Co-regulation and the rule oflaw

Freedom on the internet and its consequences

“…VII (2015): стр. 257-272 коме држава утврђује правила, контролише њихово спровођење и кажњава оне који та правила крше; саморегулаторни модел, у коме је примарно да приватни сектор самостално утврђује правила и спроводи их колективно без икакве јавне интервенције; трећи модел је кооперативни модел који се карактерише тиме да дефинисање правила, имплементација и праћење примене, се раде у кооперацији између јавних и приватних актера, али је иницијатива и надзор у рукама државе (Frydman et al, 2012).…”

The Brussels School of Jurisprudence, Global Law and the Competition of Normativities

“…New procedures of complaint, like notice & take down, were designed, creating strong incentives for hosting providers to suppress controversial data when urged to do so by complainants. Public authorities followed the path, increasing the pressure on ISPs around the world, such as in China for instance 33 . In the meantime, other players were inventing new ways to bypass this point of control, by modifying the communication channels in the network.…”

Moving Beyond Regulatory Mechanisms: A Typology of Internet Control Regimes

“…The three commonly identified models of national Internet regulation are not dissimilar from other public policy regulatory approaches: a "command-and-control" or state model, in which public authorities make the rules, enforce them, and punish those who breach them; a self-regulation model, in which private sector actors largely make the rules and implement them collectively without any public intervention; and a co-regulation model, in which policy drafting, implementation, and enforcement are spread between a number of public and private actors, but initiated and overseen by the state (Kleinsteuber, 2004;Frydman, Hennebel, & Lewkowicz, 2012). Although this framework presents a useful starting point for Internet policy regime analysis, it is at once too broad in application, as the United States, European Union member states, and various developmental countries utilize regulatory approaches that can be characterized as co-regulatory, and too narrow in conceptual scope, as laws and regulations are only as effective as a government's capability to enforce them.…”

“…This approach is especially important as it integrates policy paradigms and policy maker motivations, and outlines the role of regulators-the public or private bodies capable of influencing the behaviors of actors. Frydman, Hennebel, and Lewkowicz (2012) detail the command-and-control and self-regulation models, and build upon Zittrain's (2003) framework to identify co-regulatory mechanisms-the legal devices designed by both public and private players to put pressure on the points of control to achieve some regulatory result.…”

“…19 Although there have been pushes for tighter content controls in the United States, legislative attempts at creating a mandatory filtering or screening system have failed to produce a comprehensive solution (OpenNet Initiative, 2010b). Eko (2001) and Frydman, Hennebel, and Lewkowicz (2012) clarify that Internet regulation in the United States is not exclusively self-regulatory, as some co-regulatory mechanisms exist in three important areas: minors' protection and the fight against child pornography, security issues related to the fight against terrorism, and the protection of copyrighted materials. In these areas, the authors argue that various legal patterns illustrate an "invisible handshake" (Birnhack & Elkin, 2003) between the state and private actors, especially ISPs, which are enlisted in the implementation of the law.…”