Network Neutrality: An Empirical Approach to Legal Interoperability

  • Luca BelliEmail author
  • Nathalia Foditsch


The Internet is grounded in an open and interoperable architecture, giving rise to a quintessentially transnational environment. This global network of networks is, however, in natural tension with an international legal system based on mutually excluding legal frameworks. Differently from electronic networks, which are based on shared technical standards whose main objective is to make different systems compatible, national juridical system are based on essentially domestic rules, whose application to the online environment has the potential to fragment the Internet. The implementation of divergent domestic laws and regulation has indeed the potential to balkanise the global Internet creating separated national intranets and potentially conflicting cyberspaces. It seems important, therefore, to encourage the development of harmonious rules across jurisdictions, thus fostering the compatibility of the legal systems penetrated by the Internet. Promoting a “legally interoperable” environment may be considered as an instrumental step to achieving a better-functioning Internet ecosystem, in which new technologies can spur, and the free flow of information is not hindered by diverging national laws.


Internet Service Provider Traffic Management Network Neutrality Internet Engineer Task Force Internet Traffic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ansip, A. (2015). Making the EU work for people: roaming and the open internet.
  2. Banisar, D., et al. (2003, September). Silenced: an international report on censorship and control of the Internet. Report by Privacy International and the GreenNet Educational Trust Supported by the Open Society Institute.
  3. Béland, D., & Orenstein, M. A. (2009). How do transnational policy actors matter? Annual Meeting of the Research Committee 19 of the International Sociological Association. Montreal.Google Scholar
  4. Belli, L. (2015). De la gouvernance à la régulation de l’Internet. Paris: Berger-Levrault.Google Scholar
  5. Belli, L., & De Filippi, P. (Eds.). (2013). The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow. Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. Presented at the 8th United Nations Internet Governance Forum. Bali 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Belli, L., & De Filippi, P. (Eds.). (2014). Network Neutrality: An Ongoing Regulatory Debate. 2nd Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. Presented at the 9th United Nations Internet Governance Forum. Istanbul 2014.Google Scholar
  7. Belli, L., van Bergan, M., & Michael, W. (2015). A discourse principle approach to net neutrality policymaking: a model framework and its application. Net neutrality compendium. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Belli, L., & Van Bergen, M. (2013). Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality: Furthering Internet Users’ Interest, Modernising Human Rights and Safeguarding the Open Internet. Council of Europe. CDMSI(2013)misc19E.Google Scholar
  9. BEREC. (2012). A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe. Findings from BEREC’s and the European Commission’s joint investigation. BoR (12) 30.Google Scholar
  10. Berners Lee, T. (2006). Net neutrality: this is serious.
  11. Bradner, S. (1996). The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3, Request for Comments: 2026.Google Scholar
  12. Carpenter, B. (1996). Architectural Principles of the Internet, Request for Comments: 1958 retrieved from
  13. CDMSI. (2013). Council of Europe Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Network Neutrality and Human Rights Strasbourg, Outcome Paper prepared by Luca Belli. CDMSI(2013) misc18E.Google Scholar
  14. CDMSI. (2015). Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)___of the Committee of Ministers to member States on protecting and promoting the right to freedom of expression and the right to private life with regard to network neutrality. CDMSI(2014)005Rev10.Google Scholar
  15. Cerf, V. (1987). The Catenet Model for Internetworking, DARPA/IPTO, retrieved from
  16. Clark, D. (2007). Network neutrality: Words of power and 800-pound gorillas. International Journal of Communication, 1, 701–770.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, D., & Blumenthal, M. (2011). The end-to-end argument and application design: The role of trust. Federal Communications Law Journal, 63(2), Article 3.Google Scholar
  18. CoE. (2010). Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality. Retrieved from
  19. CoE. (2012). Internet Governance, Council of Europe Strategy 2012–2015, CM (2011)175 final. Retrieved from
  20. Daigle, L. (2014). Permissionless Innovation – Openness, not Anarchy. Available at:
  21. Economides, N., & Tåg, J. (2012). Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis. Information Economics and Policy, 24, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ECtHR. (1990). Autronic AG v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990. Application no. 12726/87.
  23. ECtHR. (2012). Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey. Application no. 3111/10.
  24. EDPS. (2011). Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on net neutrality, traffic management and the protection of privacy and personal data.Google Scholar
  25. EDPS. (2012). EDPS Comments on DC Connect’s Public Consultation on “Specific Aspects of Transparency, Traffic Management and Switching in an Open Internet”.Google Scholar
  26. EDPS. (2013, November 14). Opinion of the Europe an Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation of the Europe an Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the Europe an single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent.Google Scholar
  27. FCC. (2005). Policy Statement. 20 FCC Rcd 14986, 14987–88. Retrieved from
  28. FCC. (2010). Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905, 17911.Google Scholar
  29. FCC. (2015). Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet. GN Docket No. 14-28Google Scholar
  30. Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2007). When and how ICT interoperability drives innovation. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  31. Hoffman, P. (Ed.). (2012). The Tao of IETF: A Novice’s Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force. IETF Trust. Retrieved from
  32. IGF Chair. (2014). Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance. IGF 2014 Chair’s Summary. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  33. ITU. (2015). Interoperability in the digital ecosystem. GSR discussion paper. Retrieved from
  34. Jayadevan, P. K. (2015). 1.5 lakh mails and counting: India lodges one of its biggest online protests over net neutrality. The Economic Times retrieved from
  35. Jörgens, H. (2003). Governance by Diffusion – Implementing Global Norms Through Cross-National Imitation and Learning. Environmental Policy Research Centre of FFU-report. 07-2003.Google Scholar
  36. Marsden, C. (2010). Net neutrality: Towards a co-regulatory solution. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nkom. (24 February 2009) Network neutrality: Guidelines for Internet neutrality. Version 1.0.
  38. Palfrey J. & Gasser U. (2012). Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems. New York, NY: Basic Books..Google Scholar
  39. Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., & Clark, D. D. (1984). End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, (2).
  40. Schultz, T. (2005). Réguler le commerce électronique par la résolution des litiges en ligne: Une approche critique. Bruxelles: Bruynat.Google Scholar
  41. Senato della Repubblica. (2014). Disegno di legge Costituzionale d’Iniziativa del senatore Campanella comunicatio alla Presidenza il 10 luglio 2014. Introduzione dell’articolo 34-bis della Costituzione, recante disposizioni volte al riconoscimento del diritto di accesso ad internet. XVII LEGISLATURA N. 1561.Google Scholar
  42. Solum, L., & Chung, M. (2004). The layer principle: Internet architecture and the law. Notre Dame Law Review, 79.Google Scholar
  43. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. (2003). Commentary on the norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2.Google Scholar
  44. Tréguer, F. (2012). Interoperability case study. The European Union as an institutional design for legal interoperability. Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2012-18. SSRN:
  45. Van Schewick, B. (2010). Internet architecture and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Weber, R. (2014). Legal interoperability as a tool for combatting fragmentation. Global Commission on Internet Governance, Paper Series n°4.
  47. Weinberger, D. (2014). Organic net neutrality.
  48. White House. (2015). The path to a free and open internet.
  49. Wu, T. (2006). Testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary. Telecom & Antitrust Task Force on Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access. 109th Congress, 2nd Session.Google Scholar
  50. Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2, 141–172.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fundação Getúlio Vargas Law SchoolRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.American UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations