nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. Data Protection and Data Protectionism in International Trade

verfasst von : Roman Pascal Kalin

Erschienen in: Digital Trade and Data Privacy

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Cross-border data flows, which encompass a broad and diverse range of economic and non-economic dimensions, raise a number of new trade policy issues. However, as the status of data and data flows in International Economic Law remains ill-defined, no effective multilateral governance is currently exercised with respect to the digital transformation of trade. Notably, the proliferation of national data governance frameworks is a critical element for regulating trade in the digital economy, but one that receives only limited consideration under WTO law. As digital globalisation accelerates, a patchwork of country-specific data governance frameworks threatens to fragment the global data sphere and thus increase barriers to digital trade. The debate on transnational data governance is particularly pronounced with regard to data privacy laws, as these are a common element of domestic data governance and the global landscape of data privacy regulations is characterised by considerable heterogeneity. As a result, the impact of national data privacy laws on the cross-border flow of personal data is one of the most contentious issues associated with digital trade. This chapter provides an in-depth examination of the regulation of data flows through data privacy rules and explores the rationale behind a contemporary data privacy collision in digital trade.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Emergence of Digital Trade Regulation

Nächstes Kapitel Mitigating the Data Privacy Collision in Digital Trade

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Kuner (2011), p. 14; Svantesson (2011).

Bygrave (2014), p. 123. See for a brief review of the evolution of the debate on cross-border data flows Drake (2016).

See further for an EU-US perspective Schwartz (2013), p. 1971. The confluence of safeguarding fundamental human rights to privacy and facilitating the free flow of data across borders for reasons of economic activity is reflected in a number of data privacy frameworks, for example in the OECD Privacy Guidelines and the EU’s data protection framework, see infra Sect. 4.3. See also Drake (2016).

As an example, published by Edward Snowden in 2013, NSA surveillance practices have recently disrupted the political landscape, Aaronson and Maxim (2013); Hill (2014). See further OECD (2015a), pp. 210–215.

Cf. UNCTAD (2024).

Bygrave (2014), p. 5.

See only Aaronson (2019); Burri (2021), pp. 35–43; Mishra (2015); Pasadilla (2020); Yakovleva (2020b); Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 202–203.

Attention may be drawn here again to the inherent complexities of measuring cross-border data flows, see supra Sect. 2.3.2.3. See on the weak link between the measurement of data flows and personal data Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 205.

See in particular Naef (2023), pp. 237–242.

See for further examples Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 28–34.

Cf. Chander and Schwartz (2023).

See further with regard to an argument that modern regimes of data privacy law and trade law were built in full contemplation of each other Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 56–70.

See with further references Kuner (2013), pp. 26–27; OECD (2006), p. 6.

Bygrave (2014), pp. 9–10; Gasser (2016).

See generally Gasser (2016), p. 63; OECD (2006), p. 8.

Bygrave (2014), p. 8.

See in this regard Bygrave (2014), pp. 23–29; Kuner (2009a), pp. 308–309.

See for example Solove (2002), pp. 1088–1089: “All up, the field shows bewildering conceptual and terminological diversity. […] The most famous case in point is ‘privacy’”. See also Bygrave (2014), p. 27 with further references to the debate. See further Solove (2006), pp. 479–483.

Bygrave (2014), pp. 82–98. See for a critical appraisal of the genesis of privacy as a human right Diggelmann and Cleis (2014). See further infra Sect. 4.4.1.2.1.

Holvast (2009), pp. 15–16.

Cf. Warren and Brandeis (1890) manifesting privacy as a “right to be let alone”. For a discussion of the article and its perception in common law, see Solove and Schwartz (2018), p. 10.

Holvast (2009), p. 16. See with further references to the debate on the remit of privacy Bygrave (2014), p. 27.

With further references Bygrave (2014), p. 28.

See with further references Bygrave (2014), pp. 24–25; Gasser (2016) See in general with regard to the evolutionary conceptualisation of privacy Solove (2002), who notes at p. 1142: “A conception of privacy must be responsive to social reality since privacy is an aspect of social practices. Since practices are dynamic, we must understand their historical development”.

Solove (2001), p. 1423. See also Schwartz and Solove (2011), pp. 1819–1828.

See with regard to introduction of data privacy legislation and the regulation of cross-border data flows further infra Sect. 4.3.

See for an introduction Schwartz (2009), pp. 906–907; Solove and Schwartz (2018), p. 1. See also Gasser (2016), p. 62.

Bygrave (2014), pp. 25–26.

See with further examples and references Kuner (2011), p. 14; Schwartz (2013), pp. 1969–1970.

See with further references Kuner (2009a), p. 308: “The concepts ‘data protection’ and ‘privacy’ are ‘twins but not identical’.”.

Council of Europe (1981), p. 2. See also further infra Sect. 4.3.1.2.

Recital 11 of the EU’s DPD states: “Whereas the principles of the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, notably the right to privacy, which are contained in this Directive, give substance to and amplify those contained in the Council of Europe Convention of 28 January 1981”.

The EU’s dual approach to a normative foundation of the fundamental rights character of data privacy has led to difficulties in delineating the respective scope of protection. Although there is much overlap between the right to privacy on the one hand and a right to data protection on the other, an evaluation of the case law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights reveals differences in their scope, see Kokott and Sobotta (2013). See also Naef (2023), pp. 42–47.

Cf. European Union (2007).

See with further references to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights Kokott and Sobotta (2013), p. 223. See also Bygrave (2014), pp. 82–98.

See further Bygrave (2014), p. 28.

Bygrave (2014), p. 29. See for example Schwartz (2019), p. 775.

See also Chander and Schwartz (2023), p. 55; Schwartz (2019), p. 775. In this text, reference is also made in part to “information privacy” or “data protection” when specifically addressing the respective legal context.

See only Cukier (2010); Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014); Manyika et al. (2011).

Roessler (2015), pp. 141–142.

Roessler (2015), pp. 146–150; Schwartz (2004), pp. 2069–2076.

Zuboff (2019).

World Economic Forum (2011).

Schwartz (2004), pp. 2072–2073; Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 7–8.

Roessler (2015), pp. 146–150.

Yakovleva (2018), pp. 481–487. See with regard to “constitutive privacy” Solove (2006), p. 487 and for a EU perspective on the foundational values of data protection Naef (2023), pp. 31–37. See also infra Sect. 4.4.1.2.

Roessler (2015), pp. 144–145; Yakovleva (2018), pp. 481–487.

Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 202.

Acquisti et al. (2016), p. 445.

See also Yakovleva (2018), p. 487.

Bygrave (2014), p. 1.

Some of the challenges in developing a robust typology for data and data flows have already been addressed above, see supra Sect. 2.3.2.3.

Sen (2018), p. 343.

OECD (2013a), pp. 7–9.

See for example OECD (2013a), p. 8.

Solove and Schwartz (2018), p. 794.

With further references Schwartz and Solove (2011), p. 1828.

U.S. Department of Commerce (2010), p. 2-1. See for an account of the current typology and a plaidoyer for a PII 2.0 Schwartz and Solove (2011), pp. 1865–1892.

OECD (2013a), p. 8.

Kuner et al. (2020), Art. 4, pp. 105–108.

Cf. Article 3 Sec. 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union.

OECD (2013b), p. 13, para. 1. b).

Cf. Madrid Resolution (2009), Article 2 a).

Cf. Chinese Cybersecurity Law, Article 76 Sec. 5, see for a translation DigiChina (2018).

Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, passed at the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress on 20 August 2021, see for a translation DigiChina (2021c).

APEC (2005), p. 9. See further infra Sect. 4.3.1.4.

California Consumer Privacy Act, Title 1.81.5 of the California Civil Code added by Stats. 2018, Chapter 55, Sec. 3., Sec. 1798.140.

