nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. The Emergence of Digital Trade Regulation

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

International economic law faces a variety of challenges arising from digital business models and an increasing convergence of global markets in the era of digital globalisation. Against the backdrop of a successful tradition of multilateral regulation, the rule-based system of global trade law has been mobilised to address some of the transnational challenges related to digital globalisation. The convergence of trade governance and digital governance has put significant pressure on the pre-existing international trade regime. The cross-cutting challenges of the digital transformation involve all areas of the multilateral trade framework for goods (GATT), services (GATS) and trade-related aspects of intellectual property (TRIPS) implemented by the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). This chapter addresses the phenomenon of the digital transformation of cross-border economic activity in the context of the regulation and governance of global trade under multilateral trade law and current trade agreements.

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 International Trade in a Global Digital Economy

Nächstes Kapitel Data Protection and Data Protectionism in International Trade

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Burri and Cottier (2012a), p. 2.

See for example Burri (2021a); Burri and Cottier (2012b); Peng et al. (2021a); Zheng (2020).

See for example ICC (2016); López González and Ferencz (2018); UNCTAD (2017a), pp. 41–58; WTO (2018a).

See only Burri (2021b), pp. 15–20; Cottier (1996), pp. 425–427.

Burri (2015), pp. 38–39.

Cf. Meltzer (2015), p. 97.

WTO (2018a), p. 194.

See only López González and Ferencz (2018), p. 9; United States International Trade Commission (2013), p. XV. See also infra 3.2.

See for example Gao (2018), p. 297, fn. 1; Weber (2015), p. 323. See generally Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1076, fn. 2.

For instance, both the WTO and the OECD Ministerial Conferences recognised the relevance of the issue of Electronic Commerce as early as in 1998. As a result, the WTO adopted the “Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce”, WTO (1998a). For its part, the OECD adopted the “Action Plan for Electronic Commerce”, OECD (1998). Similarly, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1998 adopted a “Blueprint for Action on Electronic Commerce”, APEC (1998).

Cf. in this context the ongoing plurilateral negotiations under the Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce launched in 2019, see further infra Sect. 3.3.1.2.

Chander (2013), pp. 1–17.

See only Aaronson and Leblond (2018), p. 246. However, with reference to the principles of “free flow of information” and “freedom of information”, some examples can be found where data flows have been the subject of international regulation, see with further references Kuner (2013), pp. 31–32.

Ciuriak and Ptashkina (2018), p. 6; Mitchell and Mishra (2019), p. 390.

See for an account of definitions from Eurostat and Statistics Canada OECD (2019b), Chapter I, Box 1.1. See further for the definition of electronic commerce within the WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce infra Sect. 3.2.1.1.1.

OECD (2019b), Chapter I. Of course, the general challenges of measuring digital transformation are even more comprehensive, see for example OECD (2019c), p. 238. Measurement issues associated with e-commerce have been the subject of long-standing debate, see for example OECD (1997b), pp. 6–15.

UNCTAD (2015b). The report was commissioned by UNCTAD, as a contribution to the work of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development and its Task Group on Measuring Trade in ICT Services and ICT-enabled Services (TGServ).

Ciuriak and Ptashkina (2018), p. 22; U.S. Department of Commerce (2016). See with respect to measuring the economic value of data flows supra Sect. 2.3.2.3.

López González and Jouanjean (2017), p. 12.

IMF et al. (2019), p. 31. See also WTO (2018a), p. 52.

WTO (1998a).

WTO (1998b). See also infra Sect. 3.3.1.1.

WTO (1998b), p. 1, para. 1.3.

See only Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), p. 181. Cf. also the Progress Reports to the General Council adopted by the Council for Trade in Services, WTO (1999e), the Council for Trade in Goods WTO (1999f), the Council for TRIPs WTO (1999c) and the Committee for Trade and Development WTO (1998e). For a detailed discussion of the merits and shortcomings of the WTO Work Programme, see infra Sect. 3.3.3.

This results in terminological ambiguities that impede a shared international approach to this issue. However, regarding joint efforts on the measurement of trade in the digital economy, the WTO participates in initiatives that subscribe to the notion of digital trade, see infra Sect. 3.2.1.2.

WTO (2019a). See further infra Sect. 3.3.1.2.

Cf. OECD (1960), Preamble.

OECD (1998). Prior to the Ministers’ meeting in Ottawa, a conference was held in Turku a year before, under the heading “Dismantling the Barriers to Global Electronic Commerce”, see OECD (1997a).

OECD (1999), p. 4.

OECD (2011), pp. 71–73.

This means that included are orders made over the web, extranet or electronic data interchange (EDI). Excluded are orders made by telephone calls, facsimile or manually typed e-mail, OECD (2011), p. 72.

OECD (2019b), Chapter I.

See for example López González and Ferencz (2018); OECD (2017).

López González and Jouanjean (2017), p. 6.

OECD (2019b), Chapter I.

López González and Jouanjean (2017), p. 6.

See UNCTAD (2015a), p. 3, UNCTAD (2016), p. 1.

UNCTAD (2019), p. 44.

UNCTAD (2016), p. 19.

UNESCAP (2018), p. 3.

UNESCAP (2016), p. 103.

UNESCAP (2016), p. 108.

See UNCITRAL (1999). Relevant in the context is also the Model Law on Electronic Signatures that was adopted 5 July 2001 in order to enable and facilitate the use of electronic signatures, UNCITRAL (2001).

See UNCITRAL (1999), pp. 17–18.

APEC (1998).

See with further references Mitchell (2001), p. 685.

United States International Trade Commission (2013), pp. 1-2–1-4.

For further expert views and opinions on the definition of digital trade expressed at the public hearing and in written submissions, see United States International Trade Commission (2013), p. 1–3, Box 1.1.

The Trade Commission refrained however from giving an exact definition, see United States International Trade Commission (2014), pp. 29–30.

United States International Trade Commission (2017), p. 33.

United States International Trade Commission (2017), p. 148.

European Commission (1997).

European Commission (1997), pp. 2–3, paras. 6–11.

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce), 17 July 2000, OJ L 178. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) builds on the E-Commerce Directive and addresses the challenges that have emerged over the past 20 years, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act).

European Commission (2024).

E-Commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted at the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress on 31 August 2018, see translation by IPKey (2018).

In this context, a 2019 Chinese proposal for the Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce reads „The negotiation should focus on the discussion of cross-border trade in goods enabled by the internet, together with relevant payment and logistics services while paying attention to the digitalization trend of trade in services […]”, cf. WTO (2019b), pp. 1–2, para. 2.4.

Gao (2020), pp. 15–19.

See further OECD and IMF (2017), p. 3. This collaboration was accompanied by ongoing projects, for example, UNCTAD (2016). See also UNESCAP (2016), pp. 105–108.

OECD (2016). The note has benefitted from inputs from UNCTAD, the World Bank Group and the WTO.

In particular the G20 welcomed further work on this issue, “for the purpose of measuring digital trade, make proposals to responsible authorities for a common understanding of digital trade that is broad enough to cover existing approaches, and flexible enough to take into account on-going technological evolution, new ways of providing goods and services, and changes in regulatory classifications; identify both biases and gaps in measuring digital trade in statistics, including related to transactions not leaving a monetary footprint; and suggest ways to address these challenges and propose any areas where early progress could be made”, G20 (2017), p. 18.

González and Ferencz (2018). The OECD initiative has aimed to align with existing statistical frameworks (BPM6, SNA2008, MSITS 2010, IMTS) and has benefitted from the insights and concepts of existing surveys in OECD/Eurostat countries on e-commerce and ICT-use as well as UNCTAD’s work on ICT-enabled services, cf. Fortanier (2017), p. 4.

OECD and IMF (2017), p. 3.

The Interagency Task Force on International Trade Statistics (TFITS) is the product of a merger of the Task Force on International Merchandise Trade Statistics (TFIMTS) and the Task Force on Statistics of International Trade in Services (TFSITS) in 2014. TFITS is co-chaired by WTO and OECD and meets once a year.

The conceptual framework was namely basis of the 2017 and 2018 OECD Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Service (WPTGS) meetings, the Eurostat Working Groups on Balance of Payments and on Trade in Services Statistics (2017/2018), and IMF BOPCOM 2017, leading to a series of conclusions regarding several substantive issues, see OECD and IMF (2018), pp. 3–10.

IMF et al. (2019), p. 11.

IMF et al. (2023).

See in this context IMF et al. (2019), p. 15.

IMF et al. (2019), pp. 19–21.

See for a taxonomy of electronic commerce for instance Herman (2010), pp. 7–8.

See in particular the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce initiated in early 2019 supra Sect. 3.3.1.2. Cf. in this context also the para. “3 Terminology” of the joint communication from Canada, the EU, Singapore and other WTO Members in the run-up to the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference in 2017, WTO (2016a), para. 3.

See for example Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), p. 180.

WTO (1998b), p. 1, para. 1.3.

OECD (2019b), Chapter I, Box 1.1. Some authors therefore actually consider it to be synonymous with digital trade Tuthill (2017), p. 97.

OECD (2011), p. 72.

WTO (1998b), p. 1, para. 1.3.

See for example López González and Jouanjean (2017), pp. 7–12.

López González and Ferencz (2018), p. 9.

Cf. IMF et al. (2019).

IMF et al. (2019), p. 11.

IMF et al. (2019), p. 15, p. 20; IMF et al. (2023), p. 29.

However, this does not mean that there is a single definition accepted universally, see already Mitchell (2001), p. 685. See also supra Sect. 3.2.1.

It must be emphasized that the definition building process is often a gradual procedure in a multipolar and dynamic environment. In this sense, the term digital trade was used as early as the turn of the millennium, see for example Wunsch-Vincent (2003).

See supra Sect. 3.2.1.1. Some of the first trade agreements integrating provisions on electronic commerce explicitly refer to these initiatives, such as the Singapore-New Zealand Agreement of 2001 with reference to the APEC Blueprint for Action on Electronic Commerce (Part IV, Article 12) or the Australia-Singapore Agreement of 2003 with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (Chapter 14, Article 6).

The following remarks are complemented by a review of key elements with regard to digital trade in PTAs below, see infra Sect. 3.4.

