Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Regulating eTechnologies in the European Union pp 33–51Cite as

e-Governance in Law and by Law

The Legal Framework of e-Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The article provides an overview of various areas of law affected by e-governance. e-governance is often approached as a technical issue, even if it is now mature enough for other aspects to get more attention. It is not unusual that legislators, regulators or others concerned concentrate too much on technological issues and presume that new rules are needed if new technologies are used. However, there should not be much separate legislation or regulation for e-governance, as this risks creating parallel systems rather than benefiting from efficiency gains. What is required is a profound analysis of existing legislation to identify whether and in what contexts new or amended rules may be required. With more and more novel information and communication technology (ICT) solutions for governance, it may get difficult to fit new phenomena into old rules through interpretation only. For example, e-signatures or other identification systems need to be regulated. It must not be forgotten that the perception of reliability and security of e-governance is important as people will not use service they see as insecure, which is why data protection is a priority. Technology and law should work together and complement one another, but the relationship may be less complex than it may appear to the non-initiated. The legal system must be able to include e-governance but does not need to change totally because technologies change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, which they believed, was threatening their jobs (1811–1816). Derogatory: a person opposed to increased industrialisation or new technology. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.

  2. 2.

    Recommendation Rec (2004)15 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 15 December 2004 and explanatory memorandum, www.coe.int.

  3. 3.

    http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/life-and-work/public-services.

  4. 4.

    http://web.worldbank.org/ (e-government—Definition of e-government).

  5. 5.

    For example, the French Ordinance on electronic interactions between public services users and public authorities and among public authorities (2005; Ordonnance n° 2005–1516 du 8 décembre 2005 relative aux échanges électroniques entre les usagers et les autorités administratives et entre les autorités administratives,) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006052816&dateTexte=vig; the Polish Act on the Computerisation of the Operations of the Entities Performing Public Tasks (2005, http://www.mswia.gov.pl/portal/pl/589/3886/Ustawa_o_informatyzacji_dzialalnosci_podmiotow_realizujacych_zadania_publiczne.html); the Swedish Open Government Action Plan, Bill 2009/10:175 Public administration for democracy, participation and growth (www.opengovpartnership.org/file/938/download).

  6. 6.

    Schneiberg and Bartley (2008, pp. 38–39).

  7. 7.

    Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures, OJ L13/12, 19.01.2000.

  8. 8.

    http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/2001Model_signatures.html.

  9. 9.

    Brownsword and Goodwin (2012, pp. 19–21).

  10. 10.

    Noting that e-governance is about democratic governance and not about purely technical issues, and convinced therefore that the full potential of e-governance will be harnessed only if ICTs are introduced alongside changes in the structures, processes and ways that the work of public authorities is organised, Preamble, Council of Europe Recommendation Rec (2004)15, op. cit.

  11. 11.

    Examples from e.g. Palestine—OECD (2011) esp. p. 12—or Sri Lanka, Hanna (2008, pp. 9–10) and Chap. 2.

  12. 12.

    Morgan and Yeung (2007, p. 96).

  13. 13.

    The term “e-voting” is used also for various kinds of machine voting, etc.

  14. 14.

    http://www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/.

  15. 15.

    For more details on this issue, see the article by Ülle Madise and Priit Vinkel in this volume.

  16. 16.

    Judgment of the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court number 3-4-1-13-05, Petition of the President of the Republic to declare the Local Government Council Election Act Amendment Act, passed by the Riigikogu on 28 June 2005, unconstitutional,” 1 September 2005. http://www.nc.ee/?id=823.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    OSCE Estonia Parliamentary Elections 6 March 2011 OSCE/ODHIR Needs Assessment Mission Report, 10–13 January 2011, Warsaw 27 January 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/estonia/75216, p. 6.

  19. 19.

    As on example http://www.postimees.ee/1264298/keskerakond-e-haaletus-ei-vasta-pohiseadusele (e-voting is not in accordance with the constitution) 9 June 2013. An organisation has been set up especially to campaign against e-voting, this organisation (MTÜ Ausad Valimised) was fined for breach of the election advertising code in 2013, upheld by court in January 2014. (http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/mtu-le-ausad-valimised-trahvi-maaramine-jaab-jousse.d?id=67583548) 9 January 2014.