See for example Casalini and López González (2019), p. 12; Schwartz and Solove (2011), p. 1835. Generally, the scope of personally identifiable information is considered to be narrower than the scope of personal data.

Bygrave (2014), p. 126.

National Board of Trade (2014), p. 6.

See for example Article 9 of the GDPR stating in Sec. 1 “Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited”. Article 9 Sec. 2 GDPR contains several exceptions to the prohibition of Sec. 1.

OECD (2013a), p. 8.

Ohm (2010); Rubinstein (2013).

Burri (2021), p. 39. See also European Commission (2020b), pp. 11–12.

See further Finck and Pallas (2020), pp. 13–20.

Purtova (2018).

See further infra Sect. 5.2.2.2.

Therefore, trade agreements increasingly take on the task of regulating data and data flows, see supra Sect. 3.4.2.

Aaronson (2015), pp. 679–685.

Drake (2016). See with regard to a changing environment for international data flows supra Sect. 2.3.2.1.

Drake (2016), p. 5; Svantesson (2011), pp. 180–181.

Gunasekara (2007), p. 153; OECD (2015b), p. 15. See for a discussion of the basic principles of data privacy law, Bygrave (2014), pp. 145–167. See further with regard to possibilities for interoperability of data privacy data transfer regimes infra Sect. 6.3.

See Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 76–80.

Cf. Kuner (2013), p. 63, pp. 133–138; Weber (2013), p. 119.

Hon (2017), pp. 24–25; Svantesson (2011), p. 180.

See for example Kuner (2011, 2013, 2015).

Cf. in detail Kuner (2013), pp. 107–120. See also Naef (2023), pp. 129–135.

Hon (2017), p. 26.

The following sections outline key international frameworks and selected national regulations. The section does not address private sector and technological approaches or regulations related to security or law enforcement, see for example Kuner (2013), pp. 81–99.

Kuner (2013), pp. 25–26. In this respect, a number of international instruments are intended to serve as the basis for national legislation. See for example with regard to the Convention 108 drafted by the Council of Europe infra Sect. 4.3.1.2.

Technically, international instruments encompass data privacy legislation within the European Union consisting of 27 member states. However, the EU is considered here as a single jurisdiction; a discussion of EU data privacy legislation and its impact on cross-border flows of personal data is therefore provided infra Sect. 4.3.2.1.

Cf. Article 19 UDHR and Article 19 Sec. 2 ICCPR. See with further references Kuner (2013), p. 32.

UN (1990).

Bygrave (2014), p. 53.

Weber (2013), p. 119.

Council of Europe (1949), Chapter I, Article 1, a, b.

The Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, ETS 108, 28 January 1981 entered into force 1 December 1985.

100

This version of Convention 108 explicitly refers to the territories of the contracting parties. For the later versions of Convention 108, which conceptually permit extraterritorial application, cf. de Hert and Czerniawski (2016), p. 232.

101

Bygrave (2014), pp. 31–36. In 2013, Uruguay became the first non-European country to accede to the convention. Currently, 55 countries have ratified Convention 108.

102

Cf. Council of Europe (1981), p. 8 para. 38. Para. 39 explains: “The “measures within its domestic law” can take different forms, depending on the legal and constitutional system of the State concerned: apart from laws they may be regulations, administrative guidelines, etc. […]”.

103

However, Christopher Kuner points out that there is no direct judicial enforcement as the jurisdiction of the ECtHR does not extend to Convention 108. In this respect, the author references the possibility of an extensive interpretation of Article 8 ECHR, see Kuner (2013), p. 37.

104

Cf. Article 2 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows, ETS 181, 8 November 2001.

105

Wagner (2018), p. 327.

106

Cf. for details Council of Europe (2018). See also Kuner (2013), pp. 39–40.

107

Council of Europe (2018), p. 4.

108

OECD (2002).

109

See with further references Drake (2016), p. 5.

110

Bygrave (2014), p. 50; Solove and Schwartz (2018), p. 1098.

111

APEC (2005), p. 5: “The previous version of the Framework (2005) was modelled upon the OECD Guidelines (1980) which at that time represented the international consensus on what constitutes fair and trustworthy treatment of personal information. The updated Framework (2015) draws upon concepts introduced into the OECD Guidelines (2013) with due consideration for the different legal features and context of the APEC region.”

112

OECD (2013b), pp. 19–23.

113

The Foreword to the 2013 OECD Privacy Guidelines governing the protection of privacy and transborder data flows of personal data lists a number of such changes, such as for example, the volume of personal data being collected, used and stored and the extent of threats to privacy, OECD (2013b), pp. 3–4.

114

OECD (2013b), pp. 29–31. See further Bygrave (2014), pp. 48–49.

115

See OECD (2002), p. 13, Part I, para. 1(c); OECD (2013b), p. 13, Part I, para. 1 e).

116

OECD (2013b), p. 16, Part IV para. 17 [emphasis added by the author].

117

OECD (2013b), p. 16, Part IV para. 18 [emphasis added by the author].

118

OECD (2013b), p. 61; Wagner (2018), p. 329.

119

APEC (2005), Foreword.

120

APEC (2005), p. 7. See further on the APEC Framework Greenleaf (2009).

121

APEC (2015).

122

APEC (2015), Part III, Principle 9.

123

APEC (2015), p. 23.

124

APEC (2015), p. 9. Even the qualification that exceptions should be “limited and proportional to meeting the objectives to which the exceptions relate” cannot outweigh the broad and open nature of the exceptions. On the contrary, there are uncertainties as to what “limited” and “proportional” are in reference to.

125

APEC (2005), p. 31.

126

Bygrave (2014), p. 78.

127

Currently there are nine participating economies: the US, Mexico, Japan, Canada, Singapore, Republic of Korea, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Philippines.

128

See further Solove and Schwartz (2018), p. 1204.

129

Voskamp et al. (2013). See further Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014). See further infra Sect. 4.3.2.2.

130

Wall (2017).

131

Greenleaf (2009), pp. 29–33.

132

Kuner (2013), p. 51.

133

Kuner (2013), pp. 58–59.

134

Madrid Resolution (2009), Article 1, b).

135

Bygrave (2014), pp. 99–116; Kuner (2013), p. 26.

136

Hon (2017), pp. 28–29; UNCTAD (2016), p. 3.

137

See with further references Kuner (2011), p. 14.

138

Cf. Swedish Data Protection Act, Datalag (1973:289), 11 May 1973. See also originally Svantesson (2011), p. 180.

139

See with further references Kuner (2011), p. 14; Kuner (2013), p. 27.

140

Kuner (2013), p. 27.

141

Kuner (2013), p. 27.

142

See for example Chander and Lê (2015); Kuner (2013), pp. 83–91.

143

Schwartz (2013), p. 1974. See for a helpful overview of the sources of the current “patchwork” of privacy protection in the US as well as the debate regarding a federal privacy law in the US Fischer (2021).

144

See further Schwartz (2009), pp. 922–931; Solove and Schwartz (2018), pp. 665–684.

145

Gunasekara (2007), p. 153; Humerick (2018), pp. 83–99.

146

Solove and Schwartz (2019), p. 2.

147

See with regard to PII Schwartz and Solove (2011), pp. 1828–1836.

148

See further Chander et al. (2021).

149

See with regard to the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) Edelman (2022).

150

Bracy (2024).

151

Humerick (2018), p. 83, pp. 88–99.

152

Schwartz (2013), p. 1967.

153

Schwartz and Pfeifer (2017), pp. 132–138.

154

See for the FTC’s role with regard to data privacy, Hoofnagle (2016); Humerick (2018), pp. 84–93.

155

Sedgewick (2017), p. 1522.

156

Whitman (2004), pp. 1160–1164. See also Petkova (2019).

157

Schwartz (2013), p. 1973. Schwartz further refers to a failed Congressional initiative aimed at introducing an export limit in the 1970s.

