Working across Borders, Protected Nowhere Applicable Law for Online Platform Work, with Lessons for Kazakhstan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.551Keywords:
Online Platform Work, International Jurisdiction, Habitual Place of Work, Digital Labour Platforms, KazakhstanAbstract
Online platform work lets Kazakh residents serve foreign platforms that fix the governing law. ILO Convention No. 193 of 2026 only “preferably” applies the law of the place of performance. Kazakh law lacks a conflict rule for work and protection against jurisdiction clauses in platform terms. Literature debates classification but not which legal order decides it. The study asks which law and court protect such workers and what Kazakhstan should adopt. Doctrinal analysis combines a literature review, comparison of six legal orders, a US counter-case and twelve episodes. Platform terms allocate law and forum at platform and task layers before any dispute. Protective systems converge on the habitual place of work but diverge on reaching foreign platforms. Kazakh procedural, arbitration and platform law contain tools capable of extension. The study proposes an anchor–notify–cooperate standard of five elements covering law, forum, representation, social payments and cooperation. Protection should follow the screen, not the server.
References
Bruurs, S. (2023). Cross-border telework in light of the Rome I-Regulation and the Posting of Workers Directive. European Labour Law Journal, 14(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231194267
Carinci, M. T., & Henke, A. (2021). Employment relations via the web with international elements: Issues and proposals as to the applicable law and determination of jurisdiction in light of EU rules and principles. European Labour Law Journal, 12(2), 134–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/2031952520922248
Eshniyazov, N. S. (2022). Sem’ bed – odin otvet: O neobkhodimosti otdel’nogo zakona RK o mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [Seven troubles, one answer: On the need for a separate law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on private international law]. Pravo i gosudarstvo, (1[94]), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.51634/2307-5201_2022_1_42
Graham, M., Hjorth, I., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2017). Digital labour and development: Impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 135–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258916687250
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70
Kässi, O., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Online labour index: Measuring the online gig economy for policy and research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.056
Lehdonvirta, V., Kässi, O., Hjorth, I., Barnard, H., & Graham, M. (2019). The global platform economy: A new offshoring institution enabling emerging-economy microproviders. Journal of Management, 45(2), 567–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318786781
Mundlak, G. (2009). De-territorializing labor law. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 3(2), 189–222. https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1037
Myktybayeva, D. A., & Davletgildeev, R. Sh. (2026). Pravovoe regulirovanie truda kazakhstanskikh grazhdan za rubezhom: Ispol’zovanie mezhdunarodnogo prava i zarubezhnogo zakonodatel’stva dlya sovershenstvovaniya zakonodatel’stva Respubliki Kazakhstan [Legal regulation of the work of Kazakh citizens abroad: Using international law and foreign legislation to improve the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Bulletin of L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Law Series, 154(1), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.32523/2616-6844-2026-154-1-233-255
Prassl, J., & Risak, M. (2016). Uber, TaskRabbit, and Co.: Platforms as employers? Rethinking the legal analysis of crowdwork. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 619–652.
Sartaeva, Sh. Sh., Zhumabekova, M. M., & Utarov, K. A. (2026). International legal regulation of online labor: Principles and key features. Eurasian Scientific Journal of Law, 1(14), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.46914/2959-4197-2026-1-1-225-235
Tailakov, D. A., & Bekezhanov, D. N. (2026). Transformatsiya pravovogo statusa rabotnika i rabotodatelya v ramkakh tsifrovykh platform: Teoretiko-prikladnoe issledovanie. Vestnik Innovatsionnogo Evraziyskogo universiteta, (2), 174–181.
Tomashevskiy, K. L., & Khasenov, M. Kh. (2025). Rabota posredstvom tsifrovykh platform zanyatosti: Poisk modeli i perspektivy uregulirovaniya. Pravovedenie, 69(2).
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sholpan Sartaeva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
