTS 13.

  59. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969), 660 UNTS 195.

  60. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women UN General Assembly Resolution (adopted 20 December 1993), UN Doc. A/RES/48/104.

  61. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948), UNGA Res. 217 A (III) (UDHR).

  62. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976), 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR).

  63. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976), 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR).

  64. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (adopted 18 December 1990, entered into force 1 July 2003), 2220 UNTS 3.

  65. Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990), 1577 UNTS 3.

  66. Gaillard and Savage (1999), pp. 861–863; Caron and Caplan (2013), pp. 115–117; Schreuer (2001), pp. 568–569, 586–590, 641; McNair (1957), p. 9.

  67. 2009 gTLD Explanatory Memorandum, supra n. 8, pp. 9–10.

  68. Harris et al. (2009), p. 477.

  69. Smith (2012), pp. 309–310.

  70. Silver Glen case, supra n. 32, para. 33.

  71. Goose Fest case, supra n. 32, para. 103; Dothealth case, supra n. 32, para. 100.

  72. Silver Glen case, supra n. 32, para. 40.

  73. Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Steel Hill, LLC (USA), Case No. EXP/413/ICANN/30, Expert Determination of 2 January 2014 (Ms. Teresa Cheng (Chair); Dr Stephan Schill (co-expert); Dr Cristoph Liebscher (co-expert)), para. 42; Ruby Pike case, supra n. 23, paras. 86–87; Consolidated objections: Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Charleston Road Registry INC (USA), Case No. EXP/415/ICANN/32, Expert Determination of 19 December 2013 (Prof. Fabien Gélinas (Chair); Mr John Gaffney (co-expert); Prof. Guglielmo Verdirame (co-expert)), para. 105; Professor Alain Pellet, Independent Objector (France) v. Hexap SAS (France), Case No. EXP/410/ICANN/27, Expert Determination of 19 December 2013 (Prof. Fabien Gélinas (Chair); Mr John Gaffney (co-expert); Prof. Guglielmo Verdirame (co-expert)), para. 114; Medistry case, supra n. 30, para. 110.

  74. Art. 25(1) UDHR provides that ‘[e]veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control’.

  75. Art. 12 ICESCR states that ‘1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. 2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child; (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene; (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases; (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness’.

  76. Eide (2014), pp. 204–206, 213.

  77. Berger (2011), p. 140; Gaillard and Savage (1999), pp. 861–863.

  78. Art. 21(a), p. P-10 AGB.

  79. E.g. Goose Fest case, supra n. 32, paras. 49–51.

  80. Ibid., para. 103; Silver Glen case, supra n. 32, para. 40.

  81. Silver Glen case, supra n. 32, para. 41; Goose Fest case, supra n. 32, para. 103; Dothealth case, supra n. 32, para. 100; Charleston Road case, supra n. 73, para. 107; Hexap SAS case, supra n. 73, para. 116; Medistry case, supra n. 30, para. 114.

  82. Steel Hill case, supra n. 73, para. 42; Ruby Pike case, supra n. 23, paras. 86–87.

  83. Cf. Vezzani (2014), pp. 328–329.

  84. Ruby Pike case, supra n. 23, para. 83.

  85. Silver Glen case, supra n. 32, para. 51.

  86. For ICANN’s Consensus Policy Development Process see Annex A to the ICANN Bylaws, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#AnnexA. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  87. Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (Château de Bossey, June 2005), http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  88. Benedek (2011), pp. 201, 204.

  89. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: ‘The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the Covenant)’, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (11 August 2000), para. 35.

  90. General Comment No. 14, para. 12.

  91. Silver Glen case, supra n. 32, para. 41.

  92. Charleston Road case, supra n. 73, para. 111; Hexap SAS case, supra n. 73, para. 120; Medistry case, supra n. 30, para. 116.

  93. Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’ (by John Ruggie), UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011).