158

Naef (2023), pp. 31–37; Schwartz and Pfeifer (2017), pp. 122–132.

159

See Kuner (2013), p. 36.

160

Kokott and Sobotta (2013), pp. 222–223. Cf. also Article 16 Sec.1 TFEU.

161

See on the relationship between the Charter, the Convention and the general principles developed by the case law of the ECJ in the field of privacy Kokott and Sobotta (2013). See also Naef (2023), pp. 19–31.

162

Solove and Schwartz (2018), p. 1094.

163

See Schwartz (2013), p. 1972 citing Spiros Simitis. The European Commission started to conduct studies on diverging levels of data protection between member states and the resulting trade barriers already in 1973, cf. with further references Kuner et al. (2020), Article 44, pp. 758–759.

164

Gunasekara (2007), p. 164; Kuner et al. (2020), Article 44, pp. 775–777.

165

Burri and Schär (2016), p. 480.

166

ECJ, C-131/12, Google Spain, 13 May 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.

167

ECJ, C-362/14, Schrems I, 6 October 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650.

168

Burri (2021), pp. 49–50; Burri and Schär (2016), pp. 480–488.

169

See Burri and Schär (2016), p. 489. Cf. in detail European Commission (2010).

170

Buttarelli (2016).

171

Burri (2021), pp. 49–50; Burri and Schär (2016), pp. 488–497; Schwartz (2013), pp. 1994–2001.

172

Humerick (2018), pp. 99–108; Schwartz and Pfeifer (2017), pp. 129–132.

173

ECJ, Opinion 1/15, 26 July 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2016:656.

174

ECJ, C-311/18, Schrems II, 16 July 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:55.

175

Naef (2023), pp. 55–64.

176

Svantesson (2011), pp. 191–193. See further on the development of Article 44 et seq. GDPR Kuner et al. (2020), Article 44, pp. 756–761.

177

See further Kuner et al. (2020), Article 45, pp. 774–775.

178

According to Article 45 Sec. 1 first sentence GDPR: “[a] transfer of personal data to a third country or an international organisation may take place where the Commission has decided that the third country, a territory or one or more specified sectors within that third country, or the international organisation in question ensures an adequate level of protection.”.

179

Wagner (2018), pp. 320–323.

180

Wagner (2018), pp. 321–322.

181

Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 71–73; Kuner et al. (2020), Article 45, pp. 779–782.

182

ECJ, C-362/14, Schrems I, 6 October 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, para. 73.

183

ECJ, C-362/14, Schrems I, 6 October 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650, para. 74.

184

ECJ, C-311/18, Schrems II, 16 July 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:55.

185

Cf. recital 108 to the GDPR stating: “Such appropriate safeguards may consist of making use of binding corporate rules, standard data protection clauses adopted by the Commission, standard data protection clauses adopted by a supervisory authority or contractual clauses authorised by a supervisory authority. Those safeguards should ensure compliance with data protection requirements and the rights of the data subjects appropriate to processing within the Union, including the availability of enforceable data subject rights and of effective legal remedies, including to obtain effective administrative or judicial redress and to claim compensation, in the Union or in a third country”. See further Naef (2023), pp. 148–155.

186

The Commission released the latest version of the SCCs under the GDPR on 4 June 2021, replacing the three sets of SCCs adopted under the DPD.

187

Article 4 Sec. 20 GDPR defines BCRs as: “personal data protection policies which are adhered to by a controller or processor established on the territory of a Member State for transfers or a set of transfers of personal data to a controller or processor in one or more third countries within a group of undertakings, or group of enterprises engaged in a joint economic activity.”.

188

See further Kuner et al. (2020), Article 49, pp. 843–846.

189

See generally Gao (2021).

190

See for a helpful overview Davis Polk (2021).

191

Casalini and López González (2019), p. 22.

192

See Hufbauer and Zhiyao (2019), pp. 3–7.

193

Sacks et al. (2021).

194

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (2021).

195

While “important” data are not defined, “core national” data are defined in Article 21 of the DSL as data “related to national security, the lifelines of the national economy, important aspects of people’s livelihoods, major public interests, etc.”, see for a translation DigiChina (2021d).

196

See for a translation DigiChina (2021c).

197

See for a translation DigiChina (2021c).

198

Li et al. (2023).

199

Luo and Dan (2024).

200

See Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 16–24; Kuner (2013), pp. 61–79; Rotenberg (2020), pp. 94–97. See also for data localisation measures in particular supra Sect. 2.3.2.4.

201

Kuner (2013), p. 61.

202

Kuner (2013), pp. 64–76.

203

Svantesson (2011), pp. 190–194.

204

Casalini and López González (2019), p. 16.

205

Casalini and López González (2019), p. 16.

206

Weber (2013), p. 121. See further infra Sect. 4.3.3.5.

207

See generally Alhadeff et al. (2012).

208

Kuner (2013), p. 71; Weber (2013), p. 122.

209

Centre for Information Policy Leadership (2009), p. 10.

210

Crompton et al. (2009), p. 5.

211

Kuner (2013), p. 72.

212

See for a sample of measures Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2010), p. 11; Centre for Information Policy Leadership (2018), pp. 4–10.

213

See supra Sect. 4.3.1.4.

214

See OECD (2013b), p. 16, Part IV, para. 16: “A data controller remains accountable for personal data under its control without regard to the location of the data.”.

215

Cf. Madrid Resolution (2009), Article 11: “The responsible person shall: Take all the necessary measures to observe the principles and obligations set out in this Document and in the applicable national legislation, and have the necessary internal mechanisms in place for demonstrating such observance both to data subjects and to the supervisory authorities in the exercise of their powers, as established in section 23.”.

216

Rotenberg (2020), pp. 106–107.

217

Kuner (2013), pp. 64–66; Weber (2013), p. 122.

218

Kuner (2013), pp. 64–66; Svantesson (2011), p. 191.

219

Weber (2013), p. 122.

220

Kuner (2013), pp. 66–71.

221

Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 71–76.

222

UNCTAD (2016), p. 13. Examples of the regulation of the latter exceptions are provided by Article 49 GDPR, or Article 15 lit. 3 of the Madrid Resolution (2009).

223

See with further examples Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 126–134, Appendix A; Rotenberg (2020), pp. 103–105.

224

See with examples Chander and Lê (2015), pp. 718–721; Mishra (2019), p. 8.

225

See also Casalini and López González (2019), p. 16.

226

Poskauer (2015).

227

See for a distinction between “conditional” and “strict” forms of data localization supra Sect. 2.3.2.4.

228

Cf. Article 77 of the My Health Records Act 2012. No. 63, 2012.

229

Casalini and López González (2019), p. 22; Svantesson (2020), p. 25.

230

See further Naef (2023), pp. 77–100.

231

Chander (2020), pp. 777–778; Christakis (2020).

232

Svantesson (2011), pp. 190–191; Weber (2013), p. 121.

233

Weber (2013), pp. 120–121.

234

See with further references Svantesson (2011), p. 190.

235

Svantesson (2011), p. 191.

236

Kuner (2013), p. 76.

237

See further Svantesson (2011), p. 193.

238

Svantesson (2011), p. 194.

239

Crompton et al. (2009), p. 5.

240

See for example Wagner (2018); Weber (2013), pp. 123–127.

241

Svantesson (2011), p. 191.

242

See infra Sect. 4.4.2.2.1 with regard to the conflation of political and economic considerations under the EU’s GDPR against the backdrop of the role of data protection in the digital economy.

243

With further references Chander and Lê (2015), pp. 718–721.

244

Mishra (2019), pp. 4–7.

245

Hon (2017), p. 316.

246

Weber (2013), pp. 122–123.

247

See supra Sect. 4.3.2.2. See also Kuner (2013), p. 72.

248

OECD (2013b), p. 17, Part V, para. 19 d).

