ICON S Conference 17 – 19 June 2016 Humboldt University Berlin

lum fit uneasily with the transnational nature of refugee
travel and refugeehood itself. This phenomenon will
be problematized, using illustrations concerning the
caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights and
Court of Justice of the European Union on detention
of asylum-seekers and Dublin transfers.
Stephanie Motz: Less equal than others?
The exclusion of medical refugee claims through
human rights law
Human rights law is often seen as reinforcing protection
standards in refugee law. However, scholarly
debate also points to the inherent dangers of dilution
between the two legal regimes. This is exemplified
by the stifling impact of the restrictive ECtHR’s case
law in N v UK on refoulement cases involving medical
needs. This exceptionally high threshold under Art. 3
ECHR has crept into asylum law, rendering refugee
claims involving medical needs futile in countries like
the UK. A look beyond Europe shows that this stands
in stark contrast to developments in jurisdictions such
as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The paper will
consider the influence of human rights law on asylum
law and practice in Europe and abroad. It will argue that
a human rights approach to the refugee definition can
result in both ‘over-inclusiveness’ and ‘under-inclusiveness’,
particularly in the context of medical claims.
Siobhán Mullally: The right to stay – gender,
human trafficking and asylum
The orthodox view is that the refugee definition
properly interpreted includes asylum claims that arise
from persecution related to gender. The claim to asylum
is one that presents a significant challenge to the state
insisting as it does upon a duty of hospitality. This duty
arises only however if the complex legal categories of
the refugee definition apply. Reflecting on the context
of legal responses to human trafficking and the continuing
reinforcement of border norms this paper explores
the claim to inclusion that comes with presentation of
a claim to asylum and the burden of exclusion that falls
on claims that do not fit within its definitional limits.
113 REGULATING THE
“BORDERLESS” INTERNET
The last two decades have seen a revision of the overly
simplistic idea that the “global Internet” (Orin Kerr)
could not be regulated by territorial entities, i.e., states
or supranational organizations. Rather, these entities
have gradually found ways to establish legal responsibility
within the Internet by identifying new addressees
of legal obligations, by introducing “territorializing”
techniques such as data localization requirements, or
by improving international legal cooperation.
Nevertheless, the “borderless” Internet still challenges
sovereign decisions in many areas and legal
regulation faces various difficulties. This panel will
discuss experiences from privacy law and from information
security law and tackle the question of how to
address the “un-territoriality of data” (Jennifer Daskal).
Participants Thomas Wischmeyer
Enrico Peuker
Johannes Eichenhofer
Name of Chair Matthias Roßbach
Room DOR24 1.606
Thomas Wischmeyer: Towards a Transnational
Order of Information Security
While information security is widely considered to
be one of the most pressing problems of our time, it is
far from clear how public actors can contribute to making
information technology and information networks
safe. Nevertheless, lawmakers across the globe have
recently started to address the issue. But can national
or even supranational actors effectively regulate this
truly global problem? In this paper, I reconstruct the
legal regime of information security governance and
sketch the main challenges faced by regulatory reform.
Focusing on one particular challenge, namely the allegedly
a-territorial architecture of the Internet, I provide
an account of the transnational and hybrid process of
rule-making in this field. I contextualize my findings by
asking how they relate to the traditional “Hobbesian”
purpose of government to maintain order and security:
What can public law still achieve in this field?
Concurring panels 161
Enrico Peuker: The General Data Protection
Regulation: Powerful Tool for Data Subjects?
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is
on the home stretch. As a result of so called trilogue negotiations
between European Commission, European
Parliament and Council, a final regulation draft is about
to be passed. Here, the rights of the data subjects are
of special interest – they serve as a touchstone of an
effective data protection in the European Union. The
regulation picks up individual rights from the precedent
Data Protection Directive from 1995. Furthermore, it
adds new individual rights such as the right to be forgotten.
The presentation gives a short overview of the