Global Citizens
Some people might argue that society is already so integrated internationally that the relationship between a state and citizens is no longer hierarchical; rather, the relationship is seen as
transformed to one of overlap, where a state is ascribed with authority over those ‘‘global citizens’’ who happen to fall within its territorial jurisdiction. Given the amorphous boundaries of
cyberspace, this territorial distinction begins to appear murky.
Meanwhile, the Internet lends support to newly emerging forms of transnational, ‘‘postsovereign’’ political communities. Such groups, including diaspora and aboriginal communities, fit poorly within either a state or a global citizen network framework. Demands for
increased autonomy and self-determination by such communities defy the old paradigm of
state sovereignty, while particularistic claims challenge the paradigm of universal human
rights. Although such communities may have existed previously, the Internet has given them
new political life as they can more rapidly create transnational polities that exercise relatively
substantial influence. How these new forms of political interaction interrelate with human rights
in general, and freedom of expression in particular, is a complex matter.
10
Quasigovernmental Private Action
In the midst of these ambiguities, additional quandaries arise when the behavior of private,
nonstate actors resembles state action. Private actors such as corporations may provide services that people usually conceive of as the state’s responsibility. For example, a private actor
might build infrastructure (providing water, electricity, roads, or, arguably, an Internet infrastructure). When private actors take on governmental functions—either through direct delegation or mandate by government or as a result of government simply allowing them to carry out
activities—should they be considered agents of the state, bound by the same obligations to
which the state is bound?
Of course, if a private actor were performing governmental functions across jurisdictions, it
could prove challenging to assess on whose behalf it was acting as a state agent. For the
sake of maintaining accountability to the public, the international system may need to find a
way to hold private actors to a similar standard as states when they act internationally in governmental capacities.
Practical Implications
The questions presented here are not merely esoteric. Rather, their answers very well may determine the kind of regulatory regimes that the Information Society puts in place. More fundamentally, the questions go to the heart of relationships among individuals, states, overlapping
polities, multinational enterprises, the international system, and the Information Society as a
whole.
The subject of filtering demonstrates some very practical implications of these theoretical
issues. For example, filtering poses problems in that a state may claim a sovereign right to
76
Mary Rundle and Malcolm Birdling
Some people might argue that society is already so integrated internationally that the relationship between a state and citizens is no longer hierarchical; rather, the relationship is seen as
transformed to one of overlap, where a state is ascribed with authority over those ‘‘global citizens’’ who happen to fall within its territorial jurisdiction. Given the amorphous boundaries of
cyberspace, this territorial distinction begins to appear murky.
Meanwhile, the Internet lends support to newly emerging forms of transnational, ‘‘postsovereign’’ political communities. Such groups, including diaspora and aboriginal communities, fit poorly within either a state or a global citizen network framework. Demands for
increased autonomy and self-determination by such communities defy the old paradigm of
state sovereignty, while particularistic claims challenge the paradigm of universal human
rights. Although such communities may have existed previously, the Internet has given them
new political life as they can more rapidly create transnational polities that exercise relatively
substantial influence. How these new forms of political interaction interrelate with human rights
in general, and freedom of expression in particular, is a complex matter.
10
Quasigovernmental Private Action
In the midst of these ambiguities, additional quandaries arise when the behavior of private,
nonstate actors resembles state action. Private actors such as corporations may provide services that people usually conceive of as the state’s responsibility. For example, a private actor
might build infrastructure (providing water, electricity, roads, or, arguably, an Internet infrastructure). When private actors take on governmental functions—either through direct delegation or mandate by government or as a result of government simply allowing them to carry out
activities—should they be considered agents of the state, bound by the same obligations to
which the state is bound?
Of course, if a private actor were performing governmental functions across jurisdictions, it
could prove challenging to assess on whose behalf it was acting as a state agent. For the
sake of maintaining accountability to the public, the international system may need to find a
way to hold private actors to a similar standard as states when they act internationally in governmental capacities.
Practical Implications
The questions presented here are not merely esoteric. Rather, their answers very well may determine the kind of regulatory regimes that the Information Society puts in place. More fundamentally, the questions go to the heart of relationships among individuals, states, overlapping
polities, multinational enterprises, the international system, and the Information Society as a
whole.
The subject of filtering demonstrates some very practical implications of these theoretical
issues. For example, filtering poses problems in that a state may claim a sovereign right to
76
Mary Rundle and Malcolm Birdling