Cyber Public Space as a Locus of Sovereignty, Counter-Publicness and Ecosystem in the ECtHR Jurisprudence

Öz

In addition to the endeavours to identify cyberspace in the realm of sovereignty as the final frontier of the nation-states in the 21st century, the classification of cyberspace as a space of freedom, a global common, private property or even as a locus for heterotopia due to its sui generis structure has yielded a rich interdisciplinary literature. The plethora of definitions can be attributed to the rigorous regulatory efforts on the part of the states, international organisations and other non-state actors. The objective of this study is to undertake an interdisciplinary academic interpellation of the law of cyberspace, operating under the assumption that cyberspace constitutes a public sphere. In this respect, the cyber public sphere will be analysed from a triangular approach based on sovereignty, counter-publicness and ecosystem models. It is evident that all three models are oriented towards the development of standards for the cyber governance in order to establish sovereignty in cyberspace and to protect human rights within. The repercussions of three models will be traced in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The embedding constraints in cyberspace, alongside the emerging standards for human rights protection in the Court’s jurisprudence, will also demonstrate the (cyber)adaptive capacity of the Convention system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cyberspace
• sovereignty
• counter-publicness
• ecosystem
• human rights

AİHM İÇTİHADINDA EGEMENLİK, KARŞI-KAMUSALLIK VE EKOSİSTEM MEKÂNI OLARAK SİBER ALAN

Öz

Siber alanın ulus-devletlerin ülke unsurunun 21. yüzyıldaki uzantısı ya da yeni bir egemenlik alanı olarak tanımlanması çabaları yanında; özgürlük alanı, küresel müşterek statüsü, özel mülkiyete konu edilebilirliği ve nihayet sui generis yapısı nedeniyle heterotopya mekânı olarak da tasnif edilmesi, karşımıza zengin bir disiplinlerarası literatür çıkarmaktadır. Bunda siber alanın devletler, uluslararası kuruluşlar ve diğer devlet-dışı aktörler tarafından düzenlenmesi girişimleri etkindir. Bu çalışma kapsamında, siber alanın bir kamusal alan olduğu kabul edilerek hukukunun interdisipliner bir akademik incelemeye tabi tutulması hedeflenmektedir. Bu minvalde siber kamusal alan; egemenlik, karşı-kamusallık ve ekosistem mekânı olarak mercek altına alınacaktır. Her üç model siber alanın düzenlenmesinde, egemenlik tesisi ve insan haklarının korunması bakımından, dijital dünyanın sunduğu imkânlar ve yarattığı sorunlara yeni ya da siber alana uyarlanmış standartlar geliştirme çabasındadır. Hukuk ve diğer disiplinlerin siber alana dair tanımlarının uzlaşma ve çatışma kapasiteleri ise Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi içtihadı ekseninde test edilecektir. İnsan haklarının siber alanda tabi olduğu kısıntılar ve korumaya dair yeni standartlar, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi sisteminin siber alana nüfuz etme kapasitesini de ortaya koyacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siber alan
• egemenlik
• karşı-kamusallık
• ekosistem
• insan hakları

Kaynakça

1. Ackerman B, We The People: Foundations (Harvard University Press 1991)
2. Akkuş B, ‘Devletin Etkin Kontrolünün Bulunmadığı Siber Alanda İnsan Hakları Yükümlülükleri Nelerdir?’ (2024) (6)[1] Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 159-214
3. Al Asyari H, ‘Cyberspace as a Common Heritage of Mankind: Governing Normative Limitations of the Internet by Virtue of International Law’ (2023) (69) [4] Auc Iuridica 211-228
4. Amaritei I, ‘Les élections présidentielles en Roumanie : la Constitution contre Tik-tok’ (2024) Questions Constitutionnelles: Revue de droit constitutionnel
5. Andrijauskaitė A, ‘Good Governance in the Case Law of the ECtHR: A (Patch)Work in Progress’ (2018) Presented Paper in ICON-S Conference: Identity, Security, Democracy: Challenges for Public Law, Hong Kong
6. Arsava F A., ‘AİHK’nun Extraterritorial Geçerliliği Bağlamında AİHM’nin İçtihatlarında Görülen Hareketlilik’ (2019) (25)[2] Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 590-601
7. Austin L M., ‘Enough About Me: Why Privacy Is About Power, Not Consent (or Harm)’ in Austin Sarat (ed), AWorld without Privacy: What Law Can and Should Do? (Cambridge University Press 2014) 131-189
8. Barlow J P, ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’ (1996) erişim tarihi: 11.02.2025

