Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between Transconstitutionalism and Technical Practices: Normative Challenges for Brazilian Legal Order

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law as Passion

  • 127 Accesses

Abstract

This article aims to understand the dimension of law and transconstitutionalism as a social practice. To this end, we work with the relationship between legal norms and technical practices, especially in the relationship between legal orders and technical actors of the Internet. Thus, it becomes apparent how actors responsible for regulating the internet and programming algorithms solve legal and constitutional problems, even though they are not qualified as legal orders. Being mediated by an Internet architecture, technical actors and legal orders increasingly need a more horizontal relationship of mutual observation, at the risk of being mutually destructive.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Available on http://www2.planalto.gov.br/imprensa/discursos/discurso-da-presidenta-da-republica-dilma-rousseff-na-abertura-do-debate-geral-da-68a-assembleia-geral-das-nacoes-unidas-nova-iorque-eua.

  2. 2.

    Available on http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-encontro-mundial-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-2014/.

  3. 3.

    Available on http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm.

  4. 4.

    Shah and Kesan (2007), p. 95.

  5. 5.

    Ibidem, 96.

  6. 6.

    Ibidem.

  7. 7.

    Company (2016), p. 56. About International Public Authority, see: Goldmann (2008), pp. 1865–1908; Bogdandy et al. (2008), pp. 1375–1400.

  8. 8.

    Vesting (2015), p. 179.

  9. 9.

    Just and Latzer (2016), p. 5; 7 (also available: http://mediachange.ch/media//pdf/publications/Just_Latzer2016_Governance_by_Algorithms_Reality_Construction.pdf).

  10. 10.

    Chiang (2013), pp. 9–10.

  11. 11.

    Musiani (2013), p. 6.

  12. 12.

    Ibidem.

  13. 13.

    Teubner (2012), pp. 35–40.

  14. 14.

    About a constitutional description of the society, giving examples of the “Digitalverfassung”: Teubner (2012), p. 165.

  15. 15.

    Ladeur (1992), p. 49.

  16. 16.

    Ladeur (2016a), p. 25; Vesting (2015), p. 179.

  17. 17.

    Ladeur (1990), pp. 142–143.

  18. 18.

    Lessig (2006), p. 5.

  19. 19.

    Augsberg et al. (2009), p. 38; Ladeur (1992), p. 200.

  20. 20.

    Ladeur (2016b), p. 182.

  21. 21.

    Ibidem, 190.

  22. 22.

    Ibidem, 283.

  23. 23.

    This is a described model for Teubner (2012), pp. 237–242. While it is different, the author acknowledges the necessity to work with horizontality and to compatibility due to norm collision among network nodes. Each node is responsible internally not only for norms, but also by the entire aggregated order.

  24. 24.

    The coined term for the first time by Wu (2003), p. 141.

  25. 25.

    Denardis (2014), p. 139.

  26. 26.

    Ibidem, 146.

  27. 27.

    It is no coincidence that it searches in USA a legal recognition of the Net Neutrality, according to Audibertand and Murray (2016), p. 120.

  28. 28.

    It is not really a decision that take the consequences in consideration, but it is possible to realize the argumentative acknowledge by the US-courts, such as this decision, that, while it invokes to a decision-making reason of the legal means, still consider the argumentation of the network neutrality: “United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued December 4, 2015 Decided June 14, 2016 No. 15-1063 United States Telecom Association, Et Al., Petitioners V. Federal Communications Commission And United States Of America, Respondents Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, Et Al., Intervenors”, 7–8.

  29. 29.

    Denardis (2014), p. 65.

  30. 30.

    Ibidem, 84.

  31. 31.

    Ibidem, 67–68.

  32. 32.

    Ibidem, 77.

  33. 33.

    Ibidem, 77.

  34. 34.

    Ibidem, 79.

  35. 35.

    Ibidem, 2–3.

  36. 36.

    Ibidem, 4.

  37. 37.

    Saurwein et al. (2015), p. 37.

  38. 38.

    Ibidem, 38–39.

  39. 39.

    Neves (2009), p. XXI.

  40. 40.

    Ibidem, 37–38.

  41. 41.

    Ibidem, 39.

  42. 42.

    Ibidem, 62.

  43. 43.

    Ibidem, 115.

  44. 44.

    Ibidem, 116–117.

  45. 45.

    Ibidem, 117.

  46. 46.

    Ibidem, 118.

  47. 47.

    Ibidem, 119.

  48. 48.

    Ibidem, 119.

  49. 49.

    Ibidem, 121.

  50. 50.

    Ibidem, 126.

  51. 51.

    Ibidem.

  52. 52.

    Ibidem, 130.

  53. 53.

    Ibidem, 270.

  54. 54.

    Ibidem, 271.

  55. 55.

    Ibidem, 272.

  56. 56.

    Ibidem, 272.

  57. 57.

    Ibidem, 276.

  58. 58.

    Ladeur (2016b), p. 38; 40.

  59. 59.

    Ladeur (1992), p. 202: There is a similar idea, but delimited and influenced by the Market logic. In this article, it aims the comprehension of the constitutional ideal inside of the technical network.

  60. 60.

    Demonstrating the difficulty of the democratic discourse in the Internet: Denardis (2014), p. 15.

  61. 61.

    In a similar sense, but in institutionalist terms of the governance and not from technical practices Viellechner (2007), p. 56.

  62. 62.

    Teubner (2012), p. 147.

  63. 63.

    Similar cases were studied by Karavas and Teubner (2003). Although, the central idea of the paper is the construction of a lex digitalis and its decision formation basis compared to the lex mercatoria (see pp. 27–31).

  64. 64.

    Froomkin (2011), pp. 9, 187–233.

  65. 65.

    Karavas and Teubner (2003), p. 9.

  66. 66.

    Möllers (2015), p. 183.

  67. 67.

    There is a similar hierarchy tendency, but described in terms of social constitutionalizing and in the meaning of a collective self-containment, in: Teubner (2012), pp. 129–132.

  68. 68.

    In similar sense and clarifier idea of Ladeur, Augsberg (2009), pp. 23–24.

  69. 69.

    The reported case in Alhogbani (2014–2015), pp. 469–501.

  70. 70.

    De Filippi (2013), p. 66.

  71. 71.

    Ibidem, 67.

  72. 72.

    Lessig (2006), p. 43.

  73. 73.

    Accessible in https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en.

  74. 74.

    More details see: Soghoian (2007), p. 311; Croft (2013), p. 514; Dion (2013), p. 166.

  75. 75.

    The reported case was based on collected data by De Souza; Moniz; Vieira Junior: http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/2795/Neutralidade_da_Rede_Filtragem_de_Conteudo_e_Interesse_Publico.pdf?sequence=1.

  76. 76.

    For more details, see the Court Injunction number 2271462-77.2015.8.26.0000 – available in http://s.conjur.com.br/dl/tj-sp-suspende-bloqueio-whatsapp.pdf.

  77. 77.

    There are some other forms of resistance of the technical space in the face of global effects of the legal normativity. An emblematic case was the resistance form by strong actors of the network against the bill “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) and “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), that had as a pretext the fight against the piracy through blocks requirement of websites if they make easier the access to the pirate content and the interruption of provision of direct payment transfer or services to these websites. Under the allegation that there was a restriction to the freedom of speech, important social actors of the Internet (such as Google and Wikipedia) demonstrated dissatisfaction, and others threatened to start blackouts. PIPA and SOP lost the support of the stakeholders, which weakened the potential voting of the bill. Or when the Ligue le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme (LICRA-League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism) entered a judicial litigation against Yahoo! Inc., because the company hosted a site with Nazi-content, which was contrary to the French legal order, the case was judged by both French court and US court. The pressure forced Yahoo! to change the technical control over the hosted content. More details in Denardis (2014), pp. 2–6; e Mizuno (2001).

References

  • Alhogbani A (2014–2015) Going dark: scratching the surface of government surveillance. CommLaw Conspectus 23:469–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Audibertand LC, Murray AD (2016) A principled approach to network neutrality. SCRIPTed 13(2):118–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augsberg I, Gostomzyk T, Viellechner L (2009) Denken in Netzwerken. Zur Rechts- und Gesellschaftstheorie Karls-Heinz Ladeurs. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdandy A, Dann P, Goldmann M (2008) Developing the publicness of public international law: towards a legal framework for global governance activities. German Law J 09(11):1375–1400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang Y (2013) Horizontal model for regulatory reform of communications – the layers model, reform in Malaysia and the UK, and proposals for Taiwan. NTU L 8(1):1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Company B (2016) A public law approach to internet standard setting. Goettingen J Int Law 7(1):49–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft D (2013) Encryption, privacy and the dark side of the internet. Oklahoma Bar J 84(8):511–515

    Google Scholar 

  • De Filippi P (2013) Foreign clouds in the European sky: how US laws affects the privacy of Europeans. Internet Policy Rev [online] 2(1). Available at https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/foreign-clouds-european-sky-how-us-laws-affect-privacy-europeans

  • De Souza CAP, Moniz PP, Vieira Junior SB. Neutralidade da rede, filtragem de conteúdo e interesse público: reflexões sobre o bloqueio do site Youtube no Brasil. Available at http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/2795/Neutralidade_da_Rede_Filtragem_de_Conteudo_e_Interesse_Publico.pdf?sequence=1

  • Denardis L (2014) The global war for internet governance. London, New Haven

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dion DA (2013) I’ll gladly trade you two bits on Tuesday for a byte today: Bitcoin, regulating fraud in the E-conomy of hacker-cash. Univ Ill J Law Technol Police 1:165–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Froomkin M (2011) Almost free: an analysis of ICANN’s affirmation of commitments. J Telecommun High Technol Law 9:187–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann M (2008) Inside relative normativity: from sources to standard instruments for the exercise of international public authority. Germ Law J (09)11:1865–1908

    Google Scholar 

  • Just N, Latzer M (2016) Governance by algorithms: reality construction by algorithmic selection on the internet. Accepted manuscript forthcoming in Media. Culture & Society. Available at http://mediachange.ch/media//pdf/publications/Just_Latzer2016_Governance_by_Algorithms_Reality_Construction.pdf)

  • Karavas V, Teubner G (2003). http://www.CompanyNameSucks.com: The horizontal effect of fundamental rights on private parties within autonomous internet law. Bepress Legal Ser 23:1335–1358

  • Ladeur K-H (1990) Lernfähigkeit des Rechts und Lernfähigkeit durch Recht. Erwiderung auf J. Nocke. In: Görlitz A, Voigt R (eds) Postinterventionistisches Recht Pfaffenweiler, Centaurus, (Jahresschrift für Rechtspolitologie), pp 141–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur K-H (1992) Postmoderne Rechtstheorie. Selbstreferenz – Selbstorganisation – Prozeduralisierung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur K-H (2016a) Recht – Wissen – Kultur: Die fragmentierte Ordnung. In: Schriften zur Rechtstheorie 282. Duncker & Humboldt, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur K-H (2016b) Die Textualität des Rechts: Zur poststrukturalistischen Kritik des Rechts. Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerwist

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (2006) Code. Version 2.0. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizuno S (2001) When free speech and the Internet Collide: Yahoo!-Nazi-Paraphernalia case. Curr Int Trade Law J 10(56)

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers C (2015) Die Möglichkeit der Normen. Über eine Praxis jenseits von Moralität und Kausalität. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Musiani F (2013) Network architecture as internet governance. Internet Policy Rev 2(4):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neves M (2009) Transconstitucionalismo. São Paulo, Martins Fontes

    Google Scholar 

  • Saurwein F, Just N, Latzer M (2015) Governance of algorithms: options and limitations. Info 17(6):35–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah RC, Kesan JP (2007) The privatization of the internet’s backbone network. Broadcast Electr Media 51(1):93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soghoian C (2007) The problem of anonymous vanity searches. J Law Policy Inf Soc 3(2):299–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2012) Verfassungsfragmente: Gesellschaftlicher Konstitutionalismus in der Globalisierung. Suhrkamp, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesting T (2015) Rechtstheorie. Ein Studienbuch. C. H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Viellechner L (2007) Können Netzwerke die Demokratie ersetzen? Zur Legitimation der Regelbildung im Globalisierungsprozess. In: Boysen S et al (eds) Netzwerke. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 36–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu T (2003) Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. J Telecommun High Technol Law 2:141–178. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=388863 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.388863

Legal Decisions

  • Court Injunction (Mandado de Segurança) number 2271462-77.2015.8.26.0000 – available in http://s.conjur.com.br/dl/tj-sp-suspende-bloqueio-whatsapp.pdf

  • United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued December 4, 2015 Decided June 14, 2016 No. 15-1063 United States Telecom Association, Et Al., Petitioners V. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, Et Al., Intervenors”, pp 7–8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Sete de Setembro (Uni7), Fortaleza, Brazil

    Ramon Negócio

Authors
  1. Ramon Negócio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Lisbon University, Lisbon, Portugal

    Miguel Nogueira de Brito

  2. Faculty of Law, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

    Carina Calabria

  3. Brazilian Superior Labor Court, Brasília, Brazil

    Fábio Portela L. Almeida

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Negócio, R. (2021). Between Transconstitutionalism and Technical Practices: Normative Challenges for Brazilian Legal Order. In: Nogueira de Brito, M., Calabria, C., Portela L. Almeida, F. (eds) Law as Passion. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63501-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63501-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-63500-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-63501-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation