The WTO has just handed down a preliminary ruling that Internet policy wonks like myself have been waiting for with considerable impatience. Last June, the Caribbean island state of Antigua and Barbuda took a WTO case against the US for restrictions of trade. The issue: various US laws that have been applied to stamp out Internet gambling, with unpleasant consequences for the Antiguan economy. Antigua has just won in this first stage of the process.
The case is interesting because of what it says about the ways in which Internet regulation is changing. It used to be that people thought that the Internet would allow private actors to displace states, and create a libertarian utopia. What’s happening today is quite different - states, far from giving way to private actors, are pressing them into service. This is leading to a variety of secondary disputes about extraterritorial action.
A few years ago, the conventional wisdom was that the Internet was going to undermine the power of states, and empower private actors (firms, individuals) in their stead. Sometime Conspirator David Post co-wrote a classic paper arguing that because the Internet crossed national borders, it would be very hard to apply traditional nation-state based law to it. Instead, we’d likely see individuals creating their own forms of law-like order on the Internet, through self-regulating groups and the like. This isn’t a very popular argument these days - critics (including Dan Drezner and I) point to an abundance of evidence that states are still in the driving seat.
Still, the jurisdictional problems that David Post and others talked about haven’t gone away. States still have problems in regulating certain Internet activities, because they disagree on fundamental issues of regulation. In the case at hand, the US banned its citizens from Internet gambling. However, because Antigua and other countries didn’t join the US in banning it (they saw it as a way to make lots of money), US citizens with access to the WWW could evade the law by gambling at offshore locations. For various reasons, it’s exceedingly difficult for the US directly to block access to these sites.
Faced with this problem, certain authorities within the US decided on an unorthodox solution. They couldn’t shut down offshore gambling sites or prevent US citizens from accessing them. What they could do was to hold credit card companies and banks - which had been a crucial intermediary between gambers and offshore gambling sites - responsible as accessories. The New York state attorney-general’s office was especially zealous in prosecuting financial intermediaries, although in fairness, many banks and credit card agencies were happy to comply for their own reasons. US credit card companies started to refuse transactions with offshore gambling websites. This sent Antigua’s gambling industry, which relied heavily on US customers, into a tailspin. Hence Antigua’s successful WTO action against the US (which is about to be appealed to a disputes panel).
It’s a nice case-study in the modern politics of the Internet. Private actors - in this case, the online gambling providers in Antigua - were able to cock a snook at US laws, raking money in from US gamblers while remaining outside the jurisdiction of US law enforcement authorities. US authorities responded, not by direct action, but by using their influence over other private actors to get results. Antigua responded in turn by invoking multilateral trading agreements, and complaining to the WTO. In a world where jurisdictions are increasingly messy and contradictory, some states are able to extend their reach extraterritorially, by using key private actors (banks, Internet Service Providers and others) as what Jonathan Zittrain calls ‘points of control.’ Other states, which don’t have this kind of clout, are invoking multilateral rules which weren’t designed to deal with these kinds of issues. In this case at least, the weaker party has won. One can safely predict that there’ll be many similar disputes over the next several years. It’s good grist for the mills of IR scholars; we’re really only beginning to come to terms with the complexities of state-private actor relations, and disputes like this one provide us with interesting and important evidence.
It’s a fascinating case on a range of levels.
One is that , however the WTO lawyers may parse it, this is yet another case where the WTO has sought to override domestic policy decisions in the name of free trade. There was clearly no protection or discriminatory intent here - the activities attacked in Antigua were also banned in the US (see also GM foods, dolphin-safe tuna, etc).
If a case of this kind can be brought successfully, why not one on behalf of tax-evaders and money-launderers (both very beneficial activities for certain island economies)?
Is there any sort of useful parallel to be drawn with overlapping jurisdictions and types of law in early modern Europe? Where you had canon law, guild law, feudal law, possibly common or customary law and maybe vestiges of Roman law? That is, maybe the nation-state’s monopoly on law is a transitory thing, and not as universal as might have been thought (see sharia). So now at the intersection of law, technology and IR, things are coming unbundled again. Leavening leviathan, as it were. I’ve been wondering since the late 90s (though, sadly, not in any coherent written form) about the unbundling of citizenship: American for security, EU for work, maybe Swiss for residence. How would such a thing work, and is there a way that it could work to benefit individuals, rather than the institutions setting the rules?
I’ve posted about this… I think the decision is excellent in principle, and I’m not convinced that overriding domestic policy decisions in the name of free trade is inherently bad.
However, given the strength of feeling against gambling in the US, it could create a backlash against free trade agreements in general - which would be far worse than banning Americans from playing the gee-gees…
I think John’s right that anti-gambling politicians are going to play the “foreigners infringing on our sovereignty” card for all it’s worth, and it will contribute to the current backlash against free trade. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that the strength of feeling against gambling in the U.S. is all that strong. The number of people who gamble in the U.S. every year — even setting aside in the lottery — is in the high tens of millions at least. More and more states have made gambling legal. And I’m thoroughly unconvinced that most Americans want the government to keep people from betting in, as it were, the privacy of their own homes.
John - the main dispute in this case turned on whether the US had, or had not, specifically exempted gambling from its WTO accession. The preliminary judgement isn’t officially available yet - the WTO has released it to the participants (who of course have leaked the results immediately) but doesn’t make its opinions available to the likes of us for another month. However, I presume that it’s a narrowly crafted enough decision and won’t have implications for taxation etc. I think you’re absolutely right on the domestic policy implications - but another, equally valid interpretation of the decision could be that the WTO has stepped in to stop a big bullying state from strangling a perfectly legitimate industry in another country. In other words, the WTO was in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation. And it’s going to find itself in more and more and more of these dilemmas, having to choose whether to privilege the domestic policy choices of one, or another, country in situations where the two clash with consequences for international trade.
I think we can expect to see more states using private actors to enforce internet related policies/laws. At a recent OECD workshop on spam, the most common call from public and private sector participants on finding spammers was ‘follow the money’.
Credit card companies are an obvious chokepoint for tracing and punishing spammers (or the people who pay spammers to send their messages). No matter how they disguise where the email came from, they still want the recipient to be able to send them money.
What would be really interesting, though, would be to know more about the pressure state actors put on the credit card companies to act as policemen. i.e. what are governments offering/threatening that makes cutting off a relatively lucrative flow of business weem worthwhile?
For a more sinister example of states implementing questionable policies through private actors, see traffic data retention and airline passenger data transfers. In the EU, companies are being bullied into making transfers of personal data to state actors even though it is in clear breach of data protection law. The least governments can offer is reduction or removal of liability, but they refuse to. So the companies are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Steve, I think you will find gambling is like smoking: lots of people do it, but they think of it as a vice and are vaguely ashamed, so they won’t fight back via open political activity against regulation that restricts the activity.
How will this rulling effect European speech laws? Both France and Germany have laws against anything with Nazi content. France has even attempted to limit content from US based internet providers.
Henry,
Thanks for your outstanding post on this issue. I have published on the lack of clear international policy/enforcement power in regard to internet practice of medicine and international pharmaceutical trade, and have suggested that, should the US government truly wish to choke off the reimportation debate, they would have squeezed the credit card vendors and PayPals of the world, much the same way they have done in the case of Internet gambling.
This ruling appears to throw a small monkey wrench into the system, although there are significantly different qualitative differences between online medical practice and online gaming (spurious attempts in the gambling arena to invoke the PATRIOT Act notwithstanding).
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review