  20. 20.

    http://news.err.ee/v/politics/4ee0c8a2-b9c2-4d28-8ae4-061e7d9386a4. It was not possible at the time of writing to determine whether the claim has been dismissed or will be dealt with by the court, although formal requirements of the court and the nature of the complaint may likely lead to its dismissal.

  21. 21.

    www.data.gov.in.

  22. 22.

    www.pa.org.za.

  23. 23.

    www.askthem.io.

  24. 24.

    asksocial@worldbank.org 22 February 2014 Newsletter.

  25. 25.

    One example is Reed (1996).

  26. 26.

    Some examples include Brazell (2004), Mason (2003). Wang (2006) stands the test of time very well, as the article concentrates on the essential function of signatures and thus changing technologies do not affect the relevance.

  27. 27.

    Gil-Garcia (2005, p. 2), quoting in this context, e.g. Dawes and Pardo (2002) and Garson (2003).

  28. 28.

    Laudon and Guercio Traver (2013), Spindler and Börner (2010), Dickie (2005), Edwards (2005) as examples.

  29. 29.

    Article 2 Directive 1999/93/EC, op.cit.

  30. 30.

    OECD (2011, p. 14).

  31. 31.

    Wang (2006, p. 254).

  32. 32.

    Op. cit.

  33. 33.

    http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html.

  34. 34.

    Malkawi (2007, p. 163).

  35. 35.

    Wang (2006, pp. 255–263).

  36. 36.

    Ibid. p. 256 and p. 271.

  37. 37.

    Ibid. p. 257 (UK) and pp. 258–259 (USA). About the USA, the example of Wang of how a court in 1869 accepted exchange of telegrams as signatures, but another USA court in 1996 did not accept a fax (as it was only chirps and beeps) is an amusing as well as illustrative example of the difficulty in interpreting technology through the prism of law.

  38. 38.

    This aspect has been recognised by courts as a reason for not accepting electronic means of signing. See Wang (2006, p. 259) referring to German court cases.

  39. 39.

    The EU is in the process of reforming its existing data protection provisions (found in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), with a view to making the rules more suitable for modern ICTs as well as to avoid the rather significant differences in interpretation and application that have occurred between EU Member States (which is one reason a Regulation is proposed instead of a Directive). See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm.

  40. 40.

    Nyman-Metcalf (2014, pp. 28–30).

  41. 41.

    Neither legal area is examined in detail in this article, as the size of the article does not permit that and in any case the interest in the current context is rather to point out the potentially relevant legal areas for analysis in the context of e-governance, not to actually conduct this analysis.

  42. 42.

    Gonzales Fuster et al. (2010, pp. 107–109).

  43. 43.

    Examples include Directive 97/66/EC concerning Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Telecommunications Sector; Directive 2000/31/EC on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services and Directive 2002/58/EC concerning Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Electronic Communications Sector.

  44. 44.

    Nyman-Metcalf (2014, pp. 30–31).

  45. 45.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18866347.

  46. 46.

    Anandarajan et al. (2013, p. 53). The authors in their paper examine US legislation about data security breaches, comparing the laws of different states and making conclusions on what could be improved. The results are interesting and useful, but the limitation of legislation is the mentioned fact that if companies do not give required information, regulation cannot have its full intended effect.

  47. 47.

    Ibid. p. 53.

  48. 48.

    Many examples can be seen at http://ico.org.uk/what_we_cover/handling_complaints.

  49. 49.

    Anandarajan et al. (2013, p. 53).

  50. 50.

    An example of such an evaluation is the “Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposals for a Regulation establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) and a Regulation establishing a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP)” 18 July 2013. https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2013/13-07-18_Smart_borders_EN.pdf.

  51. 51.

    Nitsche and Wiethaus (2012, pp. 409–414).

  52. 52.

    Nikolinakos (2006, p. 181).

  53. 53.

    De Muyter (2012, pp. 453–454).

  54. 54.

    Walden (2001, pp. 2–5).

  55. 55.

    Long (1995, p. 26).

  56. 56.

    Case C-320/91 Corbeau and Case C-280/00 Altmark, European Court of Justice.

  57. 57.

    Nihoul and Rothford (2004, pp. 596–597).

  58. 58.

    Quigley (2009, pp. 319–320).

  59. 59.

    Nikolinakos (2006, pp. 236–237).

  60. 60.

    Nihoul and Rothford (2004, p. 396).

  61. 61.

    Nikolinakos (2006, p. 392).

  62. 62.

    Schejter and Yemini (2007, p. 138).

  63. 63.

    http://estonia.eu/about-estonia/economy-a-it/e-estonia.html.

References

  • Anandarajan, M., D´Ovidio, R., & Jenkins, A. (2013). Safeguarding consumers against identity-related fraud: Examining data breach notification legislation through the lens of routine activities theory. International Data Privacy Law, 3(1), 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazell, L. (2004). Electronic signature law and regulation. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword, R., & Goodwin, M. (2012). Law and the technologies of the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2002). Building collaborative digital government systems. Systematic constraints and effective practices. In W. J. McIver & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in digital government. Technology, human factors, and policy (pp. 259–273). Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Muyter, L. (2012). Regulatory asymmetry? The competition between telecommunication operators and other ICT players. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 3(5), 452–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, J. (2005). Producers and consumers in EU e-Commerce law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. (Ed.). (2005). The new legal framework for e-Commerce in Europe. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garson, G. D. (2003). Public information technology: Policy and management issues. Harrisburg: Idea Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Garcia, R. (2005). Enacting state websites: A mixed method study exploring e-government success in multiorganizational setting. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences—2006 http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/hicss_2006_enacting/hicss_2006_enacting.pdf.

  • Gonzales Fuster, G., Gutwirth, S., & de Hert, P. (2010). From unsolicited communications to unsolicited adjustments. In G. Gutwirth, Y. Poullet, & P. de Hert (Eds.), Data protection in a profiled world (pp. 105–117). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, N. K. (2008). Transforming government and empowering communities. The Sri Lankan experience with e-development. Washington D.C: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laudon, K. C., & Guercio Traver, C. (2013). e-Commerce: Business, technology, society. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, C. D. (1995). Telecommunications law and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malkawi, B. H. (2007). e-Commerce in light of international trade agreements: The WTO and the United States-Jordan trade Agreement. The International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 15(2), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S. (2003). Electronic signature in law. London: LexisNexis UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B., & Yeung, K. (2007). An introduction to law and regulation. Text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nihoul, P., & Rothford, P. (2004). EU electronic communications law. Competition and regulation in the European telecommunications market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolinakos, N. Th. (2006). EU competition law and regulation in the converging telecommunications, media and IT sectors. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitsche, R., & Wiethaus, L. (2012). Competition law in regulated industries: On the case and scope for intervention. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 3(4), 409–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyman-Metcalf, K. (2014). The future of universality of rights. In T. Kerikmäe (Ed.), Protecting human rights in the EU (pp. 21–35). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Modernising public administration: The case of e-government in the palestinian authority. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, C. (2009). European state aid law and policy (2nd ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. (1996). Digital information law: Electronic documents and some requirements of form. London: Queen Mary & Westfield College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schejter, A. M., & Yemini, M. (2007). Justice, and only Justice, you shall pursue: Network neutrality, the first amendment and John Rawl´s theory of justice. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14, 137–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiberg, M., & Bartley, T. (2008). Organizations, regulation, and economic behavior: Regulatory dynamics and forms from the nineteenth to twenty-first century. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 31–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spindler, G., & Börner, F. (Eds.). (2010). e-Commerce law in Europe and the USA. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walden, I. (2001). Telecommunications law and regulation: An introduction. In I. Walden & J. Angel (Eds.), Telecommunications law (pp. 1–15). London: Blackstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. (2006). The impact of information technology development on the legal concept—a particular examination on the legal concept of ‘signatures’. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 15(3), 253–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Katrin Nyman-Metcalf

Authors
  1. Katrin Nyman-Metcalf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrin Nyman-Metcalf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Tanel Kerikmäe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nyman-Metcalf, K. (2014). e-Governance in Law and by Law. In: Kerikmäe, T. (eds) Regulating eTechnologies in the European Union. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08117-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation