III. CONCLUSION

In earlier times, legal frameworks were designed for a world in which barriers of distance, time and political jurisdiction were the norm. Accordingly, nations asserted sovereignty based upon national borders and their coercive power while treaties provided an adequate way of dealing with international problems. However, the Internet ignores national borders and previous treaties have not adequately accounted for this global medium.

While the law will undeniably have some role in the shape of the Internet, technology will largely determine its future direction simply because technology develops much faster than the law. Technological mechanisms are policies embedded in the technology standards that cannot be altered and flexible policies embedded in the technical architecture that allow variations on default settings. (Joel R. Reidenberg, Lex Informatica: The Formulation Of Information Policy Rules Through Technology, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 553, 568 (February 1998).) Internet policy choices are available either through technology itself, through laws that cause technology to exclude certain options, or through laws that cause users to restrict their actions.

Technologists design the basic infrastructure features that create and implement information policy defaults. (Id.) Until those technological mechanisms are implemented, the worldwide system of interrelated computers requires a uniform international legal framework for addressing multi-national Internet-related problems.

There is a need on the part of the international community to develop a group solution to the problems of the Internet. People no longer live in isolation in their individual countries. Satellites, telephone and computer networks link almost all parts of the earth. These links allow people to communicate and transact anywhere in the world. While current international law covers satellite and telephone networks, there are no international laws covering the specific problems of the Internet. The creation of an international convention is a possible method to solve the lack of adequate law covering the Internet. A common standard could be negotiated through arbitration, tribunals, formal treaties or other mechanisms sanctioned by the United Nations. (Sean Selin, Governing Cyberspace: The Need For An International Solution, 32 Gonz. L. Rev. 365, 385 (1996-97).) It is important for countries to enact a treaty relating to Internet law and to foster cooperation among themselves. (Id.) The international community needs to draft an international agreement regarding the Internet so that a stable and certain environment is created for its users. One possible solution is to adopt an international treaty standardizing domestic statutes and facilitating cooperative enforcement efforts. (Sheri A. Dillon, Douglas E. Groene & Todd Hayward, Computer Crimes, 35 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 503, 542 (Spring 1998).)

Law, nonetheless, has an important place in the implementation of technological mechanisms. Law may encourage the development of that technology by imposing liability on technologists, and law may provide immunity for implementation of technical solutions. Further, the law can criminalize avoidance of those technological mechansims. Basically, technology and legal rules compliment one another. This relationship means that policymakers must add technology to their set of policy instruments and should pursue technological solutions as an effective substitute for law when self-executing, customized rules are desirable.

While technological solutions offer the best prospect of global harmonization for the Internet, international regulations must be implemented until those solutions are fully effective. Any regulations concerning the Internet must not be too inhibiting yet must add certainty in transactions for Internet users.