¹ See Michelman, FI, ‘W(h)ither the Constitution?’ (2000) 21 Cardozo Law Review 1063;Google Scholar Grimm, D, ‘The Achievement of Constitutionalism and Its Prospects in a Changed World’ in Dobner, P and Loughlin, M (eds), The Twilight of Constitutionalism? (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Giddens, A, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1990) 63–78;Google Scholar Sassen, S, A Sociology of Globalization (Norton, New York, NY, 2007) 11–44.Google Scholar

³ Luhmann, N, Theory of Society vol. 1 (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2012) 83–99.Google Scholar

⁴ See Luhmann, N, A Sociological Theory of Law (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1985) 255–64.Google Scholar

⁵ See Trachtman, JP, The Future of International Law: Global Government (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013);Google Scholar Benvenisti, E, The Law of Global Governance (Brill, Leiden, 2014).Google Scholar

⁶ See Cass, DZ, The Constitutionalization of the World Trade Organization: Legitimacy, Democracy, and Community in the International Trading System (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Jackson, JH, Sovereignty, the WTO, and Changing Fundamentals of International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006).Google Scholar

⁷ See Weiler, JHH, ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2403;Google Scholar Tuori, K, European Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ See Pescatore, P, ‘Les droits de l’homme et l’intégration européenne’ (1968) 4 Cahiers de droit européen 629;Google Scholar Zuleeg, M, ‘Fundamental Rights and the Law of the European Communities’ (1971) 8 Common Market Law Review 446.Google Scholar

⁹ ECJ, Judgment of 12 November 1969, Case 29/69, Stauder v Stadt Ulm, (1969) European Court Reports 419, 425; Judgment of 17 December 1970, Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, (1970) European Court Reports 1125, 1135.

¹⁰ Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, 13 December 2007, Article 6, C:2007:306:13.

¹¹ See Teubner, G, ‘Global Private Regimes: Neo-Spontaneous Law and Dual Constitution of Autonomous Sectors?’ in Ladeur, K-H (ed), Public Governance in the Age of Globalization (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004) 71;Google Scholar Viellechner, L, ‘The Constitution of Transnational Governance Arrangements: Karl Polanyi’s Double Movement in the Transformation of Law’ in Joerges, C and Falke, J (eds), Karl Polanyi, Globalisation and the Potential of Law in Transnational Markets (Hart, Oxford, 2011) 435.Google Scholar

¹² See Froomkin, AM, ‘Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution’ (2000) 50 Duke Law Journal 17;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mueller, ML, Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002).Google Scholar

¹³ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, founded 18 September 1998, <https://www.icann.org>.

¹⁴ Articles of Incorporation of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as approved 9 August 2016, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/articles-en>.

¹⁵ Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as amended 18 June 2018, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en>.

¹⁶ See Kleinwächter, W, ‘ICANN: Between Technical Mandate and Political Challenges’ (2000) 24 Telecommunications Policy 553;Google Scholar Crawford, SP, ‘The ICANN Experiment’ (2004) 12 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 409.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Crawford (n 16) 414: ‘a web of contracts’.

¹⁸ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Registry Agreements, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en>.

¹⁹ Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 25 November 1998, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en>.

²⁰ National Telecommunications and Information Administration Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions, 14 March 2014, available at <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.

²¹ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Registrar Accreditation Agreement, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>.

²² See Look, JJ, ‘The Virtual Wild, Wild West (WWW): Intellectual Property Issues in Cyberspace’ (1999) 22 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 49;Google Scholar Litman, J, ‘The DNS Wars: Trademarks and the Internet Domain Name System’ (2000) 4 Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 149.Google Scholar

²³ Mercer, JD, ‘Cybersquatting: Blackmail on the Information Superhighway’ (2000) 6 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 290.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Walker, LA, ‘ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (2000) 15 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 289;Google Scholar Helfer, LR and Dinwoodie, GB, ‘Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy’ (2001) 43 William and Mary Law Review 141.Google Scholar

²⁵ Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 26 August 1999, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en>.

²⁶ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Registrar Accreditation Agreement, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en>.

²⁷ Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 26 August 1999, para 4(a), available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en>.

²⁸ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, List of Approved Dispute Resolution Service Providers, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en>.

²⁹ National Arbitration Forum, Domain Name Disputes, <http://www.adrforum.com/domains>.

³⁰ World Intellectual Property Organization, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Domain Name Dispute Resolution, <https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/index.html>.

³¹ Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as approved 28 September 2013, para 15(a), available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en>.

³² Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 26 August 1999, para 3(c), available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en>.

³³ DG Post, Governing Cyberspace, or Where Is James Madison When We Need Him?, June 1999, available at <www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/icann/comment1.html>.

³⁴ Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 26 August 1999, para 4(k), available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en>.

³⁵ Schiff Berman, Cf. P, ‘From International Law to Law and Globalization’ (2005) 43 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 485;Google Scholar Koh, HH, ‘Why Transnational Law Matters’ (2006) 24 Penn State International Law Review 745.Google Scholar

³⁶ Teubner, Cf. G, ‘Contracting Worlds: The Many Autonomies of Private Law’ (2000) 9 Social and Legal Studies 399;Google Scholar Zumbansen, P, ‘Neither “Public” nor “Private”, “National” nor “International”: Transnational Corporate Governance from a Legal Pluralist Perspective’ (2011) 38 Journal of Law and Society 50.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Al-Darrab, AA, ‘The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight’ in Drake, WJ (ed), Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance (United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force, New York, NY, 2005) 177.Google Scholar

³⁸ Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, The Organisation and Management of the Internet: International and European Policy Issues 1998–2000, 11 April 2000, COM:2000:202:13.

³⁹ See Teubner, G, ‘Coincidentia Oppositorum: Hybrid Networks beyond Contract and Organisation’ in Amstutz, M and Teubner, G (eds), Networks: Legal Issues of Multilateral Cooperation (Hart, Oxford, 2009) 3;Google Scholar Amstutz, M, ‘The Constitution of Contractual Networks’ ibid 309.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Teubner, G, Networks as Connected Contracts (Hart, Oxford, 2011).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Wellens, KC, ‘Diversity in Secondary Rules and the Unity of International Law: Some Reflections on Current Trends’ (1994) 25 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 3;Google Scholar Schultz, T, ‘Secondary Rules of Recognition and Relative Legality in Transnational Regimes’ (2011) 56 American Journal of Jurisprudence 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961) 91.Google Scholar

⁴³ Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as approved 28 September 2013, para 15(a), available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en>.

⁴⁴ ECJ, Judgment of 15 July 1964, Case 6/64, Costa v ENEL, (1964) European Court Reports 585, 593–4.

⁴⁵ Trebilcock, MJ, The Limits of Freedom of Contract (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993) 8.Google Scholar See also Banakar, R, ‘Reflexive Legitimacy in International Arbitration’ in Gessner, V and Budak, A Cem (eds), Emerging Legal Certainty: Empirical Studies on the Globalization of Law (Ashgate, Aldershot, 1998) 347.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Grimm, D, ‘Basic Rights in the Formative Era of Modern Society’ in Grimm, D, Constitutionalism: Past, Present, and Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016) 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ See Bydlinski, F, Privatautonomie und objektive Grundlagen des verpflichtenden Rechtsgeschäftes (Springer, Vienna, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ For the doctrine of ‘horizontal effect’ of constitutional rights within the state, see S Gardbaum, ‘The “Horizontal Effect” of Constitutional Rights’ (2003) 102 Michigan Law Review 387; J van der Walt, The Horizontal Effect Revolution and the Question of Sovereignty (De Gruyter, Berlin, 2014).

⁴⁹ See generally Luhmann, N, Law as a Social System (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014);Google Scholar Teubner, G, Law as an Autopoietic System (Blackwell, Oxford, 1993).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Luhmann, N, Grundrechte als Institution: Ein Beitrag zur politischen Soziologie (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, 1965).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid 187.

⁵² See Teubner, G, ‘The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by “Private” Transnational Actors’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 327;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ladeur, K-H and Viellechner, L, ‘Die transnationale Expansion staatlicher Grundrechte: Zur Konstitutionalisierung globaler Privatrechtsregimes’ (2008) 46 Archiv des Völkerrechts 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ Schlink, B, ‘Freiheit durch Eingriffsabwehr: Rekonstruktion der klassischen Grundrechtsfunktion’ (1984) 11 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 457;Google Scholar Currie, DP, ‘Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights’ (1986) 53 University of Chicago Law Review 864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ See Böckenförde, E-W, ‘Fundamental Rights as Constitutional Principles: On the Current State of Interpreting Fundamental Rights’ in Böckenförde, E-W, Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017) 235, 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ See Grimm (n 46) 76.

⁵⁶ Ladeur, Cf. K-H, ‘Discursive Ethics as Constitutional Theory: Neglecting the Creative Role of Economic Liberties?’ (2000) 13 Ratio Juris 95;Google Scholar Vesting, T, ‘The Autonomy of Law and the Formation of Network Standards’ (2004) 5 German Law Journal 639.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See generally FA von Hayek, ‘Die Anmaßung von Wissen’ (1975) 26 Ordo 12.

⁵⁸ See Mueller (n 12) 73–208.

⁵⁹ Skordas, Cf. A, ‘Self-Determination of Peoples and Transnational Regimes: A Foundational Principle of Global Governance’ in Tsagourias, N (ed), Transnational Constitutionalism: International and European Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007) 207;Google Scholar Johnson, DR and Post, DG, ‘Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’ (1996) 48 Stanford Law Review 1367, 1393:Google Scholar ‘If there is one central principle on which all local authorities within the Net should agree, it must be that territorially local claims to a right to restrict online transactions (in ways unrelated to vital and localized interests of a territorial government) should be resisted. This is the Net equivalent of the First Amendment, a principle already recognized in the form of the international human rights doctrine protecting the right to communicate.’

⁶⁰ See G Teubner and V Karavas, ‘http://www.CompanyNameSucks.com: The Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights on “Private Parties” within Autonomous Internet Law’ (2005) 12 Constellations 262.

⁶¹ Sorgen, RS, ‘Trademark Confronts Free Speech on the Information Superhighway: “Cybergripers” Face a Constitutional Collision’ (2001) 22 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 115;Google Scholar Goldstein, A, ‘ICANNSucks.biz (And Why You Can’t Say That): How Fair Use of Trademarks in Domain Names Is Being Restrained’ (2002) 12 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 1151.Google Scholar

⁶² See Viellechner (n 11) 453–4; Teubner, G, Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012) 136–9.Google Scholar

⁶³ But see Gerstenberg, O, ‘Private Law, Constitutionalism and the Limits of the Judicial Role’ in Scott, C (ed), Torture as Tort: Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation (Hart, Oxford, 2001) 687.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Viellechner, L, ‘Responsive Legal Pluralism: The Emergence of Transnational Conflicts Law’ (2015) 6 Transnational Legal Theory 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁵ See also Teubner, G, ‘Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law’ (1983) 17 Law and Society Review 239.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Chan, P, ‘Safer (Cyber)Sex with .xxx: The Case for First Amendment Zoning of the Internet’ (2006) 39 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1299.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Lepsius, O, Steuerungsdiskussion, Systemtheorie und Parlamentarismuskritik (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 1999) 70.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Lepsius, O, ‘Braucht das Verfassungsrecht eine Theorie des Staates? Eine deutsche Perspektive: Von der Staatstheorie zur Theorie der Herrschaftsformen’ (2004) 31 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 370, 380.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Ladeur, K-H, ‘The Role of Contracts and Networks in Public Governance: The Importance of the “Social Epistemology” of Decision Making’ (2007) 14 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ See Zumbansen, P, ‘The Law of Society: Governance Through Contract’ (2007) 14 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ See Teubner, G, ‘Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-Centred Constitutional Theory?’ in Joerges, C, Sand, I-J and Teubner, G (eds), Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism (Hart, Oxford, 2004) 3.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid 18; for a more detailed account, see Teubner (n 62) 73–123.

⁷³ WIPO AMC, Decision of 6 July 2000, Case D2000-0190, Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. et al. v Jack Myers.

⁷⁴ WIPO AMC, Decision of 5 August 2000, Case D2000-0536, TMP Worldwide Inc. v Jennifer L. Potter; Decision of 10 July 2009, Case D2009-0693, Sutherland Institute v Continuative LLC.

⁷⁵ WIPO AMC, Decision of 22 April 2004, Case D2004-0014, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Paul McCauley; Decision of 2 July 2008, Case D2008-0647, Sermo, Inc. v CatalystMD, LLC.

⁷⁶ WIPO AMC, Decision of 14 November 2007, Case D2007-1379, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Frank Redmond; Decision of 10 November 2014, Case D2014-1590, Fiskars Corporation v Whois Privacy Service/James Taverner.

⁷⁷ WIPO AMC, Decision of 23 November 2009, Case D2009-1295, Coast Hotels Ltd. v Bill Lewis and Unite Here.

⁷⁸ WIPO AMC, Decision of 10 January 2002, Case D2001-1318, British Nuclear Fuels plc v Greenpeace International; Decision of 23 October 2006, Case D2006-1066, Moss and Coleman Solicitors v Rick Kordowski.

⁷⁹ WIPO AMC, Decision of 18 January 2008, Case D2007-1461, 1066 Housing Association Ltd. v Mr. D. Morgan; Decision of 8 March 2016, Case D2016-0110, Visit Faroe IslandsP/F v Pilot Whale, Save the Whales.

⁸⁰ WIPO AMC, Decision of 23 September 2014, Case D2014-1331, Petroleo Brasileiro SA – Petrobas v Ivo Lucio Santana Marcelino Da Silva.

⁸¹ Among the first decisions employing this reasoning were WIPO AMC, Decision of 13 February 2008, Case D2007-1887, Thorsten Rathmann v Administrator Lunarpages and Customer of Lunarpages; Decision of 17 April 2008, Case D2008-0274, Escada AG v Phil Mitchell.

⁸² WIPO AMC, Decision of 25 February 2008, Case D2007-1947, Fundación Calvin Ayre Foundation v Erik Deutsch.

⁸³ WIPO AMC, Decision of 6 November 2000, Case D2000-1171, Migros Genossenschaftsbund v Centro Consulenze Kim Paloschi; Decision of 14 April 2004, Case D2004-0032, Hollenbeck Youth Center, Inc. v Stephen Rowland.

⁸⁴ WIPO AMC, Decision of 5 September 2002, Case D2002-0596, Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson, P.A. v American Distribution Systems, Inc. d/b/a DefaultData.com; Decision of 22 October 2008, Case D2008-1234, Union Square Partnership, Inc. et al. v unionsquarepartnership.com Private Registrant et al.

⁸⁵ WIPO AMC, Decision of 11 December 2006, Case D2006-1230, InMed Diagnostic Services, LLC et al. v James Harrison.

⁸⁶ On the one hand WIPO AMC, Decision of 19 September 2000, Case D2000-0662, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale; Decision of 11 August 2016, Case D2016-0951, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors v Martin Rushton; on the other hand WIPO AMC, Decision of 26 January 2001, Case D2000-1015, Lockheed Martin Corporation v Dan Parisi; Decision of 18 June 2001, Case D2001-0212, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v natwestfraud.com and Umang Malhotra.

⁸⁷ On the one hand WIPO AMC, Decision of 18 December 2000, Case D2000-1314, Skattedirektoratet v Eivind Nag; Decision of 9 July 2014, Case D2014-0780, Mr. Willem Vedovi, Galerie Vedovi S.A. v Domains By Proxy, LLC/Jane Kelly; on the other hand WIPO AMC, Decision of 6 July 2000, Case D2000-0190, Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. et al. v Jack Myers; Decision of 25 February 2008, Case D2007-1947, Fundación Calvin Ayre Foundation v Erik Deutsch.

⁸⁸ For the distinction of external and internal point of view in legal theory, see Hart (n 42) 86–8.

⁸⁹ See also Lavranos, N, ‘The Solange-Method as a Tool for Regulating Competing Jurisdictions Among International Courts and Tribunals’ (2008) 30 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 275;Google Scholar Tzanakopoulos, A, ‘Judicial Dialogue in Multi-Level Governance: The Impact of the Solange Argument’ in Fauchald, OK and Nollkaemper, A (eds), The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of International Law (Hart, Oxford, 2012) 185.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ BVerfG, Decision of 22 October 1986, Case 2 BvR 197/83, Solange II, 73 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 339, 387.

⁹¹ ECHR, Judgment of 30 June 2005, Case 45036/98, Bosphorus v Ireland, para 155.

⁹² ECJ, Judgment of 3 September 2008, Joined Cases C-402/05 P et al., Kadi and Al Barakaat v Council and Commission, (2008) European Court Reports I-6351, para 322.

⁹³ BVerfG, Judgment of 15 January 1958, Case 1 BvR 400/51, Lüth, 7 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 198, 205–7.

⁹⁴ BVerfG, Judgment of 25 February 1975, Joined Cases 1 BvF 1/74 et al., Schwangerschaftsabbruch I, 39 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 1, 41–4.

⁹⁵ BVerfG, Judgment of 18 July 1972, Joined Cases 1 BvL 32/70 et al., Numerus Clausus I, 33 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 303, 330–5; Judgment of 9 February 2010, Joined Cases 1 BvL 1/09 et al., Hartz IV, 125 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 172, 222.

⁹⁶ BVerfG, Decision of 20 December 1979, Case 1 BvR 385/77, Mülheim-Kärlich, 53 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 30, 57–61.

⁹⁷ BVerfG, Judgment of 16 June 1981, Case 1 BvL 89/87, Rundfunkentscheidung III, 57 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 295, 320.

⁹⁸ BVerfG, Judgment of 26 March 1957, Case 2 BvG 1/55, Reichskonkordat, 6 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 309, 362; Vogel, K, Die Verfassungsentscheidung des Grundgesetzes für eine internationale Zusammenarbeit: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zu einer Frage der Staatstheorie sowie des geltenden deutschen Staatsrechts (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 1964) 42.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Grimm, Cf. D, ‘Return to the Traditional Understanding of Fundamental Rights?’ in Grimm, D, Constitutionalism: Past, Present, and Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016) 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Deutsches Network Information Center eG, founded 1 December 1996, <https://www.denic.de>.

¹⁰¹ OLG Hamburg, Judgment of 18 December 2003, Case 3 U 117/03, awd-aussteiger.de, (2004) 7 Multimedia und Recht 415, 418 (my translation).

¹⁰² LG Bremen, Judgment of 30 January 2003, Case 12 O 383/02, bsagmeckerseite.de, (2003) 7 Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht – Rechtsprechungsdienst 360.

¹⁰³ See Wai, R, ‘Transnational Private Law and Private Ordering in a Contested Global Society’ (2005) 46 Harvard International Law Journal 471;Google Scholar Watt, H Muir, ‘Private International Law Beyond the Schism’ (2011) 2 Transnational Legal Theory 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Perritt, HH Jr, ‘T owards a Hybrid Regulatory Scheme for the Internet’ (2001) 16 University of Chicago Legal Forum 215, 280.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Lessig, L, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, New York, NY, 1999) 217–18.Google Scholar See also Berman, P Schiff, ‘Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to “Private” Regulation’ (2000) 71 University of Colorado Law Review 1263.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ CA (6th Cir), Judgment of 7 February 2003, Case 01-2648, Taubman v Webfeats and Mishkoff, 319 F3d 770, 778.

¹⁰⁷ For the idea to transfer the concepts of conflict of laws to transnational governance, see Wai, R, ‘Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization’ (2002) 40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 209;Google Scholar Schiff Berman, P, ‘Conflict of Laws, Globalization, and Cosmopolitan Pluralism’ (2005) 51 Wayne Law Review 1105;Google Scholar Bomhoff, J, ‘The Reach of Rights: “The Foreign” and “the Private” in Conflict-of-Laws, State-Action, and Fundamental-Rights Cases with Foreign Elements’ (2008) 71 Law and Contemporary Problems 39;Google Scholar Joerges, C, ‘A New Type of Conflicts Law as the Legal Paradigm of the Postnational Constellation’ in Joerges, C and Falke, J (eds), Karl Polanyi, Globalisation and the Potential of Law in Transnational Markets (Hart, Oxford, 2011) 465;Google Scholar Teubner (n 62) 150–73; Knop, K, Michaels, R and Riles, A, ‘International Law in Domestic Courts: A Conflict of Laws Approach’ (2009) 103 American Society of International Law Proceedings 269;Google Scholar Watt, H Muir, ‘Conflicts of Laws Unbounded: The Case for a Legal-Pluralist Revival’ (2016) 7 Transnational Legal Theory 313;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Whytock, CA, ‘Conflict of Laws, Global Governance, and Transnational Legal Order’ (2016) 1 UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 117.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ von Mehren, AT, ‘Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role and Significance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology’ (1974) 88 Harvard Law Review 347.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See also Langen, E, Transnational Commercial Law (Sijthoff, Leiden, 1973) 33;Google Scholar Dinwoodie, GB, ‘A New Copyright Order: Why National Courts Should Create Global Norms’ (2000) 149 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 469;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Berman, P Schiff, ‘Towards a Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interest in a Global Era’ (2005) 153 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1819;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Teubner, G and Korth, P, ‘Two Kinds of Legal Pluralism: Collision of Transnational Regimes in the Double Fragmentation of World Society’ in Young, MA (ed), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) 23.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Lebel-Grenier, S, ‘What Is a Transnational Legal Education?’ (2006) 56 Journal of Legal Education 190;Google Scholar Arjona, C et al., ‘What Law for Transnational Legal Education? A Cooperative View of an Introductory Course to Transnational Law and Governance’ (2015) 6 Transnational Legal Theory 253.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Bickel, AM, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN, 1962) 16.Google Scholar

¹¹² See Gerstenberg (n 63) 698–701; Berman, P Schiff, ‘The Globalization of Jurisdiction’ (2002) 151 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 311, 520–1.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Scelle, G, Précis de droit des gens: principes et systématique vol. 1 (Sirey, Paris, 1932) 43.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Global Community of Courts’ (2003) 44 Harvard International Law Journal 191;Google Scholar Schiff Berman, P, ‘Judges as Cosmopolitan Transnational Actors’ (2004) 12 Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law 109;Google Scholar Cassese, S, I tribunali di Babele: I giudici alla ricerca di un nuovo ordine globale (Donzelli, Rome, 2009).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See Perritt (n 104) 266.

¹¹⁶ Fischer-Lescano, A and Teubner, G, ‘Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law’ (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 999, 1039.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Ladeur, Cf. K-H, ‘Globalization and the Conversion of Democracy to Polycentric Networks: Can Democracy Survive the End of the Nation-State?’ in Ladeur, K-H (ed), Public Governance in the Age of Globalization (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004) 89;Google Scholar Krisch, N, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) 264–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar