Challenges of lawlessness in cyberspace and fraud in cross-border transactions
Abstract views: 29
/ 
PDF downloads: 7
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.356Keywords:
Cyberspace, Fraud, Legis, Transactions, Jurisdiction, Evasion, Conflict, LawAbstract
The digital age has changed how commercial transactions work and has made it harder for private international law to apply the doctrine of fraud legis. Traditionally, fraud legis prevents parties from escaping mandatory legal rules by choosing a more favorable forum. However, cyberspace allows parties to use digital tools to manipulate legal connections between countries. Online platforms, cloud systems, and algorithm-driven transactions often hide the true link between the parties and the jurisdiction, making it difficult for courts to apply the correct law. This study explores how cross-border digital transactions create challenges and weaken its protective role. By examining recent cases, regulatory efforts, and academic debates, the research shows that traditional rules are not enough in the digital environment. The study suggests new approaches to strengthen fraud so that legal systems can effectively deal with digital evasion while ensuring fairness in international transactions.
References
Audit, B. (2020). Droit international privé (8th ed.). Economica. https://www.lgdj.fr/droit-international-prive-9782717872125.html
Briggs, A. (2019). Private international law in English courts (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/private-international-law-in-english-courts-9780198838500
Collins, L., et al. (2021). Dicey, Morris & Collins on the conflict of laws (16th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. https://uk.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/Books/ConflictofLaws
Dickinson, A. (2020). Cross-border torts in EU private international law: The Rome II Regulation. Journal of Private International Law, 16(2), 238–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2020.1779294
European Parliament and Council. (2008). Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I). Official Journal of the European Union, L177, 6–16. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008R0593
Fawcett, J., & Carruthers, J. (2022). Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private international law (15th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/cheshire-north-fawcett-private-international-law-9780198856269
Francescakis, P. (2018). La théorie du renvoi et les conflits de systèmes en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, 180, 9–186. https://referenceworks.brill.com/entries/the-hague-academy-collected-courses/*-ej.9789028612143.009_186
Guo, Z. (2025). Criminalisation of the illegal use of personal data: Comparative approaches and the Chinese choice. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 782. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05141-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05141-y
Hague Conference on Private International Law. (2019). Judgments project: Principles on choice of court agreements. HCCH. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=98
Hill, J., & Chong, A. (2021). International commercial disputes: Commercial conflict of laws in English courts (6th ed.). Hart Publishing. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/international-commercial-disputes-9781509940219/
International Chamber of Commerce. (2023). Digital trade and private international law. ICC Publication. https://iccwbo.org/publication/digital-trade-private-international-law/
Kieninger, E.-M. (2019). Article 3 Rome I Regulation and party autonomy—The European perspective. Journal of Private International Law, 15(1), 18–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2019.1585620
Kozyris, P. J. (2020). Comparative conflict of laws in a federal system: The United States experience. American Journal of Comparative Law, 68(2), 401–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa015
Lagarde, P. (2021). Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain. Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, 196, 9–238. https://referenceworks.brill.com/entries/the-hague-academy-collected-courses/*-ej.9789028614826.009_238
Li, Y., & Liu, Q. (2021). A comprehensive review study of cyber-attacks and cyber security: Emerging trends and recent developments. Energy Reports, 7, 8176–8186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.08.126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.08.126
Mayer, P., & Heuzé, V. (2022). Droit international privé (12th ed.). LGDJ. https://www.lgdj.fr/droit-international-prive-9782275068510.html
Mills, A. (2018). Party autonomy in private international law. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316890073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139941419
Nygh, P. (2019). Conflict of laws in Australia (9th ed.). LexisNexis. https://www.lexisnexis.com.au/products/conflict-of-laws-in-australia
OECD. (2023). Digital economy and private international law. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312005-en
Pauknerová, M. (2020). European private international law and third countries. Czech Yearbook of International Law, 11, 89–115. https://czechyearbook.org/volume-11-2020/
Plender, R., & Wilderspin, M. (2021). The European private international law of obligations (5th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. https://uk.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/Books/InternationalLaw
Rühl, G. (2020). The problem with choice of law in the digital economy. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 58(3), 542–595. https://jtl.columbia.edu/the-problem-with-choice-of-law-in-the-digital-economy/
Schultz, T. (2008). Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, legal orders, and the private/public international law interface. European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 799–839. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chn040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chn040
Sommer, U., Matania, E., & Hassid, N. (2023). The rise of companies in the cyber era and the pursuant shift in national security. Political Science, 75(2), 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2023.227849 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2023.2278499
Stone, P. (2019). EU private international law (3rd ed.). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788971195
Symeonides, S. C. (2022). Choice of law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/choice-of-law-9780190071240
UNCITRAL. (2023). Model law on electronic commerce with guide to enactment. United Nations. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_commerce
UNIDROIT. (2022). Principles of international commercial contracts (4th ed.). UNIDROIT. https://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/contracts/principles2016/principles2016-e.pdf
Van Calster, G. (2021). European private international law (3rd ed.). Hart Publishing. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/european-private-international-law-9781509932654/
Verhellen, J. (2020). Cross-border e-commerce and EU private international law. European Review of Private Law, 28(4), 743–778. https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Review+of+Private+Law/28.4/ERPL2020038
Von Bar, C., & Mankowski, P. (2019). Internationales Privatrecht (3rd ed.). C.H. Beck. https://www.beck-shop.de/bar-mankowski-internationales-privatrecht/product/29015449
Weintraub, R. J. (2020). Commentary on the conflict of laws (7th ed.). Foundation Press. https://www.westacademic.com/Weintraub-Commentary-on-the-Conflict-of-Laws-7th-9781647080266
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2023). Cross-border intellectual property disputes in cyberspace. WIPO. https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4579
Zumbansen, P. (2021). Neither ‘public’ nor ‘private,’ ‘national’ nor ‘international’: Transnational corporate governance from a legal pluralist perspective. Journal of Law and Society, 38(1), 50–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00533.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00534.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Khadeeja Ahmad-Hussain
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