Willemyns (2020b), pp. 223–224. Reference is made to the Singapore - New Zealand agreement of 2001 as the first international trade agreement to explicitly address e-commerce. A closer look at this agreement reveals, however, that the parties place limited emphasis on new forms of commercial transactions involving the use of ICT.

Monteiro and Teh (2017), p. 5.

Wu (2017), p. 6.

Willemyns (2020b), p. 224.

United States International Trade Commission (2013).

European Commission (2015), p. 12, para. 2.1.2.

European Parliament (2017).

European Commission (2021), pp. 14–15, para. 3.2.3.

See further infra Sect. 3.4. Cf. also the unfolding of deliberations within the WTO Work Programme on E-Commerce and the negotiation proposals under the Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce infra Sect. 3.3.1.

See Chander (2018). Although largely consistent with the e-commerce chapter of the CPTPP, the USMCA digital trade chapter contains a more advanced set of regulations specifically aimed at the data-driven economy, see further infra Sect. 3.4.2.2.1.

Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Other Part, Chapter II, Heading One: Trade, Title III.

European Commission (2018).

WTO (2019c). It should be noted, however, that the implementation of the horizontal provisions included in the EU proposal does not explicitly refer to “digital trade”, but rather to “trade in the digital economy”, cf. p. 4, para. 2.7.

Cf. Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore (2024).

100

World Economic Forum (2022).

101

See further Peng et al. (2021b), pp. 18–20.

102

European Commission (2024).

103

See in this context OECD (2019b), Chapter 2.

104

See for example Bacchetta et al. (1998), p. 9.

105

Bacchetta et al. (1998), p. 10.

106

Initial debates under the auspices of the WTO regarding the issue of electronic commerce were characterised by a broad range of topics, which included, for example, questions with regard to issues of classification of electronic transmissions within the existing multilateral trade regime, development-related issues, fiscal implications of e-commerce as well as jurisdiction and applicable law. See for example WTO (2001c). See further infra Sect. 3.3.1.1.

107

See also Belli (2016); Maciel (2016).

WTO (2017a).

WTO (2019a).

WTO (2019a).

G20 (2019), p. 2 para. 8 and para. 11. See in particular para. 11: “[…] We also reaffirm the importance of interface between trade and digital economy, and note the ongoing discussion under the Joint Statement Initiative on electronic commerce, and reaffirm the importance of the Work Programme on electronic commerce at the WTO.”.

187

Ismail (2020), p. 14.

188

WTO (2024).

189

Lawder (2023).

190

See further Abendin and Duan (2021); Fefer (2020), pp. 19–20; Hufbauer and Zhiyao (2019), pp. 3–4; Titievskaia (2020); Burri (2021d), pp. 24–30.

191

WTO (2019d). By May 2019, the Council adopted negotiating directives supplementing the mandate for the Doha Round regarding the plurilateral negotiations of rules and commitments on electronic commerce, Council of the EU (2019). See further Titievskaia (2020).

192

WTO (2019d), para. 2.

193

WTO (2019d) paras. 3 and 4.

194

WTO (2018d), pp. 2–3, paras. 3. and 5.

195

WTO (2018d), p. 1, para. 1.

196

WTO (2019b), p. 4, paras. 4.2 and 4.3 underscore the limits of China’s initial readiness to negotiate in this matter: “In light of their complexity and sensitivity, as well as the vastly divergent views among the Members, more exploratory discussions are needed before bringing such issues to the WTO negotiation” and further “It’s undeniable that trade-related aspects of data flow are of great importance to trade development. However, more importantly, the data flow should be subject to the precondition of security, which concerns each and every Member’s core interests. To this end, it is necessary that the data flow orderly in compliance with Members’ respective laws and regulations.”.

197

Burri (2021d), p. 33.

198

See also Hufbauer and Zhiyao (2019), p. 9.

199

For detailed reviews of the current state of WTO law with regard to digital trade and e-commerce, see for example, Burri (2017b), pp. 71–99; Meltzer (2019a), pp. 37–43; Mitchell and Mishra (2018).

200

See only Burri (2017b), pp. 93–99.

201

The preamble of the WTO Agreement reflects on this, as it identifies: “entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the eliminations of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations” as desirable in order to attain its goals of “of raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and service.”.

202

van den Bossche and Zdouc (2022), p. 337.

203

Aaronson and Leblond (2018), p. 246; Burri (2017b,) pp. 95–99.

204

With further references Burri (2017b), pp. 93–95. However, not all WTO agreements adhere to the principle of technology neutrality at all times. Moreover, the precise meaning of the concept is far from clearly defined, see Gagliani (2020), pp. 731–738.

205

Wu (2017), pp. 2–6 identifies several other agreements of relevance to digital trade which are not covered in the following analysis, including Annex 1A agreements such as the Agreement on Customs Licensing, the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedure, and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS). See for a useful illustration of the multilateral trade agreements concerned López González and Ferencz (2018), p. 14.

206

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 I.L.M. 1153 (1994). On 30 October 1947 twenty-three countries signed the Final Act of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement contains the GATT 1994 which incorporates by references the provisions of the GATT 1947 as well as what is referred to as the “GATT aquis”.

207

Meltzer (2019a), p. 41.

208

Wu (2017), p. 3.

209

Burri (2017b), p. 76.

210

See generally Willemyns (2021), pp. 11–24.

211

Wu (2017), p. 4.

212

See further for a useful overview of key unresolved issues with respect to digital trade, including classification issues Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 181–187.

213

See for example Baker et al. (2001); Farrokhnia and Richards (2016).

214

Baker et al. (2001), pp. 7–8; Mattoo and Schuknecht (2000), pp. 11–13; Willemyns (2021), pp. 17–18.

215

Hart and Chaitoo (1999), p. 915; Wu (2017), p. 4.

216

Baker et al. (2001), pp. 8–10; Weber (2015), pp. 325–326. Hence, with regard to the issue of delineation between the scope of GATT and GATS Joshua Meltzer warns about “perverse outcomes”, Meltzer (2019a), p. 41.

217

Weber (2010), p. 3. See further regarding the GATS classification system infra Sect. 3.3.2.6.

218

Hart and Chaitoo (1999), p. 916.

219

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1110–1111; Weber (2015), pp. 325–236. Contemporarily, a physical book crossing the border is subject to GATT rules and a given tariff, while the digital version—classified to fall into the ambit of the GATS—would not be charged any duties as a result of the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions, see also Sen (2018), p. 331.

220

Bacchetta et al. (1998), p. 50.

221

See for example Burri (2017b), pp. 80–84; Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 397–402; Sen (2018), pp. 327–329.

222

WTO (1996b).

223

WTO (1996b).

224

Bacchetta et al. (1998), p. 46. With regard to the coverage of the Agreement the 1996 Ministerial Declaration referred to “all products classified (or classifiable) with Harmonized System (1996) (“HS”) headings listed in Attachment A to the Annex to this Declaration; and (b) all products specified in Attachment B to the Annex to this Declaration, whether or not they are included in Attachment A”, cf. WTO (1996b), p. 2, para. 2.

225

WTO (2012a).

226

European Commission (2016), p. 7, para. 3.

227

Luff (2012), pp. 68–71; Weber (2010), pp. 6–7.

228

Weber (2010), pp. 6–7. The scope of the ITA has been scrutinized by the WTO dispute settlement system, see Panel Report, EC-IT Products, WT/DS375/R, WT/DS376/R, WT/DS377/R, 16 August 2010. See further with regard to an extension of the ITA, Burri (2016a), p. 346.

229

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1118. See however also the successful conclusion of negotiations aimed at reducing administrative costs and establishing a more transparent operating environment for service providers under the Joint Statement on Services Domestic Regulation WTO (2021).

230

van den Bossche and Zdouc (2022), pp. 976–978; Weiß (2020), pp. 296–301.

231

Luff (2012), pp. 72–74.

232

Meltzer (2019a), p. 42.

233

Lim (2021).

234

In this context, a meeting of the TBT Committee in 2017 addressed China’s review of the cybersecurity of network products and services, see WTO (2017m). The Chinese regulation has also prompted intensified discussions within the Council for Trade in Services, WTO (2017n); WTO (2017o); WTO (2018e).

235

According to some estimates, full implementation of the TFA would lower trade costs by 18% for industrial products and 10.4% for agricultural products. It has also the ability to reduce the time to import by more than one and a half days (a 47% reduction from the current average) and the time to export by almost two days (a 91% reduction from the current average), cf. WTO (2015c), p. 7.

236

López González and Ferencz (2018), p. 13; Meltzer (2019a), p. 42; Wu (2017), p. 4.

237

See generally UN Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (2005). See also World Bank Group (2017), pp. 79–86. The report defines a single window “as a system that receives trade-related information and disseminates it to all the relevant governmental authorities, thus systematically coordinating controls throughout trade processes.”.

238

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994). Van den Bossche and Zdouc (2022), pp. 1082–1086.

239

WIPO (2008), p. 3.

240

See for example Taubman (2012); Wunsch-Vincent (2004), pp. 151–161.

241

Taubman (2012), p. 304. In this context, Taubman draws upon a historical perspective of IPR in trade and among other sources refers to the WTO/GATT Ministerial Declaration on the Uruguay Round of 20 September 1986 which set a negotiating objective of developing “a multilateral framework of principles, rules and disciplines dealing with international trade in counterfeit goods”. See also WTO (1999d), para. 14.

242

Bacchetta et al. (1998), pp. 59–60. See also supra Sect. 3.3.2.1. regarding the interface between digital trade and the GATT.

243

Gasser and Palfrey (2012), pp. 137–141.

244

See for example Bacchetta et al. (1998), pp. 60–61.

245

WTO (1998b), p. 3, para. 4.1. See further Wunsch-Vincent (2004), pp. 151–161.

246

WTO (1999d), paras. 12, 14.

247

See WTO (1999d), para. 14; Wu (2017), p. 4.

248

Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 188–189.

249

Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), p. 192. This concerns in particular the reference to the WIPO Internet Treaties, to which a significant share of WTO Members are signatories.

250

General Agreement on Trade in Services, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1B, 1869 U.N.T.S. 183, 33 I.L.M. 1167 (1994). See only Mitchell and Hepburn (2018), pp. 196–197. See with regard to AI in particular Chander (2021).

251

Article I:3 c) GATS states that “a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority” means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers. See with further references regarding interpretation Burri (2017b), p. 82.

252

Today’s economic activities in the service sector are indeed much more diversified compared to when the Uruguay Round was finalised in 1994, see Peng (2007), pp. 294–297. See in particular for the case of Cloud Computing and Trade United States International Trade Commission (2017), pp. 57–85. See also supra Sect. 2.3.1.2.

253

Noonan and Plekhanova (2020), p. 1028. Yet, GATS includes in its Article XI a provision on “payments and transfers” securing the value of specific commitments undertaken by Members under the GATS, see in this context Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004, para. 6.441—6.442.

254

Cf. for a detailed analysis of the genesis of the GATS, Drake and Kalypso (1992).

255

See for example Adlung and Mattoo (2010), p. 49; Weiß (2020), pp. 29–31. See with regard specifically to digital trade and electronic commerce, Bacchetta et al. (1998), pp. 52–57.

256

According to Article II:1 GATS “[…] each Member shall accord immediately and unconditionally to services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than that it accords to like services and service suppliers of any other country.”.

257

Article III:1 GATS requires Members to publish “all relevant measures of general application which pertain to or affect the operation of this Agreement”.

258

This horizontal application of the MFN principle was controversially discussed during the Uruguay Round, see also with regard to singular exclusion regarding air transport Adlung (2006), pp. 868–869.

259

Exemptions from MFN treatment were to be submitted at the time of conclusion of the Agreement and are included in country-specific lists, cf. GATS Annex on Article II Exemptions, 2. The Annex provides in No. 6 that such exemptions “in principle” should not exceed a period of 10 years. However, few exemptions have been offered for termination Adlung (2006), p. 870.

260

See with regard in particular to ICT services Tuthill and Roy (2012), p. 159.

261

WTO (2001e), para. 2.

262

Cf. Adlung (2006), pp. 867–877.

263

See for example WTO (1998d), p. 7, para. 37; Tuthill (2017), pp. 97–98.

264

Kelsey (2018), pp. 290–294; Willemyns (2021), pp. 103–108.

265

Mattoo and Schuknecht (2000), pp. 15–17 point out three reasons in particular: (1) the definitions of the United Nations Central Product Classification are sometimes not technology-neutral as they may designate the means of delivery without listing electronic means; (2) during the extended negotiations on basic telecommunications the parties felt the need to adopt an explicit understanding on technological neutrality; (3) the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions in itself is contradictory to the “likeness” of services delivered by divergent means.

266

Sen (2018), p. 331. See for the exact wording Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004, para. 6.285 “We note that this is in line with the principle of “technological neutrality”, which seems to be largely shared among WTO Members.”. This also raises the question whether new services can be regulated by litigation through the WTO dispute settlement system, respectively if and at what point this constitutes judicial activism that disregards the authorisation in the Dispute Settlement Understanding, cf. Peng (2014), pp. 1208-1220. See however also the more critical reference in Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/R, 12 August 2009, fn. 703: “This view was not, however, unanimous […]”. Indeed, in fn. 705 the Panel further adds that “The reference by that panel to the principle of technological neutrality was not referred to by the Appellate Body in its report on the subsequent appeal in that case [US-Gambling]”.

267

See Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004; Appellate Body Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/AB/R, 20 April 2005.

268

Indeed, some of the major GATS cases relate to data transmissions, see beside the US-Gambling case Panel Report, Mexico – Telecoms, WT/DS204/R, 2 April 2004; Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/R, 12 August 2009; Appellate Body Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, 21 December 2009; Panel Report, China — Electronic Payment Services, WT/DS413/R, 16 July 2012.

269

Wunsch-Vincent (2006), p. 323.

270

See for the latter in particular Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004, para. 6.285, which reads “The Panel concludes that mode 1 under the GATS encompasses all possible means of supplying services from the territory of one WTO Member into the territory of another WTO Member.”. This interpretation was relied upon in Appellate Body Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, 21 December 2009, para. 364.

271

Meltzer (2019a), p. 25. This in turn indicates that a complete ban on cross-border data flows by means of measures of so-called data localisation effectively constitutes a “zero quota” and is incompatible with obligations under the GATS unless restrictions are listed, see also Tuthill (2017), pp. 101–102. See further in this context infra Sect. 3.3.2.6.4. See also with regard to the scheduling of “products” entailing tangible and intangible goods and services Appellate Body Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, 21 December 2009, para. 364 with reference to Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/R, 12 August 2009, para. 7.1188.

272

Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004, para. 6.285: “We note that this is in line with the principle of “technological neutrality”, which seems to be largely shared among WTO”; Sen (2018), p. 331; Tuthill (2017), pp. 97–98; Wunsch-Vincent (2006), pp. 329–334. See further Chander (2012), pp. 19–22, who also advocates technological neutrality with regard to regulatory standards in connection with Mode 1, which he considers appropriate, if “the online service is required to achieve the regulatory goals at rates roughly equivalent to those achieved by online versions of the service.”.

273

Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004, para. 6.285.

274

See Wunsch-Vincent (2006), pp. 324–327. Yet, the WTO Panel in the China-Electronic Payments case held that the delivery of electronic payment services was subject to Mode 3 in addition to Mode 1, cf. Panel Report, China – Electronic Payments, WT/DS413/R, 16 July 2012, para. 7.575. See in this context also Tuthill and Roy (2012), pp. 159–160; Willemyns (2021), pp. 101–103.

275

Chander (2012), p. 29.

276

In fact, at the time of the finalisation of the Uruguay Round, Mode 1 commitments for cross-border supply were considered not feasible in many sectors and therefore rather irrelevant, see with further references Peng (2014), p. 1193.

277

See generally Tuthill and Roy (2012); Weber and Burri (2014); Willemyns (2021), pp. 117–177.

278

Cf. GATT Secretariat (1991).

279

See further Burri (2017b), p. 83; Meltzer (2019a), p. 38; Sen (2018), p. 332; Tuthill and Roy (2012), pp. 160–176. See with regard to AI applications in health services Chander (2021), pp. 122–125.

280

Adlung (2014), p. 372.

281

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1090; Sen (2018), p. 333–334; Weber and Burri (2014), p. 91.

282

See further Kelsey (2018), pp. 287–288; Meltzer (2019a), pp. 39–40; Mitchell and Hepburn (2018), pp. 197–198; IMF et al. (2019), p. 10.

283

See for an in-depth discussion Willemyns (2021), pp. 117–177.

284

Cf. Appellate Body Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/AB/R, 20 April 2005, para. 180.

285

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1090; Sen (2018), p. 334; Zhang (2015), pp. 11–14.

286

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1090; Sen (2018), p. 333–334; Tuthill and Roy (2012), pp. 157–160; Zhang (2015), pp. 14–17.

287

Tuthill (2017), p. 101.

288

Meltzer (2019a), p. 39 ascribes to the EU and the US the opinion that it is indeed the intrinsic nature of a service that matters and that therefore the occurrence of genuinely new services is rare. In the context, he points to Annex 9.B of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) - Understanding on new services not classified in the United Nations provisional central product classification (CPC). According to para. 1: “The Parties agree that Chapter Twelve (Domestic Regulation) and Articles 9.3, 9.5, and 9.6 do not apply to a measure relating to a new service that cannot be classified in the CPC 1991.”. See also Zhang (2015), pp. 8–19, who addresses the residual category “other” of the (W/120) classification list and considers it to be of little use in trade negotiations, as it is widely unclear what this category encompasses.

289

Tuthill and Roy (2012), p. 159; Weber (2010), p. 8. See on remedies in recent PTAs infra Sect. 3.4.1.

290

See also Crosby (2016), p. 4; Willemyns (2021), pp. 118–126.

291

Appellate Body Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, 21 December 2009, paras. 396–397.

292

These obligations, in turn, are subject to derogations for the sake of privacy and confidentiality: “Nothing in this paragraph restricts the right of a Member to protect personal data, personal privacy and the confidentiality of individual records and accounts so long as such right is not used to circumvent the provisions of the Agreement”, cf. WTO, Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, B. 3 c, 8; and “Member may take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade in services”, cf. Annex on Telecommunications, 5(d). In this context, see further for the general exception of Article XIV(c)(ii) GATS for data privacy infra Sect. 5.2.2.2.

293

Willemyns (2020a), pp. 121. In this respect Ines Willemyns demonstrates that recent PTAs address a number of such barriers Willemyns (2020a), pp. 131.

294

Panel Report, Mexico – Telecoms, WT/DS204/R, 2 April 2004, para. 7.45. See also WTO (2001e), para. 26.

295

Crosby (2016), p. 3.

296

Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004, paras. 6.363, 6.367, 6.370; cf. further Appellate Body Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/AB/R, 20 April 2005, para. 265. See on the relationship between market access and domestic regulations in this regard Wunsch-Vincent (2006), pp. 338–339.

297

Appellate Body Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/AB/R, 20 April 2005, paras. 241 and 251.

298

See only Burri (2017b), pp. 95–96; Mitchell and Hepburn (2018), pp. 200–201.

299

Panel Report, China – Electronic Payment Services, WT/DS413/R, 16 July 2012, para. 7.179.

300

Crosby (2016), p. 4.

301

See also Burri (2017b), pp. 93-94; Burri (2017a), pp. 3–6. It should not be overlooked, however, that WTO law is subject to considerable challenges in view of the multipolar power relations of the twenty-first century, see further Weiß et al. (2022), pp. 1–7.

302

Burri (2017b), p. 76; Meltzer (2019a), p. 42. Indeed, the GATS contains competition-related safeguards in Article VIII and IX, as well as in the Annex on Telecommunications and the Reference Paper on Regulatory Principles for Basic Telecommunications, see Tuthill (2017), pp. 109–113.

303

See for the latter, for example, WTO (2013b); WTO (2013c). See also supra Sect. 3.3.1.1.

304

See for example Aaronson and Leblond (2018), p. 251; Burri (2017b), pp. 129–132.

305

See only Mitchell and Mishra (2018).

306

Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), p. 180.

307

Furthermore, the authors have evaluated the performance of the WTO regulatory framework versus solutions in PTAs on digital trade with regard to issues raised in the WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, see Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 186–187.

308

Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), p. 181. See further the reports of the Council for Trade in Services WTO (1999e); the Council for Trade in Goods WTO (1999f); the Council for TRIPs WTO (1999c) and the Committee for Trade and Development WTO (1998e).

309

Cf. Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1093.

310

See also Mitchell and Hepburn (2018), pp. 206–207.

311

See for example the G20 Osaka Leaders Declaration of 2019 which states: “International trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development. We reaffirm our support for the necessary reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to improve its functions.”, G20 (2019), p. 2 para. 8.

312

Baldwin (2014), pp. 644–654. See for a historical background WTO (2011a), pp. 46–92.

313

Bhagwati (1995). The notion is frequently associated with the portrayal of an emerging regionalism in trade whose deviations from multilateral principles of non-discrimination are at odds with the advancement of a multilateral trade order. See for a balanced review of the debate Baldwin (2014), pp. 639–642. and for extensive collection of further references Herrmann (2008), p. 263, fn. 2. The mutual influence of WTO law and regional trade agreements is, however, a multifaceted issue, see Allee et al. (2017); Cottier (2015); Panezi (2016).

314

Kim (2015), pp. 367–368.

315

Following the US approach of negotiating bilateral agreements, the EU in particular has begun to enter into an increasing number of trade agreements since the mid-2000s. See for example European Commission (2006), pp. 8–10. See with regard specifically to digital trade Wunsch-Vincent (2003).

316

Weiß (2014), pp. 149–152.

317

See with further references Kim (2015), pp. 361–366.

318

See Horn et al. (2009), pp. 24–29.

319

See for a detailed discussion Kim (2015), pp. 363–365.

320

Bown (2017); Stoll (2017).

321

See Kingsbury et al. (2019).

322

See with regard to “deep” digital trade rules in PTAs Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 204–211.

323

In addition to the following observations, reference is made to the chronological development of the chapters on “e-commerce” previously addressed above, see supra Sect. 3.2.2.1.

324

Herman (2010), p. 11; Weber (2010), p. 15. See also in this sense Burri (2017d), p. 408.

325

Herman (2010), p. 6; Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 192–193.

326

Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), p. 193.

327

Burri (2021b), p. 33; Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1098–1103.

328

Willemyns (2020b), pp. 223–224.

329

Cf. Chapter 14 of the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and Singapore, emphasising in a preamble: “The Parties recognise the economic growth and opportunities provided by electronic commerce, the importance of avoiding barriers to its use and development and the applicability of relevant WTO rules.”. See also Wu (2017), p. 6. The heterogeneous terminology found in agreements, official texts and scholarly contributions complicates the discussion of this topic. Indeed, the majority of agreements in force today employ the terminology of electronic commerce. Nevertheless, the following refers primarily to the umbrella term „digital trade“, to identify rules that relate to various aspects of e-commerce on the one hand but also to specific data-related content on the other, see supra Sect. 3.2.3.

330

Monteiro and Teh (2017), p. 6.

331

Willemyns (2020b), p. 224.

332

See for example Willemyns (2020b). Cf. in general with regard to data driven research in this particular field Alschner et al. (2017).

333

See Burri and Polanco (2020), who claim: “dataset includes a detailed mapping and coding of all preferential trade agreements (PTAs) that cover chapters, provisions, annexes and side documents that directly or indirectly regulate digital trade.”.

334

See for example Burri (2017a), pp. 7–11; Burri (2017d), pp. 418–430; Herman (2010); Monteiro and Teh (2017); Willemyns (2020b); Wu (2017); Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 192–215.

335

Burri (2017b), pp. 99–110; Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 189; López González and Ferencz (2018), p. 16; Monteiro and Teh (2017), p. 13–14.

336

Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 195.

337

Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 195.

338

Notably, chapters on the protection of IPR will not be addressed. See for an assessment of their role in the development of a regulatory environment for digital trade Burri (2017b), p. 105; Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 211–215.

339

See for example Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 193; Monteiro and Teh (2017), p. 71.

340

Burri (2017d), pp. 419–420; Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 197–203.

341

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 197–198; Wu (2017), p. 11.

342

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 200–203; Weber (2010), p. 14; Wu (2017), p. 10. This requires that the term “digital product” is introduced and defined, which is the case in most agreements with US participation and also with regard to several other countries that have adopted this treaty language—the EU in particular does not define digital product, see Willemyns (2020a), pp. 128–129.

343

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 198–200; Wu (2017), pp. 11–13.

344

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 203–211.

345

Wu (2017), pp. 19–22.

346

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 207–211; Wu (2017), pp. 14–19.

347

Willemyns (2020b), p. 225; Wu (2017), p. 9.

348

Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 192; Herman (2010), p. 14.

349

See only Burri (2017d), p. 419.

350

Wu (2017), p. 13.

351

Weber (2010), p. 14. This is particularly true for those agreements to which the US is a party, cf. Burri (2017b), p. 103.

352

Burri (2021d), p. 7.

353

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 211–220; Elsig and Klotz (2018); Willemyns (2020b), pp. 225–226.

354

Burri (2021b), p. 25; Willemyns (2020b), p. 225.

355

Burri (2021c), p. 68.

356

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 211–212. As early as 2000, the Jordan-US Free Trade Agreement, the Joint Declaration on Electronic Commerce stated under II. Policy Issues “Content should be transmitted freely across national borders in response to a user’s request. Trade barriers to the free flow of content do not exist today and should not be created in the future.” Another example is provided by the South Korea – US FTA (KORUS) which in its financial services chapter Annex 13B Section B provides for “Each Party shall allow a financial institution of the other Party to transfer information in electronic or other form, into and out of its territory, for data processing where such processing is required in the institution’s ordinary course of business”.

357

Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 212–214. However, a number of signatories seek to mitigate the uncertainty of the emerging services environment and exclude “new services” from the scope of the respective agreement, often with a view to the financial sector, see Zhang (2015), pp. 16–17.

358

Willemyns (2020b), p. 225, cf. also fn. 18. In this context, the terms “data transfer” or “data flow” are currently found in ten PTAs of the dataset used; all ten of these PTAs contain rules on data localization and six contain rules on source code transfer.

359

Burri (2021b), p. 25; Willemyns (2020b), p. 225.

360

Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 212.

361

Examples taken from Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 212–213, which also illustrate an intermediate type between “hard” and “soft” provisions, exemplified by Article 15.8 on “Cross-border Information flows” of the 2007 South Korea–US FTA (KORUS), which reads “Recognizing the importance of the free flow of information in facilitating trade, and acknowledging the importance of protecting personal information, the Parties shall endeavour to refrain from imposing or maintaining unnecessary barriers to electronic information flows across borders.”.

362

Burri and Polanco (2020), pp. 212–213.

363

For example, the data set that Mira Burri and Rodrigo Polanco have gathered illustrates that 59% of the PTAs with digital trade provisions are negotiated between developed and developing countries and 36% between developing countries, while only 5% are negotiated between developed countries, Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 194.

364

Cf. for a tripartite comparison Aaronson and Leblond (2018), pp. 253–268; Willemyns (2020b), p. 227. See also Aaronson (2021), p. 349; Burri (2017b), pp. 99–110; Gao (2018); Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 192-215.

365

See with further references Burri (2017b), pp. 99–110; Yakovleva (2020), p. 487. See further with regard to the so-called “Digital Agenda” of the US Wunsch-Vincent (2003).

366

Aaronson (2015), pp. 680–689. See further WTO (2018d), p. 2, para. 2.

367

Burri (2021c), p. 70; Yakovleva (2020), pp. 487–490.

368

Office of the United States Trade Representative (2016). See also Streinz (2019), pp. 312–314.

369

Burri (2021c), p. 70.

370

See further Burri (2017b), pp. 110–119; Burri (2021b), pp. 34–37.

371

See Chander (2018).

372

Burri (2021b), pp. 37–40; Meltzer (2019b), p. 252.

373

In contrast to the CPTPP, the USMCA further develops the approach towards digital trade governance in that it contains specific regulations on Interactive Computer Services (Article 19.17 USMCA) and Open Government Data (Article 19.18 USMCA), for example.

374

Cf. USMCA, Article 19.11 (2) fn. 5 „A measure does not meet the conditions of this paragraph if it accords different treatment to data transfers solely on the basis that they are cross-border in a manner that modifies the conditions of competition to the detriment of service suppliers of another Party.“.

375

See further Burri (2021b), pp. 39–40.

376

Cf. U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement, Article 11 and Article 12.

377

Burri (2021c), p. 73. See for example Chapter 16 of the recent EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) “Electronic Commerce” which in Article 16.2 states: “This Chapter does not impose an obligation on a Party to allow a delivery transmitted by electronic means except in accordance with the Party’s obligations under another provision of this Agreement.“. See however for an account of other provisions in the EU’s trade agreements related to data flows Naef (2023), pp. 368–373; Willemyns (2020b), p. 237.

378

Article 8.81 of the EPA, titled „Free flow of data“states: „The Parties shall reassess within three years of the date of entry into force of this Agreement the need for inclusion of provisions on the free flow of data into this Agreement.“.

379

Cf. European Council (2022), para. 12. Moreover, in the same statement, the parties have launched the EU-Japan Digital Partnership “in order to advance cooperation on a wide range of digital issues to foster economic growth and achieve a sustainable society through an inclusive, sustainable, human-centric digital transformation based on our common values.” (cf. para. 10).

380

European Commission (2018). See for an analysis Naef (2023), pp. 406–413.

381

In turn, Article 201 Sec. 2 TCA stipulates that “The Parties shall keep the implementation of this provision under review and assess its functioning within three years of the date of entry into force of this Agreement“.

382

See further infra, Sect. 5.3.2.1. See also Burri (2021c), pp. 69–82.

383

Huang (2017), pp. 316–319.

384

Gao (2020), pp. 15–16.

385

Cf. Gao (2018), pp. 315–320. Henry Gao’s analysis supports the proposition that the terminology of e-commerce is used to describe aspects of electronically facilitated forms of traditional cross-border activity (particularly trade in goods), while the term digital trade instead specifically addresses the data-related dimensions of trade in the digital economy, see also supra Sect. 3.2.2.

386

Huang (2017), pp. 323–331.

387

Willemyns (2020b), p. 238.

388

See Kelsey (2020).

389

Burri and Polanco (2020), p. 189.

390

Aaronson and Leblond (2018); Willemyns (2020b), p. 227.

391

Willemyns (2020b), pp. 227–228.

392

Herman (2010); Kim (2015), pp. 369–370.

393

See for example WTO (2018a), pp. 11–13; Primo Braga (2010), pp. 462–470; van der Marel (2019).

394

See in particular Drake (2016), pp. 4–9, who retraces parts of this discussion to the beginning of international telegraphy. See also Aaronson (2015), pp. 680–685; Tietje (2012)

395

See for example Goldsmith and Wu (2006), pp. 154–161; Burri (2021c), p. 40; Chander (2012), pp. 26–32.

396

See for example Noonan and Plekhanova (2020).

397

Goldfarb and Trefler (2018);Burri (2021a); Peng et al. (2021a). See also with regard to the EU trade discipline on source code, Irion (2021).

398

See generally Burri (2017), p. 413; Mitchell and Mishra (2021), pp. 86–92.

399

An example in this sense is the ITA, see supra Sect. 3.3.2.2.

400

Streinz (2021b).

401

See for example European Parliament (2017); Office of the United States Trade Representative (2016); this is also reflected in the developments in the WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, see supra Sect. 3.3.1.1.

402

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1081–1088.

403

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1084.

404

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1084.

405

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1085.

406

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1085–1086.

407

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1085–1086.

408

See for example Belli (2016); Burri (2016b); Maciel (2016); Mishra (2017), Mishra (2019a).

409

La Chapelle and Fehlinger (2016); Mishra (2019a), pp. 477–506.

410

Belli (2016); Watson (2018). In this context, the EU’s proposal to the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce provides: “Subject to applicable policies, laws and regulations, Members should maintain or adopt appropriate measures to ensure that end- users in their territory are able to access, distribute and use services and applications of their choice available on the Internet, subject to reasonable and non-discriminatory network management.”, WTO (2019c), p. 4, para. 2.9. In similar vein, the US proposal reads: “A free and open Internet enables users to take advantage of a wealth of information and services anywhere in the world. Trade rules, including rules ensuring access to networks, can ensure that governments do not arbitrarily block or filter online content, nor require Internet intermediaries to do so.”, WTO (2018d), p. 2, para. 2.

411

OECD (2008).

412

World Bank Group (2016), p. 293.

413

Bygrave (2015), pp. 10–18.

414

See for example ITU (2005).

415

See for example UN (2012) See further regarding the human rights context infra Sect. 4.4.1.2.1.

416

World Bank Group (2016), p. 293. See further Hubbard and Bygrave (2009).

417

Recently, the EU has been addressing this subject in more detail and has formulated a strategic approach, cf. for example Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on European data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act).

418

See for example the EU Commission’s definition of data governance in relation to the work of the Commission itself. In this context, it “entails defining, implementing and monitoring strategies, policies and shared decision-making over the management and use of data assets. It is performed by Commission staff with established data-related roles.”, European Commission (2020).

419

See in this context OECD (2019a), p. 23: “Data governance is no longer a matter limited to organisational boundaries, but a multinational concern resulting from cross-border data sharing.”. See also Burri (2017b), pp. 68–69.

420

Streinz (2019), p. 329. See with regard to “transnational data governance” further Erie and Streinz (2021), pp. 11–14.

421

Cf. Aaronson (2021); Aaronson and Leblond (2018), p. 250. It is argued, for example, that “data governance” is in fact “AI governance” Peng et al. (2021b), p. 15.

422

Aaronson and Maxim (2013); Cory and Dascoli (2021); WTO (2018a), p. 11.

423

Cory and Dascoli (2021), pp. 10–17; van der Marel et al. 2014, p. 13. See also supra Sect. 2.3.1.3.

424

See for example Azmeh and Foster (2016), pp. 3–5; Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 396–397.

425

Chander and Lê (2015); Meltzer (2019b), pp. 247–250.

426

Mishra (2019b), 347; Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 392–397.

427

Burri (2017c), p. 12; Burri (2017b), pp. 68–69; Chander (2012), p. 39; Meltzer (2016), p. 13.

428

Cory and Dascoli (2021), pp. 18–20.

429

IEEE Standards Board (1990), p. 42.

430

van der Veer and Wiles (2008), pp. 5–6. See for a similar yet distinct interpretation of the layers of interoperability Cory and Dascoli (2021), p. 19.

431

van der Veer and Wiles (2008), pp. 5–6.

432

Baird (2009), pp. 223–224.

433

Gasser and Palfrey (2012), p. 125.

434

Ahmed (2019), pp. 104–110.

435

Gasser and Palfrey (2012), pp. 126–127, p. 139.

436

Gasser and Palfrey (2012), p. 132. See also for regulatory interoperability Cory and Dascoli (2021), pp. 19–20.

437

See for example with regard to the interoperability of data models and processes to further the cross-border exchange of trade documents and information WTO/WEF (2022), pp. 48–51.

438

Polanco and Sauvé (2018), p. 581. See for further concepts in this context Weiß (2020), p. 286.

439

Zheng (2020), pp. 553–557.

440

Wu (2006), p. 264.

441

See on the debate on technology neutrality among WTO Members in relation to GATS supra Sect. 3.3.2.6.2.

442

Svantesson (2011), p. 195.

443

Aaronson and Leblond (2018), p. 251; Sen (2018), p. 331. A limited exception are the provisions on cross-border information flows contained in the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services and the Annex on Telecommunications, see supra Sect. 3.3.2.6.4.

444

Burri (2017a), pp. 12–17.

445

Bacchetta et al. (1998), p. 64.

446

Streinz (2021a).

447

See Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1107 with regard to the TPP agreement.

448

Herman (2010), p. 11.

449

See Elsig and Klotz (2020). See for this influence of WTO in general Allee et al. (2017); Cottier (2015).

450

Aaronson and Leblond (2018).

451

Generally, the provisions of the trade agreements tend stimulate multilateral discussion, see for example Herman (2010).

452

Burri (2017b), pp. 126–132.

453

Leblond (2020).

454

Cottier (1996), p. 427.

455

Kelsey (2018), p. 295.

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 (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 (2021) Data is different, so policymakers should pay close attention to its governance. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 340–360CrossRef

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

Abendin S, Duan P (2021) Global E-commerce talks at the WTO: positions on selected issues of the United States, European Union, China, and Japan. World Trade Rev 20(5):707–724. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745621000094CrossRef

Adlung R (2006) Services negotiations in the Doha round: lost in flexibility? J Int Econ Law 9(4):865–893. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgl027CrossRef

Adlung R (2014) Trade in services in the WTO: from Marrakesh (1994), to Doha (2001), to… (?). In: Narlikar A, Daunton MJ, Stern RM (eds) The Oxford handbook on the World Trade Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 370–391

Adlung R, Mattoo A (2010) The GATS. In: Mattoo A, Stern RM, Zanini G (eds) A handbook of international trade in services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 48–82

Ahmed U (2019) The importance of cross-border regulatory cooperation in an era of digital trade. World Trade Rev 18(1):99–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745618000514CrossRef

Allee T, Elsig M, Lugg A (2017) The ties between the World Trade Organization and preferential trade agreements: a textual analysis. J Int Econ Law 20(2):333–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgx009CrossRef

Alschner W, Pauwelyn J, Puig S (2017) The data-driven future of international economic law. J Int Econ Law 20(2):217–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgx020CrossRef

APEC (1998) Blueprint for action on electronic commerce. https://www.apec.org/meeting-papers/leaders-declarations/1998/1998_aelm/apec_blueprint_for. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Azmeh S, Foster C (2016) The TPP and the digital trade agenda: digital industrial policy and Silicon Valley’s influence on new trade agreements. LSE International Development Working Paper Series 2016 No. 16-175

Bacchetta M, Low P, Mattoo A, Schuknecht L, Wager H, Wehrens M (1998) Electronic commerce and the role of the WTO. Special studies / World Trade Organization, Geneva. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/107052. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Baird SA (2009) Government role and the interoperability ecosystem. SSRN version. J Law Policy Inf Soc 5(2):219–290

Baker SA, Lichtenbaum P, Shenk MD, Yeo MS (2001) E-products and the WTO. Int Lawyer 35:5–21

Baldwin RE (2014) Preferential trading arrangements. In: Narlikar A, Daunton MJ, Stern RM (eds) The Oxford handbook on the World Trade Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 632–650

Bantjes M (2008) The petabyte age: because more Isn’t just more - more is different. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-intro/. Accessed 5 Apr Nov 2024

Belli L (2016) The Quiet Rapprochement of Internet Governance and Trade Policy. https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/quiet-rapprochement-internet-governance-and-trade-policy. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Bhagwati J (1995) US trade policy: the infatuation with FTAs. In: Bhagwati JN, Krueger AO (eds) The dangerous drift to preferential trade agreements. AEI special studies in policy reform. AEI Press, Washington, DC

Bown CP (2017) Mega-regional trade agreements and the future of the WTO. Global Pol 8(1):107–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12391CrossRef

Burri M (2015) The international economic law framework for digital trade. Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 135(2):10–72

Burri M (2016a) Designing future-oriented multilateral rules for digital trade. In: Sauvé P, Roy M (eds) Research handbook on trade in services. Research handbooks on the WTO series. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 331–356

Burri M (2016b) The World Trade Organization as an actor in global internet governance. SSRN manuscript. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2792219. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Burri M (2017a) New legal design for digital commerce in free trade agreements. Digiworld Econ J 107:1–21

Burri M (2017b) The governance of data and data flows in trade agreements: the pitfalls of legal adaptation. UC Davis Law Rev 51:65–132

Burri M (2017c) 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 (2017d) The regulation of data flows through trade agreements. Georgetown J Int Law 48:407–448

Burri M (ed) (2021a) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Burri M (2021b) Data flows and global trade law. In: Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, pp 11–41

Burri M (2021c) Interfacing privacy and trade. Case Western Reserv J Int Law 53:35–88

Burri M (2021d) A WTO Agreement on Electronic Commerce: An Enquiry Into Its Legal Substance and Viability. Trade Law 4.0 Working Paper No 1, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3976133. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Burri M, Cottier T (2012a) Introduction: digital technologies and international trade regulation. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–14CrossRef

Burri M, Cottier T (eds) (2012b) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Burri M, Polanco R (2020) Digital trade provisions in preferential trade agreements: introducing a new dataset. J Int Econ Law 23(1):187–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz044CrossRef

Bygrave LA (2015) Internet governance by contract. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

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

Chander A (2012) Principles for trade 2.0. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–44CrossRef

Chander A (2013) The electronic silk road: how the web binds the world in commerce. Yale University Press, New Haven

Chander A (2018) The Coming North American Digital Trade Zone. https://www.cfr.org/blog/coming-north-american-digital-trade-zone. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Chander A (2021) Artificial intelligence and trade. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 115–127CrossRef

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

Cheng W, Brandi C (2019) Governing digital trade—a new role for the WTO. https://www.idos-research.de/en/briefing-paper/article/governing-digital-trade-a-new-role-for-the-wto/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Ciuriak D, Ptashkina M (2018) The digital transformation and the transformation of international trade. RTA exchange. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Geneva, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3107811

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/

Cottier T (1996) The impact of new technologies on multilateral trade regulation and governance - the new global technology regime. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 72:415–436

Cottier T (2015) The common law of international trade and the future of the World Trade Organization. J Int Econ Law 18(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgv005CrossRef

Council of the EU (2019) Council decision supplementing the negotiating directives for the Doha Development Agenda regarding the plurilateral negotiations of rules and commitments on electronic commerce, 8993/19, 21 May 2019

Crosby D (2016) Analysis of data localization measures under WTO services trade rules and commitments. The E15 Initiative Policy Brief

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

Drake WJ, Kalypso N (1992) Ideas, interests, and institutionalization: “trade in services” and the Uruguay round. Int Organ 46(1):37–100CrossRef

Dupont C, Elsig M (2014) Persistent deadlock in multilateral trade negotiations: the case of Doha. In: Narlikar A, Daunton MJ, Stern RM (eds) The Oxford handbook on the World Trade Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 587–603

Elsig M, Klotz S (2018) Data flow-related provisions in preferential trade agreements. WTI Working Paper No. 03/2018

Elsig M, Klotz S (2020) Digital trade rules in preferential trade agreements: Is there a WTO impact? WTI Working Paper No. 04/2020

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

European Commission (1997) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, “A European Initiative in Electronic Commerce”. COM(97) 157 final

European Commission (2006) Communication from the European Commission: Global Europe: Competing in the World. COM(2006) 567 final

European Commission (2015) Trade for all: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2781/472505

European Commission (2016) The expansion of the Information Technology Agreement: an economic assessment, Luxembourg

European Commission (2018) Horizontal provisions for cross-border data flows and for personal data protection. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/items/627665 Accessed 5 Apr 2024

European Commission (2020) Data governance and data policies at the European Commission. Secretariat-General. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/data-governance-and-data-policies-european-commission_en. Accessed 5 Apr 2024 Nov 2022

European Commission (2021) Communication from the European Commission: Trade Policy Review - An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy. COM(2021) 66 final

European Commission (2024) Digital Trade. Homepage of the EU Commission. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/help-exporters-and-importers/accessing-markets/goods-and-services/digital-trade_en. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

European Council (2022) Joint Statement EU-Japan Summit 2022, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/05/12/joint-statement-eu-japan-summit-2022/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

European Parliament (2017) Towards a digital trade strategy. 2017/2065(INI)

Farrokhnia F, Richards C (2016) E-commerce products under the World Trade Organization agreements: goods, services, both or neither? J World Trade 50(5):793–817

Fefer RF (2020) Internet Regimes and WTO E-Commerce Negotiations. Congressional Research Service R46198. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46198/1. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Fortanier F (2017) Measuring Digital Trade: Framework and next steps. https://unctad.org/meetings/en/Presentation/dtl_eWeek2017p22_FabienneFortanier_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

G20 (2016) Leaders’ Communique Hangzhou Summit. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/09/05/g20-leaders-communique/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

G20 (2017) Ministerial Declaration G20 Digital Economy Ministerial Conference. Ministerial Declaration: Shaping Digitalisation for an Interconnected World. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2017/g20-digital-economy-ministerial-declaration-english-version.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

G20 (2018) Leaders’ declaration: Building consensus for fair and sustainable development. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/37247/buenos_aires_leaders_declaration.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

G20 (2019) Osaka Leaders’ Declaration. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/40124/final_g20_osaka_leaders_declaration.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Gagliani G (2020) Cybersecurity, technological neutrality, and international trade law. J Int Econ Law 23(3):723–745. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaa006CrossRef

Gao H (2017) The regulation of digital trade in the TPP: trade rules for the digital age. In: Chaisse J, Gao H, Lo C-F (eds) Paradigm shift in international economic law rule-making: TPP as a new model for trade agreements? Economics, law, and institutions in Asia Pacific Ser. Springer, Singapore

Gao H (2018) Digital or trade? The contrasting approaches of China and US to digital trade. J Int Econ Law 21(2):297–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy015CrossRef

Gao HS (2020) Across the great wall: E-commerce joint statement initiative negotiation and China. SSRN Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3695382

Gasser U, Palfrey J (2012) Fostering innovation and trade in the global information society. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–154CrossRef

GATT Secretariat (1991) Services Sectoral Classification List. Doc.MTN.GNS/W/120. 10 July 1991

Goldfarb A, Trefler D (2018) AI and International Trade. NBER Working Paper Series. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24254/w24254.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Goldsmith JL, Wu T (2006) Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef

González JL, Ferencz J (2018) Digital trade and market openness. OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 217. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/1bd89c9a-en

Hart M, Chaitoo R (1999) Electronic commerce and international trade rules. J World Intell Prop 2(6):911–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.1999.tb00099.xCrossRef

Herman L (2010) Multilateralising regionalism: the case of E-commerce. OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 99, Paris. https://one.oecd.org/document/TAD/TC/WP(2009)42/FINAL/en/pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Herrmann C (2008) Bilateral and regional trade agreements as a challenge to the multilateral trading system. Außenwirtschaft 63(3):263–286

Hofheinz P, Mandel M (2015) Uncovering the hidden value of digital trade: towards a 21st century Agenda of transatlantic prosperity. Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015.07-Mandel-Hofeinz-Uncovering-the-Value-of-Digital-Trade_Towards-a-21st-Century-Agenda-of-Transatlantic-Prosperity.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Horn H, Mavroidis PC, Sapir A (2009) Beyond the WTO?: An anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements. Bruegel Blueprint Series, Vol. 7. Bruegel, Brussels

Huang J (2017) Comparison of E-commerce regulations in Chinese and American FTAs: converging approaches, diverging contents, and polycentric directions? NLR 64(2):309–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-017-0094-1CrossRef

Hubbard A, Bygrave LA (2009) Internet governance goes global. In: Bygrave LA, Bing J (eds) Internet governance: Infrastructure and Institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 213–235CrossRef

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

ICC (2016) Trade in the digital economy: a primer on global data flows for policymakers. https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/trade-in-the-digital-economy-a-primer-on-global-data-flows-for-policymakers/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

IEEE Standards Board (1990) IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology, IEEE Std 610.12-1990, New York, NY

IMF, WTO, OECD (2019) Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade, First Edition. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/its/Handbook-on-Measuring-Digital-Trade-Version-1.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

IMF, WTO, UNCTAD, OECD (2023) Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade, Second Edition, OECD Publishing, Paris/International Monetary Fund, UNCTAD, Geneva/WTO, Geneva, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac99e6d3-en

IPKey (2018) Translation of the E-Commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China https://ipkey.eu/sites/default/files/documents/resources/PRC_E-Commerce_Law.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Irion K (2021) AI Regulation in the European Union and Trade Law: How can Accountability of AI and a High Level of Consumer Protection Prevail over a Trade Discipline on Source Code. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3786567

Ismail Y (2020) E-commerce in the World Trade Organization: history and latest developments in the negotiations under the Joint Statement. https://www.iisd.org/publications/report/e-commerce-world-trade-organization-history-and-latest-developments. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

ITU (2005) Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev. 1)-E. https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Kelsey J (2018) How a TPP-style E-commerce outcome in the WTO would endanger the development dimension of the GATS Acquis (and potentially the WTO). J Int Econ Law 21(2):273–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy024CrossRef

Kelsey J (2020) Important differences between the final RCEP electronic commerce chapter and the TPPA and lessons for e-commerce in the WTO. https://www.bilaterals.org/?important-differences-between-the. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Kende M, Sen N (2019) Cross Border E Commerce: WTO discussions and multi stakeholder roles stocktaking and practical ways forward. CTEI Working Papers. https://www.graduateinstitute.ch/library/publications-institute/cross-border-e-commerce-wto-discussions-and-multi-stakeholder-roles. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Kim SY (2015) Deep integration and regional trade agreements. In: Martin LL (ed) The Oxford handbook of the political economy of international trade. Oxford University Press, pp 360–376

Kingsbury B, Mertenskötter P, Stewart RB, Streinz T (2019) The trans-pacific partnership as megaregulation. In: Kingsbury B et al (eds) Megaregulation contested. Oxford University Press, pp 27–60CrossRef

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

La Chapelle B, Fehlinger P (2016) Jurisdiction on the Internet: From Legal Arms Race to Transnational Cooperation. Centre for International Governance Innovation and Chatham House. Paper Series No. 28. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/jurisdiction-internet-legal-arms-race-transnational-cooperation/. 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

Leblond P (2020) Digital Trade: is RCEP the WTO’s future? https://www.cigionline.org/articles/digital-trade-rcep-wtos-future/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Lim AH (2021) Trade rules for industry 4.0. In: Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (eds) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: disruption, regulation, and reconfiguration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 97–120CrossRef

López González J, Ferencz J (2018) Digital trade and market openness, OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 217. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/1bd89c9a-en

López González J, Jouanjean M-A (2017) Digital trade: developing a framework for analysis. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 205. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/524c8c83-en

Low P. (2017) Framing future work and negotiations on e-commerce at the WTO. https://rtaexchange.org/blog/view_id_4006/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Luff D (2012) Convergence. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–90CrossRef

Lund S, Manyika J (2016) How digital trade is transforming globalisation. E15 Expert Group on the Digital Economy - Think Piece. https://www.tralac.org/images/docs/8854/how-digital-trade-is-transforming-globalisation-e15-initiative-january-2016.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Maciel M (2016) E-commerce in the WTO: the next arena of Internet policy discussions? https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/e-commerce-wto-next-arena-internet-policy-discussions#_edn3. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Makiyama H-L, Gopalakrishnan BN (2019) The Economic Losses from Ending the WTO Moratorium on Electronic Transmissions. ECIPE Policy Brief No. 3/2019. https://ecipe.org/publications/moratorium/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Mann CL (2000) Electronic commerce in developing countries: issues for domestic policy and WTO negotiations. Working Paper 00-3, Washington, DC

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

Mattoo A, Schuknecht L (2000) Trade policies for electronic commerce. Policy Research Working Paper 2380. The World Bank

Meltzer JP (2015) The internet, cross-border data flows and international trade. Asia Pac Policy Stud 2(1):90–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.60CrossRef

Meltzer JP (2016) Maximizing the opportunities of the internet for international trade. Policy Options Paper. ICTSD and World Economic Forum. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2841913

Meltzer JP (2019a) Governing digital trade. World Trade Rev 18(S1):23–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745618000502CrossRef

Meltzer JP (2019b) The United States-Mexico-Canada agreement: developing trade policy for digital trade. Trade Law Dev 11(2):239–268

Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore (2024) What are Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs). https://www.mti.gov.sg/Trade/Digital-Economy-Agreements. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Mishra N (2017) International trade, internet governance and the shaping of the digital economy. ARTNeT Working Paper Series No. 168

Mishra N (2019a) Building bridges: international trade law, internet governance, and the regulation of data flows. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 52(2):463–509

Mishra N (2019b) 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 (2001) Towards compatibility: the future of electronic commerce within the global trading system. J Int Econ Law 4(4):683–723. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/4.4.683CrossRef

Mitchell AD, Hepburn J (2018) Don’t fence me in: reforming trade and investment law to better facilitate cross-border data transfer. Yale J Law Technol 19(1):182–237

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, Mishra N (2021) WTO law and cross-border data flows. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 83–112CrossRef

Monteiro J-A, Teh R (2017) Provisions on electronic commerce in regional trade agreements. WTO Staff Working Paper, No. ERSD-2017-11, Geneva. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201711_e.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Naef T (2023) Data protection without data protectionism. European Yearbook of International Economic Law. Springer International Publishing, Cham

Noonan C, Plekhanova V (2020) Taxation of digital services under trade agreements. J Int Econ Law 23(4):1015–1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaa031CrossRef

OECD (1960) Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 14 December 1960

OECD (1997a) Dismantling the barriers to global electronic commerce, Turku (Finland): 19-21 November 1997- Conference Report. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 38. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/236647320075

OECD (1997b) Measuring electronic commerce. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 27. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/237203566348

OECD (1998) A Borderless World: Realising the Potential of Global Electronic Commerce: Ottawa Ministerial Conference Conclusions. SG/EC(98)14/FINAL

OECD (1999) Defining and measuring E-Commerce: a status report: working party on indicators for the information society. DSTI/ICCP/IIS(99)4/FINAL

OECD (2008) The Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 147. OECD Publishing, Paris https://doi.org/10.1787/230445718605

OECD (2011) OECD guide to measuring the information society 2011. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264113541-en

OECD (2016) Towards a G20 Initiative on Measuring Digital Trade. http://www.oecd.org/g20/summits/hamburg/Towards-a-G20-Initiative-on-Measuring-Digital-Trade.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

OECD (2017) Measuring Digital Trade: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Trade in Services Statistics, STD/CSSP/WPTGS(2017)3

OECD (2019a) The path to becoming a data-driven public sector. OECD Digital Government Studies. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en

OECD (2019b) Unpacking E-commerce: business models, trends and policies. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/23561431-en

OECD (2019c) Measuring the digital transformation. A roadmap for the future. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311992-en

OECD, IMF (2017) Measuring digital trade: results of OECD/IMF stocktaking survey. BOPCOM - 17/07, Paris, France. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2017/pdf/17-07.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

OECD, IMF (2018) Towards a handbook on measuring digital trade: status update. BOPCOM - 18/07, Washington D.C. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2018/pdf/18-07.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Office of the United States Trade Representative (2016) The Digital 2 Dozen. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Digital-2-Dozen-Final.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Panezi M (2016) The WTO and the Spaghetti Bowl of Free Trade Agreements. Four Proposals for moving forward. CIGI Policy Brief, No. 87, 2016

Peng S (2007) Trade in telecommunications services: Doha and beyond. J World Trade 41(2):293–317. https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2007012CrossRef

Peng S (2014) Regulating new services through litigation? Electronic commerce as a case study on the evaluation of “judicial activism” in the WTO. J World Trade 48(6):1189–1222CrossRef

Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (eds) (2021a) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: disruption, regulation, and reconfiguration. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (2021b) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: a research and policy agenda. In: Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (eds) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: disruption, regulation, and reconfiguration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–26CrossRef

Polanco R, Sauvé P (2018) The treatment of regulatory convergence in preferential trade agreements. World Trade Rev 17(4):575–607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745617000519CrossRef

Primo Braga CA (2010) E-commerce regulation: new game, new rules? In: Mattoo A, Stern RM, Zanini G (eds) A handbook of international trade in services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 459–479

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy021

Stoll P-T (2017) Mega-regionals: challenges, opportunities and research questions. In: Rensmann T (ed) Mega-regional trade agreements. Springer, Cham, pp 3–24CrossRef

Streinz T (2019) Digital megaregulation uncontested? TPP’s model for the global digital economy. In: Kingsbury B et al (eds) Megaregulation contested. Oxford University Press, pp 312–342CrossRef

Streinz T (2021a) Designing international economic data law. Proc ASIL Annual Meeting 115:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/amp.2021.102CrossRef

Streinz T (2021b) International economic law’s regulation of data as a resource for the artificial intelligence economy. In: Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (eds) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: disruption, regulation, and reconfiguration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 175–192CrossRef

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

Taubman A (2012) TRIPS encounters the internet. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 299–322CrossRef

Tietje C (2012) Global information law. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–62CrossRef

Titievskaia J (2020) WTO e-commerce negotiations: European Parliament Think Tank. At a glance. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2020/659263/EPRS_ATA(2020)659263_EN.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Tuthill L, Roy M (2012) GATS classification issues for information and communication technology services. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 157–178CrossRef

Tuthill LL (2017) Implications of the GATS for digital trade and digital trade barriers in services. Digiworld Econ J 107:95–115

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016) Measuring the value of cross-border data flows. Economics and Statistics Administration and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/measuring_cross_border_data_flows.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UN (2012) Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council 20/ 8, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, A/HRC/RES/20/8

UN Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (2005) Recommendation and guidelines on establishing a single window to enhance the efficient exchange of information between trade and agreement. Recommendation No. 33. https://unece.org/DAM/cefact/recommendations/rec33/rec33_trd352e.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCITRAL (1999) UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment 1996: With additional Article 5 bis as adopted in 1998. United Nations, New York

UNCITRAL (2001) Model law on electronic signatures, 5 July 2001. United Nations, New York

UNCTAD (2015a) Unlocking the potential of e-commerce for developing countries. United Nations Publication, New York. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ier2015_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2015b) International Trade in ICT Services and ICT-enabled Services: Proposed Indicators from the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. Technical Notes on ICT for Development No. 3 TN/UNCTAD/ICT4D/03. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tn_unctad_ict4d03_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2016) In Search of Cross-border E-commerce Trade Data. UNCTAD Technical Notes on ICT for Development No. 6. TN/UNCTAD/ICT4D/06. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tn_unctad_ict4d06_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2017a) Information economy report: digitalization, trade and development. United Nations Publication, New York. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ier2017_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2017b) Rising Product Digitalisation and Losing Trade Competitiveness. UNCTAD/GDS/ECIDC/2017/3. https://unctad.org/publication/rising-product-digitalisation-and-losing-trade-competitiveness. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2019) Digital economy report 2019: Value creation and capture: implications for developing countries, Geneva. https://unctad.org/publication/digital-economy-report-2019. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2024a) Friends for E-Commerce for Development, Mapping e-Trade for All Development Objectives into a WTO Framework for E-Commerce. https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/eweek2018c01FED_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2024b) eTrade for all initiative. https://etradeforall.org/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNESCAP (2016) Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report: Recent Trends and Developments, Bangkok. https://www.unescap.org/publications/asia-pacific-trade-and-investment-report-2016-recent-trends-and-developments. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNESCAP (2018) Embracing the E-commerce Revolution in Asia and the Pacific. https://www.unescap.org/resources/embracing-e-commerce-revolution-asia-and-pacific. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

United States International Trade Commission (2013) Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, Part 1. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_332/2013/digital_trade_us_and_global_economies_part_1.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

United States International Trade Commission (2014) Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, Part 2. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_332/2014/us_international_trade_commission_announces.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

United States International Trade Commission (2017) Global Digital Trade 1: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade Restrictions. Publication Number: 4716; Investigation Number: 332-561. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_332/2017/global_digital_trade_1_market_opportunities_and.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

van den Bossche P, Zdouc W (2022) The law and policy of the World Trade Organization: text, cases, and materials, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

van der Marel E (2019) Old wine in new bottles—how protectionism takes Hold of digital trade. Glob Policy 10(4):737–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12737CrossRef

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

van der Veer H, Wiles A (2008) Achieving Technical Interoperability - the ETSI Approach. European Telecommunications Standards Institute ETSI White Paper No. 3

VanGrasstek C (2013) The history and future of the World Trade Organization. World Trade Organization, GenevaCrossRef

Venkatesh K (2021) E-commerce Related Discourse At The WTO: Brief History And Subsequent Developments. https://www.mondaq.com/india/international-trade-investment/958702/e-commerce-related-discourse-at-the-wto-brief-history-and-subsequent-developments. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Watson B (2018) A role for trade rules in Internet governance. https://www.rstreet.org/2018/01/11/a-role-for-trade-rules-in-internet-governance/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Weber RH (2010) Digital trade in WTO-law - taking stock and looking ahead. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 5(1):1–24

Weber RH (2015) Digital trade and E-commerce: challenges and opportunities of the Asia-Pacific regionalism. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 10(2):321–348

Weber RH, Burri M (2014) Classification of services in the digital economy. Springer, Berlin

Weiß W (2014) Wirtschaftsräume: Freihandelszonen, Zollunionen und Gemeinsame Märkte. In: von der Decken K, Giegerich T (eds) Räume im Völker- und Europarecht. Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel, vol 189. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 145–178

Weiß W (2020) WTO law and domestic regulation: exploring the determinants for the impact of the WTO on domestic regulatory autonomy. Beck International. Beck; Hart; Nomos, München, Oxford, Baden-Baden

Weiß W, Ohler C, Bungenberg M (2022) Welthandelsrecht, 3. Auflage. Studium und Praxis. C.H. Beck, München

Willemyns I (2020a) Addressing digital services in PTAs: only convergence in the 11th hour? In: Hoffmann RT, Krajewski M (eds) Coherence and divergence in services trade law. European yearbook of international economic law. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46955-9_6CrossRef

Willemyns I (2020b) 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

Willemyns I (2021) Digital services in international trade law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

WIPO (2008) Intellectual property handbook. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva

Wolfe R (2018) Learning about digital trade: privacy and E-Commerce in CETA and TPP. EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2018/27. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/55144. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

World Bank Group (2016) World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

World Bank Group (2017) Doing Business 2017: Equal Opportunity for All. https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/reports/global-reports/doing-business-2017. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

World Economic Forum (2022) Digital economy agreements are a new frontier for trade—here’s why. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/digital-economy-agreements-trade/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO (1995) Second Protocol to the GATS, S/L/11, 24 July 1995

WTO (1996a). Fourth Protocol to the GATS, S/L/20, 30 April 1996

WTO (1996b) Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products, WT/MIN(96)/16, 13 December 1996

WTO (1997) Fifth Protocol to the GATS, S/L/45, 3 December 1997

WTO (1998a) Ministerial Conference, Declaration on Global E-Commerce WT/MIN(98)/DEC/2, 20 May 1998

WTO (1998b) General Council, Work Programme on Electronic Commerce WT/L/274, 30 September 1998

WTO (1998c) WTO Agreements and Electronic Commerce, WT/GC/W/90, 14 July 1998

WTO (1998d) Council for Trade in Services, Note by the Secretariat, S/C/W/68, 16 November 1998

WTO (1998e) Committee for Trade and Development, Development Implications of Electronic Commerce, WT/COMTD/W/51, 23 November 1998

WTO (1999a) Interim Report to the General Council, Council for Trade in Services, S/C/8, 31 March 1999

WTO (1999b) Communication from the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, WT/GC/24, 12 April 1999

WTO (1999c) Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Progress Report to the General Council, IP/C/18, 30 July 1999

WTO (1999d) Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Background Note, IP/C/W/128, 19 February 1999

WTO (1999e) Council for Trade in Services, Progress Report, S/L/74, 19 July 1999

WTO (1999f) Council for Trade in Goods, Information provided to the General Council, G/C/W/158, 26 July 1999

WTO (2001a) Ministerial Declaration Doha WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001

WTO (2001b) Council for Trade in Services, Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services, S/L/93, 29 March 2001

WTO (2001c) Dedicated Discussion on Electronic Commerce Under the Auspices of the General Council on 15^th June 2001, WT/GC/W/436, 6 July 2001

WTO (2001d) Dedicated Discussion on Electronic Commerce - Summary by the Secretariat, WT/GC/W/436, 6. July 2001

WTO (2001e) Guidelines for the scheduling of specific commitments, S/l/92, 28 March 2001

WTO (2005) Ministerial Declaration Hong Kong, WT/MIN(05)/DEC, 22 December 2005

WTO (2009a) Ministerial Decision, Work Programme in Electronic Commerce, WT/L/782, 11 December 2009

WTO (2009b) Work Programme in Electronic Commerce, Dedicated Discussions under the auspices of the General Council, 9 November 2009, WT/GC/W/613

WTO (2011a) World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From co-existence to coherence. https://doi.org/10.30875/0949bcf3-en

WTO (2011b) Ministerial Decision, Work Programme in Electronic Commerce, WT/L/843, 17 December 2011

WTO (2011c) Communication from the EU and the USA, Contribution to the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, S/C/W/338, 13 July 2011

WTO (2012a) 15 Years of the Information Technology Agreement: Trade, innovation, and global production networks. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ita15years_2012full_e.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO (2012b) Council for Trade in Services, Communication from Australia, S/C/W349, 26 September 2012

WTO (2013a) Ministerial Decision, Work Programme in Electronic Commerce, WT/L/907, 11 December 2013

WTO (2013b) Committee on Trade and Development, Electronic Commerce, Development and Small, Medium-Sized Enterprises, Background Note by the Secretariat, 14 February 2013

WTO (2013c), Committee on Trade and Development, Report from the Workshop on Electronic Commerce, WT/COMTD/W/198, 27 June 2013

WTO (2014) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Communication by the United States, S/C/W/359, 27 November 2014

WTO (2015a) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Review of Progress, WT/GC/W/701, 24 July 2015

WTO (2015b) Ministerial Decision, Work Programme in Electronic Commerce, WT/L/977, 19 December 2015

WTO (2015c) World Trade Report 2015: Speeding up trade: benefits and challenges of implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. https://doi.org/10.30875/0949bcf3-en

WTO (2016a) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Trade Policy, the WTO and the Digital Economy, JOB/GC/97/Rev.1, 22 July 2016

WTO (2016b) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Review of Progress, WT/GC/W/728, 8 December 2016

WTO (2016c) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Non-Paper from the USA, JOB/GC/94, 16 July 2016

WTO (2016d) General Council, Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Reinvigorating Discussions on Electronic Commerce, JOB/GC/96/Rev 1., 14 July 2016

WTO (2017a) Joint Statement on electronic commerce, WT/MIN(17)/60, 13 December 2017

WTO (2017b) Press Release, World Economic Forum and eWTP launch joint public-private dialogue to open up e-commerce for small business, 11 December 2017

WTO (2017c) Communication from China, Japan et. al., WT/MIN(17)/26, 8 December 2017

WTO (2017d) Communication from EU, Canada et. al., WT/MIN(17)/15/Rev.1, 8 December 2017

WTO (2017e) Statement by the African Group, 20. October 2017, JOB/GC/144

WTO (2017f) Communication from Lao PDR, Panama, Qatar and Singapore, WT/MIN(17)/30, 8 December 2017

WTO (2017g) Communication from the African Group, JOB/GC/155, 21 November 2017

WTO (2017h) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Report by the Chairman, WT/GC/W/739, 1 December 2017

WTO (2017i) Ministerial Decision, Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, WT/MIN(17)65, 18 December 2017

WTO (2017j) General Council, Communication from Japan, Possible Way Forward on Electronic Commerce, JOB/GC/130, 14 July 2017

WTO (2017k) Communication from the European Union, An Enabling Environment To Facilitate Online Transactions, TN/S/W/64, 23 May 2017

WTO (2017l) Conference on the Use of Data in the Digital Economy. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/datadigitaleco17_e.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO (2017m) Press Release, Members debate cyber security and chemicals at technical barriers to trade committee. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/tbt_20jun17_e.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO(2017n) Council for Trade in Services, Communication from the U.S., Measures Adopted and Under Development by China Relating to Its Cybersecurity Law, S/C/W/374, 26 September 2017

WTO(2017o) Council for Trade in Services, Communication from the US, Measures Adopted and Under Development by China Relating to Its Cybersecurity Law, S/C/W/376, 23 February 2018

WTO (2018a) World Trade Report 2018: The future of world trade: How digital technologies are transforming global commerce. https://doi.org/10.30875/0949bcf3-en

WTO (2018b) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Review of Progress, WT/GC/W/756, 17 December 2018

WTO (2018c) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Communication from India and South Africa, WT/GC/W/747, 13 July 2018

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

WTO (2018e) Council for Trade in Services, Communication from the US, Measures Adopted and Under Development by China Relating to Its Cybersecurity Law—Questions to China, S/C/W/378, 3 October 2018

WTO (2019a) Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, WT/L/1056, 25 January 2019

WTO (2019b) Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, Communication from China, INF/ECOM/19, 24 April 2019

WTO (2019c) Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce Initiative, Communication from the EU, INF/ECOM/22, 26 April 2019

WTO (2019d) Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce Initiative, Communication from the EU, 26 April 2019, INF/ECOM/22

WTO (2020) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, Communication from India and South Africa, WT/GC/W/798, 10 March 2020

WTO (2021) Press Release, Negotiations on services domestic regulation conclude successfully in Geneva, 2 December 2021. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/jssdr_02dec21_e.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO (2024) 13^th Ministerial Conference Briefing Note E-commerce. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc13_e/briefing_notes_e/ecommerce_e.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO/WEF (2022) The Promise of Trade Tech: Policy approaches to harness trade digitalization

Wu M (2017) Digital Trade-Related Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Existing Models and Lessons for the Multilateral Trade System. RTA Exchange https://rtaexchange.org/pdf/Digital%20Trade%20Related%20Provisions%20in%20RTA_%20WU.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Wu T (2006) The world trade law of censorship and internet filtering. Chic J Int Law 7(1):263–287

Wunsch-Vincent S (2003) The digital trade agenda of the U.S.: parallel tracks of bilateral. Reg Multilat Liberal Außenwirtschaft 58:7–46. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.393961CrossRef

Wunsch-Vincent S (2004) WTO, E-commerce, and Information Technologies. From the Uruguay Round through the Doha Development Agenda. UN ICT Task Force

Wunsch-Vincent S (2006) The internet, cross-border trade in services, and the GATS: lessons from US–gambling. World Trade Rev 5(3):319–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745606002965CrossRef

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

Yakovleva S (2020) 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 Priv Law 10(3):201–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa003CrossRef

Zhang R (2015) Covered or not covered: that is the question: Services Classification and Its Implications for Specific Commitments under the GATS. WTO Working Paper ERSD-2015-11

Zheng W (2020) The digital challenge to international trade law. NYU J Int Law Polit 52:539–592

Titel: The Emergence of Digital Trade Regulation
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_3

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"