  94. Harris et al. (2009), p. 447.

  95. Buergenthal (2007), p. 115.

  96. Art. 3.5, p. 3.18 AGB.

  97. Fidler (2015), pp. 106–107.

  98. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age’, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/37 (30 June 2014).

  99. F. Rue, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/40 (13 April 2014); D. Kaye, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/32 (22 May 2015) on the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications.

  100. ‘Human Rights Council Creates Mandate of Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy’ (26 March 2015), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15763&LangID=E (accessed 1 March 2016).

  101. Taubman (2009), p. 6.

  102. Steel Hill case, supra n. 73, paras. 48–49.

  103. Afilias case, supra n. 12, paras. 53–54.

  104. Afilias case, supra n. 12, para. 59.

  105. E.g. Silver Glen case, supra n. 32, para. 44.

  106. Ibid., para. 48; Goose Fest case, supra n. 32, paras. 109–110; Dothealth case, supra n. 32, paras. 106–107; Steel Hill case, supra n. 73, para. 50, para. 53.

  107. Ruby Pike case, supra n. 23, para. 71.

  108. Ibid., para. 72; Afilias case, supra n. 12, para. 59.

  109. Ruby Pike case, supra n. 23, para. 81.

  110. Afilias case, supra n. 12, para. 69.

  111. Ibid., para. 76.

  112. A.R. Grogan, ‘ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police’ (12 June 2015), https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  113. Eysenbach (2014).

  114. Afilias case, supra n. 12, para. 72.

  115. Ibid.

  116. Ruby Pike case, supra n. 23, para. 91.

  117. Ibid., para. 87.

  118. See Vezzani (2014), p. 331.

  119. Dissenting Opinion by Reinisch, supra n. 31, para. 10.

  120. Ibid., para. 17.

  121. Also Vezzani (2014), p. 323.

  122. Charleston Road case, supra n. 73, para. 96.

  123. Ibid., para. 101; Hexap SAS case, supra n. 73, para. 110; Medistry case, supra n. 30, para. 106. This is a line of reasoning frequently encountered in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

  124. Charleston Road case, supra n. 73, paras. 109, 111; Hexap SAS case, supra n. 73, paras. 118, 120; Medistry case, supra n. 30, paras. 114, 116.

  125. Charleston Road case, supra n. 73, paras. 100–103; Hexap SAS case, supra n. 73, paras. 109–112; Medistry case, supra n. 30, paras. 107–108.

  126. Charleston Road case, supra n. 73, para. 104; Hexap SAS case, supra n. 73, para. 113; Medistry case, supra n. 30, para. 109.

  127. Endicott (2012); Fontanelli (2015).

  128. Eysenbach (2014).

  129. See Vezzani’s criticism (2014), p. 331.

  130. Council of Europe, Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on ICANN, Human Rights and the Rule of Law (3 June 2015) para. 4, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Decl(03.06.2015)2&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  131. Ibid.

  132. A report published by the Council of Europe suggests different grounds for limiting gTLDs, including ‘racial hatred, supporting terrorism, vehemently attacking religions, inciting to violence, negating the Holocaust or calling for installing totalitarian regimes’. See Benedek and Kettemann (2013), p. 95.

  133. Art. 10(2) ECHR refers to interests of national security; territorial integrity or public safety; prevention of disorder or crime; protection of health or morals; protection of the reputation or the rights of others; preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

References

  • Benedek W (2011) Multi-stakeholderism in the development of international law. In: Fastenrath U et al (eds) From bilateralism to community interest—essays in honour of Judge Bruno Simma. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 201–210

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Benedek W, Kettemann MC (2013) Freedom of expression and the Internet. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger KP (2011) General principles of law in international commercial arbitration—how to find them—how to apply them. World Arbitr Mediat Rev 5:97–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandshaw S et al (2015) The emergence of contention in global internet governance. Global Commission on Internet Governance, Paper Series No 17. https://www.ourinternet.org/publication/the-emergence-of-contention-in-global-internet-governance/. Accessed 1 March 2016