249

See also Kuner (2013), p. 76.

250

See with further references regarding the “obscurity” of aims of data privacy law Bygrave (2014), pp. 117–118.

251

Bygrave (2014), pp. 118–125.

252

Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 105–113; Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 500–507. This applies in particular to the EU data protection framework, in the design of which the economic rationale of the internal market clearly figured prominently, but in which the preservation of data protection as a fundamental right, especially vis-à-vis third countries, also plays an important role, see supra Sect. 4.3.2.2. Similarly, the OECD privacy guidelines aim to protect fundamental rights while minimizing the economic distortions caused by different data privacy regimes, see supra Sect. 3.2.1.1.2.

253

With further references to the work of Professors Radim Polčák and Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, see Yakovleva (2020b), p. 503.

254

See further Burri (2021), pp. 35–43; Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 105–113; Yakovleva (2020a); Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 499–515.

255

See Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 105–113.

256

See further Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 464–499.

257

See further regarding this “moral value approach” Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 500–506.

258

See for a brief introduction to the economic theory of privacy put forth by the Chicago School Acquisti (2010), pp. 5–10.

259

Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 101–102.

260

UNCTAD (2016), p. 20.

261

Swire and Litan (2010), pp. 77–78.

262

Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 81–82.

263

See further supra Sect. 4.3.1.4.

264

See further supra Sect. 4.3.2.2.

265

Mishra (2019), p. 5.

266

This is the case for example with the European data protection regime under the GDPR, see Fabbrini and Celeste (2021); Kuner (2015). See further infra Sect. 4.4.2.2.1.

267

Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 473–481. See generally on digital industrial policies through data restrictions, Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 396–397.

268

See for a comprehensive review of the concept of protectionism with regard to digital trade Aaronson (2019), pp. 545–550; Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 429–463.

269

Bygrave (2014), pp. 123–126. See further with regard to the interplay with sovereignty considerations infra Sect. 4.4.1.2.2.

270

See Aaronson (2015), p. 683; Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 475–476. However, the US approach towards digital protectionism seems to evolve, see Aaronson (2017), p. 232. See also supra Sect. 4.3.2.1.

271

See further Naef (2023), pp. 133–135.

272

Cory and Dascoli (2021); Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 111–112. See also with regard to the discussions in the WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce supra Sect. 3.3.1.1.

273

van der Marel et al. (2014), p. 13.

274

Aaronson (2019), pp. 548–549. See in particular the extensive research of Svetlana Yakovleva on this matter who questions among other things, whether the digital protectionism label is a trigger to redefine barriers to trade in the digital era, Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 473–481; pp. 496–499.

275

OECD (2015a), pp. 209–234; UNCTAD (2016), pp. 3–4.

276

See with further references Casalini and López González (2019), p. 29; OECD (2015a), p. 211. See in particular for the EU with further references, Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 207.

277

Reidenberg (1995).

278

See regarding a potential role for the WTO in fostering consumer trust, Mitchell and Mishra (2019), p. 403.

279

This is notably the case for the data privacy framework of the US, see for example Schwartz and Pfeifer (2017), pp. 132–138.

280

See with further references UNCTAD (2016), p. 103.

281

See for example Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 207–208.

282

Swire and Litan (2010), pp. 79–85.

283

See with further references Acquisti (2010), pp. 4–5; Swire and Litan (2010), p. 86.

284

Burri (2017), pp. 13–14; Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 207–208. See also Mitchell and Mishra (2019), p. 403.

285

In this context, the wording of some provisions on data protection in recent EU trade agreements reveals the underlying notion that data privacy rules are actually eliminating barriers to data flows, cf. Willemyns (2020), p. 237 referring to Article 45 of the EU–Algeria agreement.

286

See further Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 208.

287

Cf. Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 500–515.

288

Bygrave (2014), p. 82.

289

Bygrave (2014), pp. 82–99; Kuner (2013), p. 33.

290

Article 12 UDHR reads: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Similarly, the ICCPR stipulates in Article 17 that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.”.

291

In retrospect, however, it is obscure why the concept of privacy gained such broad recognition so quickly, given its relative novelty and the lack of a settled constitutional tradition in many countries, see Diggelmann and Cleis (2014).

292

Bygrave (2014), p. 83.

293

UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, 29 June 2012, A/HRC/20/L.13.

294

Nyst and Falchetta (2017), pp. 105–107. See also Hill (2014).

295

UN (2013). See further UN (2014a).

296

UN (2014b), para. 1. See also Nyst and Falchetta (2017), pp. 105–110.

297

UN (2015).

298

Yakovleva (2018), pp. 481–482.

299

See with further references Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 208.

300

See with further references Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 108–110; Solove (2006).

301

See with further references Schwartz (1999), p. 1665.

302

Cf. Zuboff (2016). See also Yakovleva (2018), p. 482; Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 208.

303

Gasser (2021), p. 199.

304

Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 507–508.

305

Svantesson (2020), p. 17.

306

Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 395–396. See also Cory and Dascoli (2021), p. 6.

307

See for example Mitchell and Samlidis (2022); Fleming (2021).

308

With further references Hon (2017), pp. 26–27.

309

See with further references Gasser (2021), p. 200.

310

Lauf (2021), p. 11.

311

Cited according to Hon (2017), pp. 27–28.

312

Hon (2017), p. 27; Mitchell and Samlidis (2022), p. 375; Fleming (2021).

313

Kuner (2013), pp. 28–31.

314

The Economist (2012).

315

See for example Aaronson and Leblond (2018); Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1081–1088.

316

Bygrave (2014), pp. 124–125; Kuner (2013), pp. 28–31. See with regard to the extraterritorial application of data privacy laws infra Sect. 4.4.2.2.1.

317

Svantesson (2020), pp. 17–19. See with regard to China’s data governance approach Erie and Streinz (2021), pp. 24–35.

318

Andrews (1999). See further Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 110–113.

319

See further Yakovleva (2018), pp. 482–487; Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 508–513. In this context the author analyses the limits of the economic approach to data privacy and calls for a “broader multidisciplinary discourse”.

320

Swire and Litan (2010), pp. 85–88.

321

Acquisti (2010), p. 19.

322

Acquisti et al. (2016), pp. 483–484.

323

Swire and Litan (2010), p. 89.

324

Kuner (2010), p. 178.

325

See generally Casalini and López González (2019), p. 16.

326

Cf. Yakovleva (2018), pp. 482–484.

327

Cf. Yakovleva (2020b), p. 511.

328

See infra Sect. 5.2 for more details on the review of data privacy laws in the context of WTO law.

329

Schwartz (2019); Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 215.

330

Article 1 Sec. 1 DPD states: “In accordance with this Directive, Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data.” Sec. 2 reads: “Member States shall neither restrict nor prohibit the free flow of personal data between Member States for reasons connected with the protection afforded under paragraph 1”. Moreover, Recital 8 to the DPD reads: “Whereas, in order to remove the obstacles to flows of personal data, the level of protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals with regard to the processing of such data must be equivalent in all Member States; whereas this objective is vital to the internal market but cannot be achieved by the Member States alone, especially in view of the scale of the divergences which currently exist between the relevant laws in the Member States and the need to coordinate the laws of the Member States so as to ensure that the cross-border flow of personal data is regulated in a consistent manner that is in keeping with the objective of the internal market as provided for in Article 7a of the Treaty; whereas Community action to approximate those laws is therefore needed”.

331

Kokott and Sobotta (2013), p. 223; Wagner (2018), p. 320.

332

Yakovleva (2020b), p. 502.

333

European Commission (2017), p. 6, para. 3.1.

334

European Commission (2020a), p. 25.

335

Schwartz (2019), p. 774.

336

Humerick (2018), pp. 103–107; Schwartz (2013), pp. 1994–2001.

337

See with further references Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 90–94; Yakovleva and Irion (2020).

338

See generally with regard to the concept of extraterritoriality as it relates to regulation of international data transfers under the EU’s DPD Kuner (2015).

339

Schwartz (2013), p. 1973. Schwartz cites Spiros Simitis: “Data protection does not stop at national borders. Transfers of information must be bound to conditions that attempt in a targeted fashion to protect the affected parties.” Consequently, Recital 2 of the GDPR states: “The principles of, and rules on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data should, whatever their nationality or residence, respect their fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular their right to the protection of personal data”.

340

Cf. ECJ, C-131/12, Google Spain, 13 May 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, para. 54. See further Fabbrini and Celeste (2021), pp. 18–19.

341

See further Recitals 23 and 24 to the GDPR. Recital 23 first sentence reads: “In order to ensure that natural persons are not deprived of the protection to which they are entitled under this Regulation, the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or a processor not established in the Union should be subject to this Regulation where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to such data subjects irrespective of whether connected to a payment.”.

342

See with further references de Hert and Czerniawski (2016), pp. 239–240.

343

de Hert and Czerniawski (2016), pp. 239–240.

344

Kuner (2010), p. 178.

345

Svantesson (2015), p. 234.

346

Kuner (2009b), pp. 4–8. See for an explanation of jurisdictional bases most relevant for data privacy law Kuner (2010), pp. 188–189.

347

Fabbrini and Celeste (2021), pp. 21–23; Kuner (2010), p. 191.

348

European Commission (2017), p. 8, para. 3.1.

349

Kuner (2017), p. 911. See further with regard to an assessment of the adequacy mechanism under WTO law infra Sect. 5.2.2.2.

350

“Admitting the legitimacy of such an approach invites trade war upon trade war as nations take turns standing in judgment of one another’s internal regulatory regimes.” See Singelton (2002).

351

Bradford (2020). See with regard to the EU’s data protection law Schwartz (2019), pp. 778–783.

352

Svantesson (2011), p. 184.

353

Cf. Article 45 Sec. 2 (a) GDPR “When assessing the adequacy of the level of protection, the Commission shall, in particular, take account […] rules for the onward transfer of personal data to another third country or international organisation which are complied with in that country or international organisation”.

354

Bygrave (2014), p. 123.

355

Gunasekara (2007), p. 164; Schwartz (2013), pp. 1973–1979. See further Greenleaf (2012), pp. 72–79.

356

Greenleaf (2012), p. 70.

357

Kuner (2017), pp. 917–918.

358

Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 70–76.

359

Chander and Schwartz (2023), p. 111.

360

Cf. also with further references to the legal relationship between international agreements and adequacy decisions Kuner et al. (2020), Article 45, pp. 777–778.

361

European Commission (2017), p. 9, para. 3.1.

362

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/419 of 23 January 2019 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by Japan under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, C/2019/304/, OJ L 76, 19 March 2019.

363

Commission Implementing Decision of 17 December 2021 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the Republic of Korea under the Personal Information Protection Act, C(2021) 9316 final.

364

Commission Implementing Decision of 28 June 2021 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom, C(2021) 4800 final.

365

See for example Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 92–94; Schwartz (2019), pp. 786–803.

366

Schwartz (2013), p. 1980.

367

See only Schwartz (2013), p. 1968, Schwartz and Pfeifer (2017).

368

See only Andrews (1999). See further Working Party on the Protection of Individuals (1999), para. 1 states: “[…] the Working Party takes the view that the current patchwork of narrowly-focussed sectoral laws and voluntary self-regulation cannot at present be relied upon to provide adequate protection in all cases for personal data transferred from the European Union.”

369

Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 100–105; Schwartz (2013), pp. 1980–1985.

370

Cf. Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the Safe Harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, 2000/520/EC, OJEC, 25 August 2000, L 215/7.

371

ECJ, C-362/14, Schrems I, 6 October 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650.

372

ECJ, C-311/18, Schrems II, 16 July 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:55. See further European Commission (2016), pp. 7–12, para. 3.

373

Gunasekara (2007), p. 165.

374

Schwartz (2013), p. 1967.

375

Schwartz (2013), pp. 1987–1989.

376

Yakovleva (2018), p. 478.

377

ECJ, C-311/18, Schrems II, 16 July 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:55, para. 133.

378

Burri (2021), pp. 59–62. See further Congressional Research Service (2021).

379

See further European Commission (2024).

380

European Commission (2023)

381

See with further explanations to the discrepancies in the discourse on digital trade policy between the US and the EU Aaronson (2015), pp. 685–694; Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 464–466. See for a decidedly US centric perspective Singelton (2002). See on the relationship of data protection to other objectives of EU data protection law and the resulting relationship between data subject and data processor Schwartz and Pfeifer (2017), pp. 129–132.

382

Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 214.

383

See from a perspective of AI regulation Hervé (2021).

384

See for example Gordon and Ram (2018). See with more references to media coverage Schwartz (2019), pp. 776–778.

385

Ross (2018).

386

See with further references Burri and Schär (2016), p. 502. See also Burgess (2022). See further European Commission (2020c).

387

Farrell (2015).

388

Mishra (2015), pp. 144–151.

389

See for example Aaronson (2019), pp. 548–550; Yakovleva (2020b), pp. 473–482. See also supra Sect. 4.4.1.1.1.

390

See with regard to US business interests in digital trade discourse Yakovleva (2020b), p. 482.

391

See further Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 85–86.

392

Yakovleva (2020b), p. 476.

393

See for example WTO (2018), p. 1, para. 1.3: “Meaningful trade rules can support the role of the digital economy in promoting global economic growth and development while also allowing governments to address the growing concerns of Internet users about the security and privacy of their personal data.”.

394

Centre for Information Policy Leadership (2020). See also Congressional Research Service (2020), pp. 20–21. See further supra Sect. 4.3.2.1.

395

Lawder (2023).

396

See generally Erie and Streinz (2021).

397

Sacks et al. (2021).

398

See for a translation DigiChina (2021b).

399

See generally Gao (2021).

400

See further DigiChina (2021a).

401

Sacks et al. (2021).

402

World Economic Forum (2022).

403

Kuner (2013), pp. 33–34.

404

Yakovleva (2018), p. 478.

405

Peng (2011), p. 765.

406

Yakovleva (2020b), p. 515.

407

Yakovleva (2020b), p. 517.

408

See further Schwartz (2013).

409

See for example with regard to the transatlantic EU-US relations Schwartz (2013).

410

Yakovleva (2020a), p. 882.

Aaronson SA (2015) Why trade agreements are not setting information free: the lost history and reinvigorated debate over cross-border data flows, human rights, and national security. World Trade Rev 14(04):671–700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745615000014CrossRef

Aaronson SA (2017) What might have been and could still be: the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s potential to encourage an open internet and digital rights. J Cyber Policy 2(2):232–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2017.1356859CrossRef

Aaronson SA (2019) What are we talking about when we talk about digital protectionism? World Trade Rev 18(4):541–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745618000198CrossRef

Aaronson SA, Leblond P (2018) Another digital divide: the rise of data realms and its implications for the WTO. J Int Econ Law 21(2):245–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy019CrossRef

Aaronson SA, Maxim R (2013) Trade and the internet: the challenge of the NSA revelations: policies in the US, EU and Canada. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2407270

Acquisti A (2010) The economics of personal data and the economics of privacy: background paper #3 joint WPISP-WPIE roundtable. The economics of personal data and privacy: 30 years after the OECD privacy guidelines

Acquisti A, Taylor C, Wagman L (2016) The economics of privacy. J Econ Lit 54(2):442–492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442CrossRef

Alhadeff J, van Alsenoy B, Dumortier J (2012) The accountability principle in data protection regulation: origin, development and future directions. In: Guagnin D et al (eds) Managing privacy through accountability. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp 49–82CrossRef

Andrews EL (1999) Europe and U.S. are still at odds over privacy. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/biztech/articles/27europe-us-privacy.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

APEC (2005) Privacy Framework. https://www.apec.org/publications/2005/12/apec-privacy-framework. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

APEC (2015) Privacy Framework. https://www.apec.org/Publications/2017/08/APEC-Privacy-Framework-(2015). Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2010) Opinion 3/2010 on the principle of accountability. 00062/10/EN. Adopted on 13 July 2010

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2014) Joint work between experts from the Article 29 Working Party and from APEC Economies, on a referential for requirements for Binding Corporate Rules submitted to national Data Protection Authorities in the EU and Cross Border Privacy Rules submitted to APEC CBPR Accountability Agents. https://www.apec.org/docs/default-source/Groups/ECSG/20140307_Referential-BCR-CBPR-reqs.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Bracy J (2024) New draft bipartisan US federal privacy bill unveiled. International Association of Privacy Professionals. https://iapp.org/news/a/new-draft-bipartisan-us-federal-privacy-bill-unveiled/. Accessed 7 Apr 2024

Bradford A (2020) The Brussels effect: how the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef

Burgess M (2022) How GDPR is failing: the world-leading data law changed how companies work. But four years on, there’s a lag on cleaning up Big Tech. https://www.wired.com/story/gdpr-2022/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Burri M (2017) Current and emerging trends in disruptive technologies: implications for the present and future of EU’s trade policy. EP/EXPO/B/INTA/2017/06. https://doi.org/10.2861/96860

Burri M (2021) Interfacing privacy and trade. Case West Res J Int Law 53:35–88

Burri M, Schär R (2016) The reform of the EU Data Protection Framework: outlining key changes and assessing their fitness for a data-driven economy. J Inf Policy 6:479–511. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.6.2016.0479CrossRef

Buttarelli G (2016) The EU GDPR as a clarion call for a new global digital gold standard. Int Data Privacy Law 6(2):77–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw006CrossRef

Bygrave LA (2014) Data privacy law: an international perspective. Oxford University PressCrossRef

Casalini F, López González J (2019) Trade and cross-border data flows. OECD trade policy papers no. 220. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b2023a47-en

Centre for Information Policy Leadership (2009) Data protection accountability: the essential elements. https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/uploads/5/7/1/0/57104281/data_protection_accountability-the_essential_elements__discussion_document_october_2009_.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Centre for Information Policy Leadership (2018) The case for accountability: how it enables effective data protection and trust in the digital society. https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/uploads/5/7/1/0/57104281/cipl_accountability_paper_1_-_the_case_for_accountability_-_how_it_enables_effective_data_protection_and_trust_in_the_digital_society.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Centre for Information Policy Leadership (2020) What does the USMCA mean for a US Federal Privacy Law. White paper

Chander A (2020) Is data localization a solution for Schrems II? J Int Econ Law 23(3):771–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaa024CrossRef

Chander A, Lê UP (2015) Data nationalism. Empory Law J 64:677–739

Chander A, Schwartz PM (2023) Privacy and/or trade. Univ Chic Law Rev 90:49–135

Chander A, Kaminski ME, McGeveran W (2021) Catalyzing privacy law. Minn Law Rev 105:1733–1802

Christakis T (2020) After Schrems II: uncertainties on the legal basis for data transfers and constitutional implications for Europe. https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/07/21/after-schrems-ii-uncertainties-on-the-legal-basis-for-data-transfers-and-constitutional-implications-for-europe/#conclusion. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Congressional Research Service (2020) Data flows, online privacy, and trade policy. R45584

Congressional Research Service (2021) EU data transfer requirements and U.S. intelligence laws: understanding Schrems II and its impact on the EU-U.S. privacy shield. R46724

Cory N, Dascoli L (2021) How barriers to cross-border data flows are spreading globally, what they cost, and how to address them. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. https://itif.org/publications/2021/07/19/how-barriers-cross-border-data-flows-are-spreading-globally-what-they-cost/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Council of Europe (1949) Statute of the Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680306052. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Council of Europe (1981) Explanatory report to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data

Council of Europe (2018) The modernised Convention 108: novelties in a nutshell. https://rm.coe.int/16808accf8. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Crompton M, Cowper C, Jefferis C (2009) The Australian Dodo Case: an insight for data protection regulation. World Data Prot Rep 9(1):3–9

Cukier K (2010) Data, data everywhere. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2010/02/27/data-data-everywhere. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Davis Polk (2021) China’s personal data law comes into force accompanied by draft rules on cross-border data transfers. https://www.davispolk.com/insights/client-update/chinas-personal-data-law-comes-force-accompanied-draft-rules-cross-border#_ftn2. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

de Hert P, Czerniawski M (2016) Expanding the European data protection scope beyond territory: Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation in its wider context. Int Data Privacy Law 6(3):230–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw008CrossRef

Diggelmann O, Cleis MN (2014) How the right to privacy became a human right. Hum Rights Law Rev 14(3):441–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu014CrossRef

DigiChina (2018) Translation: cybersecurity law of the People’s Republic of China - Effective June 1, 2017. https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/translation-cybersecurity-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-effective-june-1-2017/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

DigiChina (2021a) Seven major changes in China’s finalized personal information protection law. https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/seven-major-changes-in-chinas-finalized-personal-information-protection-law/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

DigiChina (2021b) Translation: outbound data transfer security assessment measures (draft for comment) - Oct. 2021 - DigiChina. https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/translation-outbound-data-transfer-security-assessment-measures-draft-for-comment-oct-2021/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

DigiChina (2021c) Translation: personal information protection law of the People’s Republic of China - Effective Nov. 1, 2021 - DigiChina. https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/translation-personal-information-protection-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-effective-nov-1-2021/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

DigiChina (2021d) Translation: data security law of the People’s Republic of China - effective Sept. 1, 2021 - DigiChina. https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/translation-data-security-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china/#_ftn11. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Drake WJ (2016) Background paper for the workshop on data localization and barriers to transborder data flows. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Background_Paper_Forum_workshop%2009.2016.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Edelman G (2022) Don’t look now, but Congress might pass an actually good privacy bill: a bill with bipartisan support might finally give the US a strong federal data protection law. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/american-data-privacy-protection-act-adppa/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Erie MS, Streinz T (2021) The Beijing effect: China’s digital silk road as transnational data governance. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 54(1):1–92

European Commission (2010) Communication from the Commission: a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union. COM(2010) 609 final

European Commission (2016) Transatlantic data flows: restoring trust through strong safeguards. Communication from the Commission, COM/2016/0117 final

European Commission (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Exchanging and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World. COM(2017)7final

European Commission (2020a) Communication from the Commission: a European strategy for data. COM(2020) 66 final

European Commission (2020b) On artificial intelligence - a European approach to excellence and trust. White paper

European Commission (2020c) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: data protection as a pillar of citizens’ empowerment and the EU’s approach to the digital transition - two years of application of the General Data Protection Regulation. COM(2020) 264 final

European Commission (2023) Data protection: European Commission adopts new adequacy decision for safe and trusted EU-US data flows. Press release. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3721. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

European Commission (2024) EU-US Trade and Technology Council Factsheet. Factsheet: EU-US Trade and Technology Council (2021-2024) | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu). Accessed 5 Apr 2024

European Union (2007) Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2007/C303/02)

Fabbrini F, Celeste E (2021) EU data protection law between extraterritoriality and sovereignty. In: Fabbrini F, Celeste E, Quinn J (eds) Data protection beyond borders: transatlantic perspectives on extraterritoriality and sovereignty. Hart, Oxford

Farrell H (2015) Obama says that Europeans are using privacy rules to protect their firms against U.S. competition. Is he right? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/17/obama-says-that-europeans-are-using-privacy-rules-to-protect-their-firms-against-u-s-competition-is-he-right/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Finck M, Pallas F (2020) They who must not be identified—distinguishing personal from non-personal data under the GDPR. Int Data Privacy Law 10(1):11–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz026CrossRef

Fischer JL (2021) The challenges and opportunities for a US Federal Privacy Law. In: Fabbrini F, Celeste E, Quinn J (eds) Data protection beyond borders: transatlantic perspectives on extraterritoriality and sovereignty. Hart, Oxford, pp 27–44

Fleming S (2021) What is digital sovereignty and why is Europe so interested in it? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/europe-digital-sovereignty/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Gao HS (2021) Data regulation with Chinese characteristics. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 245–267CrossRef

Gasser U (2016) Recoding privacy law: reflections on the future relationship among law. Technol Privacy Harv Law Rev Forum 130(2):61–70

Gasser U (2021) Futuring digital privacy. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 195–211CrossRef

Gordon S, Ram A (2018) Information wars: how Europe became the world’s data police. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/1aa9b0fa-5786-11e8-bdb7-f6677d2e1ce8. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Greenleaf G (2009) Five years of the APEC Privacy Framework: failure or promise? Comput Law Secur Rev 25(1):28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2008.12.002CrossRef

Greenleaf G (2012) The influence of European data privacy standards outside Europe: implications for globalization of Convention 108. Int Data Privacy Law 2(2):68–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ips006CrossRef

Gunasekara G (2007) The “final” privacy frontier? Regulating trans-border data flows. Int J Law Inf Technol 17(2):147–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eam004CrossRef

Hervé A (2021) Data protection and artificial intelligence. In: Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (eds) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: disruption, regulation, and reconfiguration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 193–214CrossRef

Hill JF (2014) The growth of data localization post-Snowden: analysis and recommendations for U.S. policymakers and business leaders. The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Conference on the future of cyber governance. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2430275 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2430275

Holvast J (2009) History of privacy. In: Matyáš V et al (eds) The future of identity in the information society: 4th IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6, 11.6, 11.7/FIDIS International Summer School, Brno, Czech Republic, September 1–7, 2008; revised selected papers, vol 298. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–42

Hon WK (ed) (2017) Data localization laws and policy: the EU data protection international transfers restriction through a cloud computing lens. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Hoofnagle CJ (2016) Federal trade commission privacy law and policy. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef

Hufbauer GC, Zhiyao L (2019) Global E-commerce talks stumble on data issues, privacy, and more. Peterson Institute for International Economics policy brief 19-14. https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/global-e-commerce-talks-stumble-data-issues-privacy-and-more. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Humerick M (2018) The tortoise and the hare of international data privacy law: can the United States catch up to rising global standards? Catholic Univ J Law Technol 27:1

Kokott J, Sobotta C (2013) The distinction between privacy and data protection in the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR. Int Data Privacy Law 3(4):222–228. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipt017CrossRef

Kuner C (2009a) An international legal framework for data protection: issues and prospects. Comput Law Secur Rev 25(4):307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2009.05.001CrossRef

Kuner C (2009b) Global data transfers on the internet: lessons from the ancient world. SSRN Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1445458

Kuner C (2010) Data protection law and international jurisdiction on the internet (part 1). Int J Law Inf Technol 18(2):176–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaq002CrossRef

Kuner C (2011) Regulation of transborder data flows under data protection and privacy law: past, present and future. OECD digital economy papers, no. 187. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg0s2fk315f-en

Kuner C (2013) Transborder data flows and data privacy law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Kuner C (2015) Extraterritoriality and regulation of international data transfers in EU data protection law. Int Data Privacy Law 5(4):235–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipv019CrossRef

Kuner C (2017) Reality and illusion in EU data transfer regulation post Schrems. German Law J 18(4):881–918CrossRef

Kuner C, Bygrave LA, Docksey C, Drechsler L (2020) The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): a commentary, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Lauf F (2021) Data sovereignty and data economy—two repulsive forces? Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. https://publica.fraunhofer.de/entities/publication/9cf79aa5-de13-4b49-acc2-94f89dad405c/details. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Lawder D (2023) US drops digital trade demands at WTO to allow room for stronger tech regulation. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-drops-digital-trade-demands-wto-allow-room-stronger-tech-regulation-2023-10-25/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Li B, Xiong S, Zhou A (2023) China issues new guidelines for SCC mechanism for cross-border data transfer. ReedSmith. https://www.reedsmith.com/de/perspectives/2023/06/china-issues-new-guidelines-for-scc-mechanism-for-cross. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Luo Y, Dan X (2024) China eases restrictions on cross-border data flows. Covington Inside Privacy. https://www.insideprivacy.com/uncategorized/china-eases-restrictions-on-cross-border-data-flows/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Madrid Resolution (2009) International standards on the protection of personal data and privacy. https://www.edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/09-11-05_madrid_int_standards_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Manyika J, Chui M, Brown B, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Roxburgh C, Hung Byers A (2011) Big data: the next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Manyika J, Lund S, Bughin J, Woetzel L, Stamenov K, Dhingra D (2016) Digital globalization: the new era of global flows. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/digital-globalization-the-new-era-of-global-flows. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2014) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think, 1. Mariner Books edition

Mishra N (2015) Data localization laws in a digital world: data protection or data protectionism? NUS Centre for International Law Research paper no. 19/05. The Public Sphere

Mishra N (2019) Privacy, cybersecurity, and GATS Article XIV: a new frontier for trade and internet regulation? World Trade Rev 19(3):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000120CrossRef

Mitchell AD, Mishra N (2018) Data at the docks: modernizing international trade law for the digital economy. Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol Law 20:1073–1134

Mitchell AD, Mishra N (2019) Regulating cross-border data flows in a data-driven world: how WTO law can contribute. J Int Econ Law 22(3):389–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz016CrossRef

Mitchell AD, Samlidis T (2022) Cloud services and government digital sovereignty in Australia and beyond. Int J Law Inf Technol 29(4):364–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac003CrossRef

Naef T (2023) Data protection without data protectionism, European yearbook of international economic law. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRef

National Board of Trade (2014) No transfer, no trade: the importance of cross-border data transfers for companies based in Sweden

Nyst C, Falchetta T (2017) The right to privacy in the digital age. J Hum Rights Pract 9(1):104–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huw026CrossRef

OECD (2002) OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196391-en

OECD (2006) Report on the cross-border enforcement of privacy laws. OECD digital economy papers, no. 121. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/231304814207

OECD (2013a) Exploring the economics of personal data: a survey of methodologies for measuring monetary value. OECD digital economy papers no. 220. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k486qtxldmq-en

OECD (2013b) The OECD Privacy Framework. https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecd_privacy_framework.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2023

OECD (2015a) OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264232440-en

OECD (2015b) The governance of globalized data flows - current trends and future challenges: working party on security and privacy in the digital economy. DSTI/ICCP/REG(2015)3

Ohm P (2010) Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Rev 57:1701–1777

Pasadilla GO (2020) Next generation non-tariff measures: emerging data policies and barriers to digital trade. ARTNeT working paper series no. 187

Peng S (2011) Digitalization of services, the GATS and the protection of personal data. In: Sethe R, Heinemann A, Hilty RM (eds) Kommunikation: Festschrift für Rolf H. Weber zum 60. Geburtstag. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 753–769

Petkova B (2019) Privacy as Europe’s first amendment. Eur Law J 25(2):140–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12316CrossRef

Poskauer (2015) A primer on Russia’s new data localization law. https://privacylaw.proskauer.com/2015/08/articles/data-privacy-laws/a-primer-on-russias-new-data-localization-law/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Purtova N (2018) The law of everything. Broad concept of personal data and future of EU data protection law. Law Innov Technol 10(1):40–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2018.1452176CrossRef

Reidenberg JR (1995) The fundamental role of privacy and confidence in the network. Wake Forest Law Rev 30(105):105–125

Roessler B (2015) Should personal data be a tradable good? On the moral limits of markets in privacy. In: Roessler B, Mokrosinska D (eds) Social dimensions of privacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 141–161CrossRef

Ross W (2018) EU data privacy laws are likely to create barriers to trade: GDPR creates serious, unclear legal obligations for both private and public entities. https://www.ft.com/content/9d261f44-6255-11e8-bdd1-cc0534df682c. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Rotenberg J (2020) Privacy before trade: assessing the WTO-consistency of privacy-based cross-border data flow restrictions. Univ Miami Int Comp Law Rev 28(1):91–120

Rubinstein IS (2013) Big data: the end of privacy or a new beginning? Int Data Privacy Law 3(2):74–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ips036CrossRef

Sacks S, Shi M, Webster G, Triolo P (2021) Knowns and unknowns about China’s new draft cross-border data rules: how far will China’s cross-border data rules go in preventing transfers abroad? https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/knowns-and-unknowns-about-chinas-new-draft-cross-border-data-rules/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Schwartz PM (1999) Privacy and democracy in cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Rev 52(6):1609–1702

Schwartz PM (2004) Property, privacy, and personal data. Harv Law Rev 117(7):2056–2128CrossRef

Schwartz PM (2009) Preemption and privacy. Yale Law J 118(5):902–947

Schwartz PM (2013) The EU-U.S. privacy collision: a turn to institutions and procedures. Harv Law Rev 126:1966–2009

Schwartz PM (2019) Global data privacy: the EU way. N Y Univ Law Rev 94(4):772–818

Schwartz PM, Pfeifer K-N (2017) Transatlantic data privacy law. Georgetown Law J 106(1):117–179

Schwartz PM, Solove DJ (2011) The PII problem: privacy and a new concept of personally identifiable information. N Y Univ Law Rev 86:1814–1894

Sedgewick MB (2017) Transborder data privacy as trade. Calif Law Rev 105:1513–1542. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z382V2C94CCrossRef

Sen N (2018) Understanding the role of the WTO in international data flows: taking the liberalization or the regulatory autonomy path? J Int Econ Law 21(2):323–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy021CrossRef

Singelton S (2002) Privacy as a trade issue: guidelines for U.S. trade negotiators. https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/privacy-trade-issue-guidelines-us-trade-negotiators. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (2021) China’s new data security and personal information protection laws: what they mean for multinational companies. https://www.skadden.com/Insights/Publications/2021/11/Chinas-New-Data-Security-and-Personal-Information-Protection-Laws. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Solove DJ (2001) Privacy and power: computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanf Law Rev 53:1393–1462CrossRef

Solove DJ (2002) Conceptualizing privacy. Calif Law Rev 90(4):1087–1155CrossRef

Solove DJ (2006) A taxonomy of privacy. Univ Pa Law Rev 154(3):477–560CrossRef

Solove DJ, Schwartz PM (2018) Information privacy law, Aspen casebook series, 6th edn. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York

Solove DJ, Schwartz PM (2019) ALI data privacy: overview and black letter text. SSRN Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3457563

Svantesson DJB (2011) The regulation of cross-border data flows. Int Data Privacy Law 1(3):180–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipr012CrossRef

Svantesson DJB (2015) Extraterritoriality and targeting in EU data privacy law: the weak spot undermining the regulation. Int Data Privacy Law 5(4):226–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipv024CrossRef

Svantesson DJB (2020) Data localisation trends and challenges: considerations for the review of the privacy guidelines. OECD digital economy papers no. 301. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/7fbaed62-en

Swire PP, Litan RE (2010) None of your business: world data flows, electronic commerce, and the European privacy directive. Brookings Institution Press, Washington

The Economist (2012) Private data, public rules: the world’s biggest internet markets are planning laws to protect personal data. But their approaches differ wildly. https://www.economist.com/international/2012/01/28/private-data-public-rules. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

U.S. Department of Commerce (2010) Guide to protecting the confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII): recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Special publication 800-122

UN (1990), Guidelines for the regulation of computerised personal data files, E/CN.4/1990/72, 14 December 1990

UN (2013) General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Resolution 68/167 The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, 13. December 2013, A/RES/68/167

UN (2014a) General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Resolution 69/166 The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, 18 December 2014, A/RES/69/166

UN (2014b) Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, 30 June 2014, A/HRC/27/37

UN (2015) UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Resolution 28/16 The right to privacy in the digital age, 1 April 2015, A/HRC/RES/28/16

UNCTAD (2016) Data protection regulations and international data flows: implications for trade and development. https://unctad.org/publication/data-protection-regulations-and-international-data-flows-implications-trade-and. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2024) Global cyberlaw tracker. https://unctad.org/page/data-protection-and-privacy-legislation-worldwide. Accessed 5 April 2025

van der Marel E, Bauer M, Lee-Makiyama H (2014) A friendly fire on economic recovery: a methodology to estimate the costs of data regulations. ECIPE working paper, no. 02/2014, Brussels. https://ecipe.org/publications/dataloc-methodology/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Voskamp F, Kipker D-K, Yamato R (2013) Grenzüberschreitende Datenschutzregulierung im Pazifik-Raum. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit - DuD 37(7):452–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11623-013-0177-zCrossRef

Wagner J (2018) The transfer of personal data to third countries under the GDPR: when does a recipient country provide an adequate level of protection? Int Data Privacy Law 8(4):318–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipy008CrossRef

Wall A (2017) GDPR matchup: the APEC Privacy Framework and cross-border privacy rules. https://iapp.org/news/a/gdpr-matchup-the-apec-privacy-framework-and-cross-border-privacy-rules/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1890) The right to privacy. Harv Law Rev 4(5):193–220CrossRef

Weber RH (2013) Transborder data transfers: concepts, regulatory approaches and new legislative initiatives. Int Data Privacy Law 3(2):117–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipt001CrossRef

Whitman JQ (2004) The two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J 113(6):1151–1221CrossRef

Willemyns I (2020) Agreement forthcoming? A comparison of EU, US, and Chinese RTAs in times of plurilateral E-commerce negotiations. J Int Econ Law 23(1):221–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz048CrossRef

Working Party on the Protection of Individuals (1999) Opinion 1/99 concerning the level of data protection in the United States and the ongoing discussions between the European Commission and the United States Government. 5092/98/EN/final WP15

World Economic Forum (2011) Personal data: the emergence of a new asset class. https://www.weforum.org/publications/personal-data-emergence-new-asset-class/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

World Economic Forum (2022) What do China’s data export regulations mean for its trade competitiveness? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/china-data-export-regulations-threaten-trade-competitiveness/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO (2018) Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce Initiative, Communication from the United States, JOB/GC/178, 12 April 2018

Yakovleva S (2018) Should fundamental rights to privacy and data protection be a part of the EU’s international trade ‘deals’? World Trade Rev 17(03):477–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745617000453CrossRef

Yakovleva S (2020a) Personal data transfers in international trade and EU law: a tale of two ‘necessities’. J World Invest Trade 21(6):881–919. https://doi.org/10.1163/22119000-12340189CrossRef

Yakovleva S (2020b) Privacy protection(ism): the latest wave of trade constraints on regulatory autonomy. Univ Miami Law Rev 74:416–519

Yakovleva S, Irion K (2020) Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade. Int Data Privacy Law 10(3):201–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa003CrossRef

Zuboff S (2016) The secrets of surveillance capitalism. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/the-digital-debate/shoshana-zuboff-secrets-of-surveillance-capitalism-14103616.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, 1st edn. PublicAffairs, New York

Titel: Data Protection and Data Protectionism in International Trade
verfasst von: Roman Pascal Kalin
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: Digital Trade and Data Privacy
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-73856-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-73857-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73857-9_4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"