nach oben

Erschienen in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

10. Situating the Pacific Alliance in Global Electronic Commerce Regulation

verfasst von : María del Carmen Vásquez Callo-Müller

Erschienen in: The Pacific Alliance in a World of Preferential Trade Agreements

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter considers where the electronic commerce chapter of the 2014 Pacific Alliance Additional Protocol (PAAP) stands in relation to the global dialogue on regulation of electronic commerce. To frame the discussion, the electronic commerce provisions of a set of preferential trade agreements will be examined. This set comprises the latest United States and European Union free trade agreements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Trade in Services Agreement. This chapter also looks at whether the current text of the electronic commerce chapter of PAAP contains suitable provisions for regulating new trends in electronic commerce. These new trends are characterized by complex scenarios that include cross-border online marketplaces, the app economy, cloud computing, big data and 3D printing, among others.

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 International Investment Agreements of the Pacific Alliance Members and Their Relationship of “Coexistence” with Chapter 10 of the Pacific Alliance Additional Protocol

Nächstes Kapitel The Pacific Alliance: Adding Value to the Global Intellectual Property Rights Regime?

This term is used deliberately in this paper. See Goldsmith and Wu (2006), OECD (2013b).

World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Declaration on Global E-Commerce 1998, WT/MIN(98)/DEC/2.

During the latest Pacific Alliance Summit, held in Paracas, Peru in July 2015, it was decided that the chapter on electronic commerce and telecommunications of the current PAAP would be modified. See Declaración de Paracas (2015), Alianza del Pacifico, https://alianzapacifico.net/?wpdmdl=4078. Accessed 25 October 2015.

In the ambit of e-commerce regulation, the literature has emphasized the predominance of two models: the US and EU model. See Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 202–204.

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to focus deeply on this issue. However, given its importance, some ideas are put forward to give food for thought for future discussions.

Hoja de Ruta del Subgrupo Agenda Digital (2016), Alianza del Pacifico, https://alianzapacifico.net/download/hoja-de-ruta-subgrupo-agenda-digital/. Accessed 2 May 2017.

The definition included in Article 13.1 of the PAAP refers to ‘trade undertaken by electronic’ and means ‘commerce conducted through telecommunications, alone or in conjunction with other information and communication technologies’.

While thinking about trans-border transactions, one should also bear in mind that there are different types of e-commerce transactions. These include transactions between enterprises, individuals, governments, and other public or private organizations: depending on the seller and buyer. In this context, the most common transactions are business to business (B2B), and business to consumer (B2C), business to government (B2G) and, more recently, consumer to consumer (C2C). See OECD (2013a).

On 6 October 2015, the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU-US Safe Harbor arrangement was invalid. This is just one example of how different the approaches to data protection are between the two biggest economies involved in making the rules that regulate e-commerce. See Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (2015) ECJ Case C-362/14.

Think, for example, of the development of the app economy and the rapid evolution of the internet of things.

The BCG e-Friction Index assesses 55 indicators of friction that inhibit internet use and group them into four components: (i) infrastructure-related friction, associated with basic access, speed, price, traffic and architecture of the internet; (ii) industry-related friction, affected by the availability of physical infrastructure, labour supply, dynamic capital markets, intellectual property and customs regulation, and the level of technology; (iii) individual-related friction, related to ICT literacy, availability of online and secure payment systems, and consumer confidence in how personal data will be used on the internet; and (iv) information-related friction, measured by the content creation, commitment to open data, filtering and press freedom indexes. See Zwillenberg et al. (2014) pp. 10–15.

See Servicio Nacional del Consumidor de Chile (SERNAC) 2014, Estudio Descriptivo de E-Commerce en Chile y Análisis de Reclamos ante SERNAC, http://www.sernac.cl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Reporte_E_Commerce_Reclamos-2013-2014.pdf. Accessed 2 October 2015.

See Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones de Colombia (MINTIC) 2011, Vive Digital Colombia, Documento Vivo Del Plan, Version 1.0. http://www.mintic.gov.co/images/MS_VIVE_DIGITAL/archivos/Vivo_Vive_Digital.pdf. Accessed 25 October 2015.

The lack of regulations on some of those aspects (e.g. e-transactions, consumer protection, privacy and data protection) has been identified by UNCTAD as a barrier affecting the development of e-commerce. See UNCTAD (2015, p. 63).

In the online environment and in e-commerce, it is essential to provide assurance regarding the identity of the parties. Thus electronic authentication and signatures play a key role. A law granting the same legal value to digital signatures as to handwritten signatures is required in order to enable online transactions. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures 2001 confirms the necessity of having these types of laws, and provides a model regulation that has been adopted by many countries. Furthermore, inconsistencies in the national approaches to electronic signatures work against any proposal to facilitate the free movement of goods and services. Therefore, cross-border commitments to the mutual recognition of certificates are essential to any RTA willing to foster e-commerce.

Data has been declared as the new currency of the digital economy. Since digital technologies make it relatively easy to collect large amounts of data, governments should work to reach a balance between the rights of citizens to privacy and the ability of companies to use data for the purposes of their business.

According to the OECD, the main aspects to consider in consumer protection policies are: (i) information disclosure; (ii) fraud and misleading commercial practices; (iii) privacy issues; (iv) dispute resolution; and (v) redress. See OECD (2013a, p. 29).

Content is a vital part of the digital economy and e-commerce. Content online (e.g. music, multimedia, podcasts, etc.), can be easily copied and distributed illegally; therefore copyright laws play an important role in ensuring the rights of the authors of these materials. See Fitzgerald (2011, pp. 233–41).

Ibid., pp. 618, 735–7. Domain names are important business identifiers since they are linked to the source of a good or a service. Since the number of domain names has increased, the number of disputes regarding domain names has also increased. Consequently, adequate regulation at a national level regarding domain name registration, renewal and transfer, registry, resellers, dispute resolution, and new second-level domains is essential.

Ibid., pp. 963–1001. The increased use of the ‘borderless’ internet for everyday transactions should lead to a re-evaluation of traditional off-line criminal laws. Several jurisdictions have recently enacted cyber-crime laws in brand new statutes or have reformed their criminal codes in order to fight technology-enabled crime. Ideally, a RTA project should aim to harmonize the type of offences in cyberspace and to provide for effective enforcement mechanisms. This will help to avoid the creation of cybercrime safe heavens and also protect critical infrastructures as the number of digital attacks has increased over the years.

Intermediary liability refers to situations where platforms (e.g. Twitter and Facebook) are liable for their users’ online activities. Since the platforms are easier to find than individual users, they can be subject to legal obligations in order to regulate online activities. Globally, regulation of intermediary liability varies, especially between the US and Europe. Nonetheless, the most common types of intermediary liability include copyright infringement, defamatory and pornographic content, or activities that are illegal in certain jurisdictions, such as online gambling.

The liability protections for internet intermediaries provided in Law 20,430 resemble the language of the 2004 US–Chile FTA and section 512 of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). On the other hand, a remarkable difference from the DMCA is the lack of a provision establishing a private notice-and-takedown system. Thus, in Chile, a court order is required to compel blocking or removal of copyright-infringing content.

RFC stands for Request for Comments. These are documents created and adopted, initially, through the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and now also through the Internet Society (ISOC). RFCs can be informational or create a standard. In the case of RFC 1591, it did not specify a standard of any kind. RFC 1591 only provided information on the structure of the names in the Domain Name System, specifically the top-level domain names; and on the administration of domains.

While the Andean Community Decision 351 does not contain a specific provision on intermediary liability, Article 54 could be applicable to intermediary liability regarding copyright infringements since it states that ‘No authority or person, whether natural person or legal entity, may authorize the use of a work, performance, phonographic production or broadcast, or endorse his support to such use, if the user does not have the express prior authorization of the owner of the rights or his representative. In the event of non-compliance, that entity or person shall be jointly liable’.

For a deeper analysis of Mexican data privacy regulation, see: Gutierrez and Korn (2013) p. 38.

The level of data protection varies across jurisdictions. While Colombia has had a very comprehensive law since 2012, Chile is still waiting for the approval of a new data protection law that aims to be more comprehensive. Peru’s data protection law is inspired by European standards whereas Mexico follows a more flexible approach.