  • Buergenthal T (2007) International judges and international law. In: Terris D, Romano CP, Swigart L (eds) The International Judge—an introduction to the men and women who decide the world’s cases. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 102–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Caron DD, Caplan LM (2013) The UNCITRAL arbitration rules—a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng B (2006) General principles of law as applied by international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten O (2009) Méthodologie du droit international public. Edition de l’Université de Bruxelles, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2014) Chance, order and change: the course of international law—general course on public international law. Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton C (2012) ICANN’s core principles and the expansion of generic top-level domain names. Int J Law Inf Technol 20:273–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eide A (2014) Adequate standard of living. In: Moeckli D, Shah S, Sivakumaran S (eds) International human rights law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 195–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis J (2011) General principles and comparative law. EJIL 22:949–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endicott T (2012) Proportionality and incommensurability. Oxford Legal Research Paper Series, Paper No 40/2012. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2086622. Accessed 1 March 2016

  • Eysenbach G (2014) The new health-related top-level domains are coming: will cureforcancer.health go to the highest bidder? J Med Internet Res 16(3):e73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fidler DP (2015) Cyberspace and human rights. In: Tsagourias N, Buchan R (eds) Research handbook on international law and cyberspace. Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 94–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fontanelli F (2015) The mythology of proportionality in judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on internet and fundamental rights. Oxf J Legal Stud. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqv037

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E, Savage J (eds) (1999) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris DJ et al (2009) Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2011) Law-making and constitutionalism. In: Klabbers J, Peters A, Ulfstein G (eds) The constitutionalization of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2006) Principles as sources of international law (with special reference to good faith). Neth Int Law Rev 53:1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipton J, Wong M (2012) Trademarks and freedom of expression in ICANN’s new gTLD process. Monash Univ Law Rev 38:188–227

    Google Scholar 

  • McNair AD (1957) The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. BYIL 33:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (1989) Human rights and international humanitarian law as customary law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge MVB, Arnot JA (2011–2012) Expansion of the domain name system: advantages, objections and contentions. DePaul J Art Technol Intellect Prop Law 22:317–336

  • Pauwelyn J (2003) Conflict of norms in public international law. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J, Wessel RA, Wouters J (2012) Informal international lawmaking: an assessment and template to keep it both effective and accountable. In: Pauwelyn J, Wessel RA, Wouters J (eds) Informal international lawmaking. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 500–538

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2012) Article 38. In: Zimmermann A et al (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 731–870

    Google Scholar 

  • Post D (2009) In search of Jefferson’s moose—notes on the state of cyberspace. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2001) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Alston P (1988–1989) The sources of human rights law: custom, jus cogens and general principles. Aust Yearb Int Law 12:82–108

  • Simma B, Paulus A (1999) The responsibility of individuals for human rights abuses in internal conflicts: a positivist view. AJIL 93:302–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RKM (2012) Textbook on international human rights. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taubman A (2009) International governance and internet. In: Edwards L, Waelde C (eds) Law and the internet. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 3–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2014) The sources of international law. In: Evans MD (ed) International law. University Press, Oxford, pp 91–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vezzani S (2014) ICANN’s new generic top-level domain names dispute resolution procedure viewed against the protection of the public interest of the internet community: litigation regarding health-related strings. Law Pract Int Courts Trib 13:306–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson C (2009) Domain names and trade marks: an uncomfortable relationship. In: Edwards L, Waelde C (eds) Law and the internet. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 311–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J, Ryngaert C (2009) Impact on the process of the formation of customary international law. In: Kamminga MT, Scheinin M (eds) The impact of human rights on general international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–131

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assistant Professor of International Law, College of Law, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    Adamantia Rachovitsa

Authors
  1. Adamantia Rachovitsa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adamantia Rachovitsa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rachovitsa, A. General Principles of Public Order and Morality and the Domain Name System: Whither Public International Law?. Neth Int Law Rev 63, 23–49 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-016-0055-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-016-0055-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation