Legal reasoning and legal change in the age of the internet - why the ground rules are still valid

Abstract

This article is a defence of conservative legal argumentation and hopes to add a dimension of realism to the debate on Internet regulation. A recognition of the law`s inherent resistance to anything but incremental change, born out of its function to provide certainty and stability, must inform legal argumentation in particular in relation to legal issues arising out of a phenomenon as revolutionary as the Internet. By taking a bird`s eye perspective on the arguments on the issue of whether a website is enough to assert jurisdiction over the entity behind the website, the author argues that the most efficient regulatory options are not in fact the best or realistic regulatory options if their implementation entails substantial legal disruption. Legal adjustments to accommodate new technological phenomena such as the Internet often need not be as drastic, as may appear at first sight, if the relationship between law and the marketplace or law and technological developments is properly evaluated as two way.