US–Chile FTA, Article 17.11 para. 23; US–Colombia FTA, Article 16.11 para. 29; and US–Peru FTA, Article 16.11 para. 29.

See Chile–Colombia FTA.

See Mexico–Peru FTA. Although fairly recent, this agreement has no electronic commerce chapter.

See Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) 2016, Chapter 14: Electronic Commerce, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Electronic-Commerce.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2016.

The free flow of information rules are designed to subvert data localization laws such as rules that require data on citizens to be stored and processed on servers located in their own country. Thus, they are aimed at preventing countries from distorting internet traffic flows and imposing unnecessary costs on platform operators.

TiSA is a trade agreement currently being negotiated by 24 members of the WTO, including the EU. Together, the participating countries account for 70% of world trade in services. TiSA is based on the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which involves all WTO members. The key provisions of the GATS – scope, definitions, market access, national treatment and exemptions – are also found in TiSA. TiSA aims at opening up markets and improving rules in areas such as licensing, financial services, telecoms, e-commerce, maritime transport, and on professionals moving abroad temporarily to provide services.

Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Annex on Electronic Commerce 2013, http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/tisa-annex-on-electronic-commerce.pdf. Accessed 25 October 2015.

This section is based on the common provisions of three of the latest US FTAs: US–Korea FTA (KORUS) (in force since 2012), US–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (US–Colombia FTA) (in force since 2012) and US–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (US–Peru FTA) (in force since 2009).

KORUS, Article 15.8: ‘Cross Border Information Flows: Recognizing the importance of the free flow of information in facilitating trade, and acknowledging the importance of protecting personal information, the Parties shall endeavor to refrain from imposing or maintaining unnecessary barriers to electronic information flows across borders’.

KORUS, Article. 15.7.

This section is based on the common provisions of two of the latest EU FTAs: the EU–Korea FTA and the EU–Colombia Peru FTA.

See Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU (signed in 2014, but not in force yet), ‘Article X-03: Trust and Confidence in Electronic Commerce Each Party should adopt or maintain laws, regulations or administrative measures for the protection of personal information of users engaged in electronic commerce and, when doing so, shall take into due consideration international standards for data protection of relevant international organisations of which both Parties are a member’.

See Declaración de Paracas (2015) Alianza del Pacifico, https://alianzapacifico.net/?wpdmdl=4078. Accessed 25 October 2015.

Article 12.4 of the Chile–Colombia FTA.

Neither the Peru–US FTA nor the Colombia–US FTA mentions personal data. In the US–Chile FTA there is a reference to data privacy in Article 15.5 but in non-enforceable language:

‘Article 15.5: Cooperation

Having in mind the global nature of electronic commerce, the Parties recognize the importance of:

(…)
(b)

sharing information and experiences on regulations, laws, and programs in the sphere of electronic commerce, including those related to data privacy, consumer confidence, cyber-security, electronic signatures, intellectual property rights, and electronic government.’

Kommerskollegium (2015) (The Kommerskollegium reports analyse obstacles to e-commerce and are a good source of thoughtful analysis on the topic.)

In this regard, many authors agree that ‘the exponential growth of online social networking in parallel with electronic commerce not only embeds the internet and digital applications as an all-pervasive general purpose technology within society, but means that the line between social and commercial use becomes blurred, especially around fundamental public policy issues like privacy, fraud and identity theft’. See Fitzgerald (2011) vii.

Ibid., 31.

Article 18.82

The US has comprehensive bilateral FTAs that include a chapter on e-commerce with all four members of the PA and has significant trade and foreign policy ties with them.

Burri, M. (2015). The international economic law framework for digital trade. Zeitschrift für schweizerisches Recht ZSR, 134, 10–72.

Camarena, J. (2015). WILMAP: Mexico. Stanford Law School: The Center for Internet and Society. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/page/wilmap-mexico. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Declaración de Paracas. (2015). Alianza del Pacifico, https://alianzapacifico.net/?wpdmdl=4078. Accessed 25 Oct 2015.

eBay. (2012). Towards commerce 3.0: Roadmap for building sustainable growth in commerce. www.ebaymainstreet.com/sites/default/files/eBay_Towards-Commerce-3.0-Policy-Roadmap.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2015.

Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC). (2015). La nueva revolución digital: De la Internet del consumo a la Internet de la producción. United Nations: Santiago.

Fefer, R. (2016). U.S. Trade in services: Trends and policy issues (Report Number: R43291). US Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43291.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017.

Fitzgerald, B. (2011). Internet and e-commerce law: Technology, law and policy (2nd ed.). Pyrmont: Thomson Reuters.

Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gutierrez, H., & Korn, D. (2013). Facilitando the cloud: Data protection regulation as a driver of national competitiveness in Latin America. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 45, 33–61.

Karisma Foundation, & Herrera, J. (2015). WILMAP: Colombia. Stanford Law School: The Center for Internet and Society. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/page/wilmap-colombia. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Katz, R. (2015). El Ecosistema de La Economía Digital En América Latina. Madrid: Ariel and Fundación Telefónica.

Kommerskollegium. (2015). Online trade, offline rules – A review of barriers to e-commerce in the EU. http://www.kommers.se/In-English/Publications/2015/Online-Trade-Offline-Rules/. Accessed 23 Apr 2017.

Lara, J., Martínez, M., & Viollier, P. (2014). Hacia una regulación de los delitos informáticos basada en la evidencia. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 3, 101–137.

Maclay, C., & Coppock, K. (2003). Electronic commerce: A regional approach. Info, 5, 17–23.CrossRef

Malcom, J., & Sutton, M. (2015). Big tech does not speak for the internet. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/big-tech-does-not-speak-internet. Accessed 25 Oct 2015.

Messano, O. (2013). Study on international internet connectivity. Focus on internet connectivity in Latin America and the Caribbean. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union.

Morachimo, M. (2014). WILMAP: Peru. Stanford Law School: The Center for Internet and Society. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/page/wilmap-peru. Accessed 8 July 2017.

OECD. (2013a). A borderless world: Realizing the potential of the global electronic commerce. Paris: France.

OECD. (2013b). Electronic and mobile commerce (OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 228). Paris: France.

Ojeda-Pérez, J., Rincón-Rodríguez, F., & Arias-Flórez, M. (2010). Delitos informáticos y entorno jurídico vigente en Colombia. Cuadernos de Contabilidad, 11, 41–66.

Parish, N. (2015). Will Mexico become the most important E-commerce market in Latin America? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2015/04/27/will-mexico-become-the-most-important-e-commerce-market-in-latin-america/#3ef69d42775f. Accessed 5 July 2017

Stephenson, S., & Robert, M. (2014). Innovating regionalism: The Americas. In P. Sauvé & A. Shingal (Eds.), The preferential liberalization of trade in services: Comparative regionalism (pp. 101–159). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2015). Information economy report: Unlocking the potential of e-commerce for developing countries. Geneva: United Nations.CrossRef

Weber, R. (2015). Digital trade and e-commerce: Challenges and opportunities of the Asia-Pacific regionalism. Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy, 10, 321–347.

Weber, R., & Burri, M. (2012). Classification of services in the digital economy. Zurich: Schulthess.

World Economic Forum (WEF) and INSEAD. (2013). The global information technology report: Growth and jobs in a Hyperconnected world. Geneva: WEF/INSEAD.

World Trade Organization (WTO). (1998). Ministerial declaration on global E-commerce 1998 (WT/MIN(98)/DEC/2).

World Trade Organization (WTO). (2013). E-commerce in developing countries: Opportunities and challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises. Geneva: WTO.

Wunsch-Vincent, S., & Hold, A. (2012). Trade rules for the digital age. In M. Burri & T. Cottier (Eds.), Trade governance in the digital age: World trade forum (pp. 179–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Zwillenberg, P., Field, D., & Dean, D. (2014). The connected world: Greasing the wheels of the internet economy. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group.

Titel: Situating the Pacific Alliance in Global Electronic Commerce Regulation
verfasst von: María del Carmen Vásquez Callo-Müller
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: The Pacific Alliance in a World of Preferential Trade Agreements
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78463-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-78464-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78464-9_10