International Law in the Metaverse Era: Towards a New Model of Regulatory

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of Public and International Law, University of Mazandaran, Iran.

2 Master's Degree in International Law, University of Mazandaran, Iran.

10.22080/frai.2025.29321.1017

Abstract

In this new age, cyberspace, in its course of evolution, has reached its third generation, namely the Semantic Web. In the world of Web 3.0, commonly referred to as the Metaverse, individuals interact with others through their digital identities, embodied in self-created avatars. The Metaverse, as an emerging ecosystem, has dissolved the traditional boundaries between the real and virtual worlds, introducing novel challenges to various concepts of international law, ranging from sovereignty and jurisdiction to international responsibility and human rights. Furthermore, the active participation of new actors, particularly technology-developing corporations alongside traditional actors, underscores the necessity of adopting a new regulatory approach. The present study, by critically examining various models of digital space regulation, aims to elaborate on the need to develop a new regulatory framework adapted to the specific features of this emerging ecosystem.

Keywords

References

  1. Leenes, R. (2007). Privacy in the metaverse: Regulating a complex social construct in a virtual world. In IFIP International Summer School on the Future of Identity in the Information Society (pp. 95-112). Boston, MA: Springer US.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79026-8_7
  2. Jeon, H. J., Youn, H. C., Ko, S. M., & Kim, T. H. (2022). Blockchain and AI Meet in the Metaverse. Advances in the Convergence of Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence, 73(10.5772), 73-82.Available on:www.books.google.com
  3. Dozio, N., Marcolin, F., Scurati, G. W., Ulrich, L., Nonis, F., Vezzetti, E., ... & Ferrise, F. (2022). A design methodology for affective Virtual Reality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 162, 102791.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102791
  4. Hadavand, Mehdi;Jam, Farhad (2022).The concept of the regulatory state: analysis of regulation as a tool of governance, Strategic Quarterly Journal, Volume 30, Issue 2 - Serial Issue 99, pp. 266-227.
  5. Mystakidis, S. (2022). Metaverse. Encyclopedia, 2(1), 486-497.doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2010031
  6. Davis, A., Murphy, J., Owens, D., Khazanchi, D., & Zigurs, I. (2009). Avatars, people, and virtual worlds: Foundations for research in metaverses. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(2), 1.doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00183
  7. Cox, N. (2002). The regulation of cyberspace and the loss of national sovereignty. Information & Communications Technology Law, 11(3), 241-253.doi.org/abs10.1080/1360083022000031920
  8. Netanel, N. W. (2000). Cyberspace self-governance: A skeptical view from liberal democratic theory. Calif. L. Rev., 88, 395.Available on: www.heinonline.org
  9. Land, M. (2013). Toward an international law of the internet. Harv. Int'l LJ, 54, 393.Available on: www.heinonline.org
  10. Reidenberg, J. R. (1999). “Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through Technology.” Texas Law Review, 76(3), 553.Available on: www.heinonline.org
  11. Christensen, Jørgen Grønnegård. (2011). Competing theories of regulatory governance: reconsidering public interest theory of regulation. In David Levi-Faur (Ed.), Handbook on the Politics of Regulation (pp. 96-110). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.doi.org/10.4337/9780857936110
  12. Black, Julia. (2002). Critical Reflections on Regulation. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 1(27), 1-35.
  13. Schulz, W., & Ollig, C. (2023). Hybrid Speech Governance: New Approaches to Govern Social Media Platforms under the European Digital Services Act?. J. Intell. Prop. Info. Tech. & Elec. Com. L., 14, 560.Available on: www.heinonline.org
  14. Veale, M., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2021). Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act—Analysing the good, the bad, and the unclear elements of the proposed approach. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97-112.doi.org/10.9785/cri-2021-220402
  15. Hacker, P. (2023). AI regulation in Europe: from the AI act to future regulatory challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04072.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.04072
  16. Müller, Martin, and Matthias C. Kettemann. "European approaches to the regulation of digital technologies." Hannes Werthner· Carlo Ghezzi· Jeff Kramer· Julian Nida-Rümelin· Bashar Nuseibeh· Erich Prem· (2024): 623.Available on: www.oapen.org
  17. Husovec, M. (2023). The EU’s Digital Services Act and Platform Regulation: Between Fundamental Rights and Regulatory Innovation. Yale Law School Working Paper.
  18. De Streel, A., Bourreau, M., Feasey, R., Fletcher, A., Kraemer, J., & Monti, G. (2024). Implementing the DMA: substantive and procedural principles. Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) asbl.Available on:www.books.google.com
  19. Bendiek, Annegret. "The Impact of the Digital Service Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) on European Integration Policy." Working Paper Research Division EU/Europe 2021 02 (2021): 15. Available on: swp-berlin.org/
  20. Douek, E. (2022). The siren call of content moderation formalism. new technologies of communication and the first amendment: the internet, social media and censorship (Lee Bollinger & Geoffrey Stone eds., 2022 Forthcoming).doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4005314
  21. Belli, L., & Venturini, J. (2016). Private ordering and the rise of terms of service as cyber-regulation. Internet Policy Review, 5(4), 1-17.doi.org/10.14763/2016.4.441
  22. Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203-213). Routledge.Available on: www.taylorfrancis.com/
  23. Morozov, E. (2014). To save everything, click here: the folly of technological solutionism. J. Inf. Policy, 4(2014), 173-175.
  24. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American economic review, 100(3), 641-672.doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
  25. Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: from Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance, 25(2), 237-262.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01550.x
  26. Ostrom, E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton university press.Available on:www.books.google.com
  27. McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and society, 19(2).Available on:www.jstor.org/ stable/26269580
  28. Cuellar, D. P., Lasso, A. V., & Salazar, A. B. (2024). The metaverse: an analysis from a human rights perspective. Revista Jurídica Mario Alario D´ Filippo, 16(33), 202-218.doi.org/10.32997/2256-2796
  29. Sarkin, Jeremy. "The 2020 United Nations human rights treaty body review process: prioritising resources, independence and the domestic state reporting process over rationalising and streamlining treaty bodies." The International Journal of Human Rights 25.8 (2021): 1301-1327.doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2020.1822337
  30. Stahl, B. C., Schroeder, D., & Rodrigues, R. (2023). Ethics of artificial intelligence: Case studies and options for addressing ethical challenges (p. 116). Springer Nature.Available on: www.library.oapen.org
  31. Citaristi, Ileana. "United Nations high commissioner for refugees—UNHCR." The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2022. Routledge, 2022. 220-240. Available on: www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/
Future Research on AI and IoT
Volume 1, Issue 1
June 2025
Pages 19-28

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 May 2025
  • Revise Date: 03 June 2025
  • Accept Date: 03 June 2025
  • First Publish Date: 03 June 2025
  • Publish Date: 01 June 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics