No description available.

Cyberspace produces friction when the law is implemented by domestic courts using 'state-laws'. These laws are based on a ‘physical presence’ of an individual within the territory. It elevates conflicts relating to cyberspace jurisdiction. This research examines private international law complications associated with cyberspace. The paradigm of libel that takes place within the domain of social media is used to evaluate the utility of traditional laws. This research is conducted using ‘black-letter’ methodology, keeping in mind the changes constituted by the Defamation Act 2013. It pinpoints that the instantaneous nature of social media communication demands an unambiguous exercise of 'personal-jurisdiction', beyond the doctrine of territoriality. An innovation to the code of Civil Procedure is recommended to revise the process of service for non-EU defendants. The permission to serve a writ via social networks (or to the relevant Embassy of the defendant’s domicile state), can accelerate the traditional judicial process. This thesis can be utilised as a roadmap by libel victims for preliminary information. It contributes to the knowledge by discovering that the thresholds under Section 1 and Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 overlap with the conventional ‘forum-conveniens’ tests. This crossover is causing legal uncertainty in the application of existing rules to the digital libel proceedings. Section 1 and Section 9 thresholds do not fulfil the purpose of eliminating ‘libel-tourism’ and maintaining a balance between speech freedom and reputation rights. They raised the bar for potential victims and restricted their rights to justice. It is proposed that the traditional ‘conveniens test’ must be used for social media libel victims to produce legal certainty in cyberspace defamation.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Henrique Araujo Costa.pdf: 2539931 bytes, checksum: 9c873ec9e2f361932a9e422dd0b34bea (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-05-03 / This text proposes a comparative study of English and Brazilian civil procedure. The research approaches the judge powers, specifically the case management powers. Considering the issue s delimitation, new statutes and its practice are compared through the perspective of both countries. In conclusion, these judge powers have become similar due to the blending practices seen among different law families, as well as between different countries of the same family. However despite the convergence towards strengthening these powers the problems to be solved by these countries have distinct roots. In England the cost problem is the biggest one, while in Brazil the biggest problem is the delay. Moreover, despite their early convergence, the cultural roots of each system keep them somehow apart from one another. Thus it is not possible to state which would the best system (since they are unique) and the adoption of the English model by the Brazilian legislation should be done with caution (since the problems to be solved are different) / O presente trabalho é uma proposta de estudo comparado do direito processual civil inglês e do brasileiro. A tese é centrada no tema dos poderes do juiz, notadamente nos case management powers. Dentro do recorte proposto, são comparadas as normas e a prática judicial recentemente instituídas pelo direito de cada um dos mencionados países. Conclui-se que os poderes desses juízes tornaram-se bastante semelhantes em decorrência da assimilação mútua de práticas judiciais entre diferentes famílias do direito, bem como entre países distintos de mesma família. No entanto a despeito da convergência em torno do fortalecimento dos poderes do juiz os problemas a serem solucionados pelos referidos países têm raízes distintas. A Inglaterra tem como maior problema o custo, enquanto o Brasil tem como maior problema a demora. Ademais, a raiz cultural de cada sistema os mantém de alguma forma diferentes, apesar da aproximação recente. Por isso não é possível dizer qual dos sistemas seja melhor (já que são incomparáveis) e eventual importação do modelo inglês pela legislação brasileira precisaria ser feita com ressalvas (já que os problemas a serem solucionados são distintos)