International legal principles and formats of interaction between states and nongovernmental organizations in cyberspace

Abstract

The concept of the metaverse, as a strategic vision for the development prospects of cyberspace, reflects the ambitious claims of virtual communities to establish a global digital rule based order. Global Digital Compact of 2024 demonstrates the UN's commitment to overcoming digital inequality and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by involving multiple stakeholders in Internet governance. Non-governmental organizations and virtual communities are actively implementing emergent digital solutions and putting a wide range of human rights issues on the agenda of the world community. States, in turn, seek to protect their digital sovereignty, ensure legislative recognition and judicial protection of the digital rights of citizens. Constructive human rights discourse in cyberspace is developing thanks to the interaction of states and non-governmental organizations towards the universal recognition of digital rights. Calls by virtual communities for complete freedom of the Network from state institutions have gradually given way to declarations of the need for freedom from cybercrime and freedom to exercise intellectual and digital rights. Digital freedom, as a legal condition, requires the implementation of legal guarantees of fair competition in virtual markets, which at the level of transnational law is expressed in the recognition of special principles of cyber interaction. The UN assumes that many stakeholders in the digital environment strategically manage artificial intelligence there, but from the standpoint of transnational law, the formats of interaction between states and non-governmental organizations lead to the opposite: an increase in the influence of transnational corporations and the implementation of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of developed states in cyberspace.

References

1. Aleksandrov, A.G. and Safronov, A.A. (2021). Using the Darknet in the Preparation and Commission of Crimes. Bulletin of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 1(89), pp. 156–160 (in Russ.).
2. Alekseev, G.V. (2024). Metatheory and Classification of Digital Human Rights and Freedoms. Theoretical and Applied Jurisprudence, 2(20), pp. 24–36 (in Russ.).
3. Bakhin, S.V. (2022). Transnational Law: A Scientific Breakthrough by Professor Lyudmila Nikiforovna Galenskaya. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Law, Vol. 13, 4, pp. 1099–1110 (in Russ.).
4. Galenskaya, L.N. (2018). Application of the Principles of International Law in Judicial Practice. Russian Justice, 7(147), pp. 52–60 (in Russ.).
5. Kirilenko, V.P. and Alekseev, G.V. (2018). The Legitimacy of Democracy in the Works of Max Weber and Carl Schmitt. Jurisprudence, Vol. 62, 3, pp. 501–517 (in Russ.).
6. Majorina, M.V. (2019). Digital platforms and international private law, or does cyberlaw have a future. Lex Russica, 2, pp. 107–120 (in Russ.).
7. Muratova, O.V. (2019). The concept of transnational consumer law in the modern world. Lex Russica, 7(152), pp. 20–28 (in Russ.).
8. Talemonchik, V.P. (2024). International institutional competition as an obstacle to the formation of a system of international legal regulation of information and communication systems. Works on intellectual property, Vol. 50, 3, pp. 8–19 (in Russ.).
9. Talemonchik, V.P. (2023). International principles of judicial conduct and their implementation when using information and communication systems. Eurasian Law Journal, 2(177), pp. 26–29 (in Russ.).
10. Terentyeva, L.V. (2019). Extraterritorial manifestation of the jurisdiction of the state in the context of the transformation of the perception of its spatial boundaries. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 3, pp. 160–180 (in Russ.).
11. Tiunov, O.I. (2012). The role of international legal standards in regulating the interaction of the international. Journal of Russian Law, 12(192), pp. 69–83 (in Russ.).
12. Chestnov, I.L. (2023). Subject of law: complementarity of legal status and legal identity. Bulletin of the University of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, 2(94), pp. 5–11 (in Russ.).
13. Yarotskaya, L.V. (2020). Selection of relevant training content in the format of polysubject interaction. Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Education and Pedagogical Sciences, 2(835), pp. 58–67 (in Russ.).
14. Bazinas, S.V. (2023). Digital assets and private law: is there a need for a uniform law? Uniform Law Review, Vol. 28, Is. 3-4, pp. 381–389.
15. Carolei, D. (2022). An International Ombudsman to make non-governmental organizations more accountable? Too good to be true … Leiden Journal of International Law, 35(4), pp. 867–886.
16. Celeste, E. (2019). Digital constitutionalism: a new systematic theorization. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 33(1), pp. 76–99.
17. Dragu, T. and Lupu, Y. (2021). Digital Authoritarianism and the Future of Human Rights. International Organization, 75(4), pp. 991–1017.
18. Haddad, H.N. and Sundstrom, L.M. (2023). Foreign agents or agents of justice? Private foundations, backlash against non-governmental organizations, and international human rights litigation. Law & Society Review, 57(1), pp. 12–35.
19. Joseph, M.F. and Poznansky, M. (2024). Secret Innovation. International Organization, 78(4), pp. 766–799.
20. Liang, B. (2022). Three Cases of Non-compliance: Challenges of Trust and Governmental Response Strategies. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 10, Is. 3, cxac028.
21. Oster, J. (2021). Code is code and law is law — the law of digitalization and the digitalization of law. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 29, Is. 2, pp. 101–117.
22. Talmon, S. (2019). Rules-based Order v International Law? German Practice in International Law. Vol. 20.
23. Terzis, P. (2024). Against digital constitutionalism. European Law Open, 3(2), pp. 336–352.
24. Vylegzhanin, A.N. et al. (2021) The term "rules-based international order" in international legal discourses. Moscow Journal of International Law, 2, p. 37.
25. Weimann, G. (2025) Generative AI and Terrorism. Oxford.