9. Berman P S., ‘Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to ‘Private’ Regulation’’ (2000) (71) University of Colorado Law Review 1263-1310
10. Besson S, ‘The Extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights: Why Human Rights Depend on Jurisdiction and What Jurisdiction Amounts to’ (2012) (25)[4] Leiden Journal of International Law 857-884
11. Bignami F and Resta G, ‘Extraterritoriality’ in Giovanni De Gregorio, Oreste Pollicino, and Peggy Valcke (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Digital Constitutionalism (online edn, Oxford Academic 2024)
12. Boyar O, Anayasa ve Özel Hukuk (On İki Levha 2019)
13. Castells M, The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (Oxford University Press 2001) 247-275.
14. Celeste E, ‘Digital Constitutionalism: A New Systematic Theorisation’ (2019) 33[1] International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 76-99
15. Creation of a Global Culture of Cybersecurity (UNGA 2003) A/RES/57/239.
16. Çalı B, ‘Has ‘Control over Rights Doctrine’ for Extra-territorial Jurisdiction Come of Age? Karlsruhe, too, has Spoken, Now It’s Strasbourg’s Turn’ (EjilTalk 2020) erişim tarihi: 11.04.2025
17. Declaration on a Common Understanding of International Law in Cyberspace (Council of European Union, 18 November 2024) erişim tarihi:14.02.2025
18. Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UN General Assembly Resolution 31 December 2020) erişim tarihi:12.02.2025
19. Dror-Shpoliansky D and Shany Y, ‘It’s the End of the (Offline) World as We Know It: From Human Rights to Digital Human Rights - A Proposed Typology’(2021) (32)[4] European Journal of International Law 1249–1282
20. Dupont B, ‘The Ecology of Cybercrime’ in Rutger Leukfeldt and Thomas J. Holt (eds), The Human Factor of Cybercrime (Routledge 2021) 389-400
21. Dzehtsiarou K, Can the European Court of Human Rights Shape European Public Order? (Cambridge University Press 2022)
22. Efrony D and Shany Y, ‘A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice’ (2018) 112 [4] American Journal of International Law 583–657
23. Fineman M A., ‘The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition’ (2016) (20)[1] Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 8-14
24. Foucault M, ‘Des espaces autres Hétérotopies’ (1967) erişim tarihi:15.03.2025
25. Foucault M, Dits et Ecrits (Gallimard, 1994)
26. Fraser N, ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’ (1990) (12) [25/26] Social Text 56-80
27. General Comment No.34 on Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression (UN Human Rights Committee 2011) 29/07/2011
28. Gibson W, Neuromancer (Ace Book (Ebook 1984)
29. Gu H, ‘Data, Big Tech, and the New Concept of Sovereignty’ (2023) (29) Journal of Chinese Political Sciences 596-612
30. Habermas J, ‘The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article’ Çev. Sara Lennox, and Frank Lennox (1974) (3) New German Critique 49-55
31. Hartzog W and Richards N M., ‘Privacy’s Constitutional Moment and the Limits of Data Protection’, (21) Boston College Law Review 1687- 1761
32. Hatipoğlu Aydın D, Siber Alan ve Hukuk (On İki Levha 2022)
33. Heri C, Responsive Human Rights: Vulnerability, Ill-treatment and the EctHR (Hart Publishing 2021)
34. Hertz N, ‘Neurorights – Do We Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought’ (2023) (16) [5] Neuroethics
35. International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA 2001) erişim tarihi: 22.01.2025
36. Işık A, İnternet Aktörleri ve Egemenliğin Değişen Boyutları: Digital Services Act ve Türk Mevzuatı Özelinde Bir İnceleme (On İki Levha 2025, 2.Baskı)
37. Kaminski M E., ‘Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR’s Approach to Algorithmic Accountability’ (2019) (92) California Law Review 1554
38. Kanadoğlu K, ‘Alman Anayasa Hukuku Öğreti Ve Uygulamasında Temel Hakların Yatay Etkisi (Üçüncü Taraf Etkisi)’ (2024) (41)[1] Anayasa Yargısı 596-597
39. Kaya M. B, İnternet Hukuku (On İki Levha 2021, 2. Baskı)
40. Kempf V and Sevignani S, ‘Capitalism and contested publicity. A conversation with Nancy Fraser’ (2023) (50)[1] Philosophy & Social Criticism 66-79
41. Koulos T, ‘A digital territory to be appropriated: the state and the nationalization of cyberspace’ (2022) Open Research Europe
42. Lee A, ‘Human Rights Actors in the Digital Information Ecosystem’ (Report to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 2016) 7-8
43. Lessig L, ‘The Laws of Cyberspace’, erişim tarihi: 25.03.2025
44. Lessig L, Code Version 2.0 (Penguen 2006)
45. Liaropoulos A N., ‘Cyberspace Governance and State Sovereignty’ in George C. Bitros and Nicholas C. Kyriazıs (eds), Democracy and an Open-Economy World Order (Springer 2017) 25-35
46. Lippert K and Cloutier R, ‘Cyberspace: A Digital Ecosystem’ (2021) (9)[3] Systems
47. Mauri D, ‘On American Drone Strikes and (Possible) European Responsibilities: Facing the Issue of Jurisdiction for ‘Complicity’ in Extraterritorial Targeted Killings’ (2019) (28) [1] The Italian Yearbook of International Law, 249-272
48. Mihr A Cyber Justice Human Rights and Good Governance for the Internet (Springer 2017)71-79
49. Milanovic M, ‘Jurisdiction, Attribution and Responsibility in Jaloud’ (EjilTalk 2014) erişim tarihi:23.03.2025
50. Mueller M, ‘Against Sovereignty in Cyberspace’ (2020) (22)[4] International Studies Review
51. Pollicino O, ‘Digital Private Powers Exercising Public Functions: The Constitutional Paradox in the Digital Age and its Possible Solutions’ (EctHR 2022)
52. erişim tarihi: 14.02.2025
53. Purtova N, ‘Health Data for Common Good: Defining the Boundaries and Social Dilemmas of Data Commons’ in Samantha Adams, Nadezhda Purtova and Ronald Leenes (eds), Under Observation: The Interplay Between eHealth and Surveillance (Springer 2017) 177-210
54. Ryngaert C, ‘Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Normative Shifts’ (2023) (24)[3] German Law Journal 537-550
55. Saracco R, ‘Digital Twins: Bridging Physical Space and Cyberspace’ (2019) 52 [12] Computer 58-64
56. Savaru C S and Tache C P. T, ‘Knowledge Ecosystems in the Digital Age on Reshaping Administrative and International Law’ (2024) (1)[2] Journal of Knowledge Dynamics 81-91
57. Schmitt M and Vihul L, ‘European Approaches to the Application of International Law in Cyberspace: A Comparative Legal Analysis’ (2024) EU Cyber Direct 64-67
58. Schmitt M N. and Watts, S, ‘Beyond State-Centrism: International Law and Non-state Actors in Cyberspace’ (2016) (21)[2] Journal of Conflict & Security Law 600-606
59. Schmitt M N., Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press 2017)
60. Susi M, The Non-coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2024)
61. Takada T, Nakazato J, Orsholits A, Tsukada M, Ochiai H, and Esaki H, ‘Design of Digital Twin Architecture for 3D Audio Representation in AR’ (2024) 2024 IEEE International Conference on Metaverse Computing, Networking, and Applications 222-230
62. Taylor L, Floridi L, and Van der Sloot B, (eds), Group Privacy: New Challenges of Data Technologies (Springer 2017)
63. The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet (UN Human Rights Council 2012) A/HRC/32/L.20
64. Tsagourias N, ‘The Legal Status of Cyberspace’ in Nicholas Tsagourias and Russell Buchan (eds), Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace (Elgar Online 2021)
65. Viljoen S, ‘A Relational Theory of Data Governance’ (2021) (131)[2] Yale Law Journal 623-634
66. XinMin M, ‘Key Issues and Future Development of International Cyberspace Law’ (2016) (2)[1] China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies
67. Yükselbaba Ü, ‘Kamusal Alan Modelleri ve Bu Modellerin Bağlamları’ (2011) (66)[2] Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty 227-271