nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

6. Towards Reconciling Digital Trade and Data Privacy

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

The multilateral framework of the WTO, by virtue of its principles of non-discrimination, its transparency requirements, and its enforceability through the WTO dispute settlement system, has proven capable of facilitating global economic liberalisation in the industrial economy of the twentieth century. However, the incumbent system of international trade governance does not adequately address the socio-economic transformation and the complex trade policy challenges presented by a data-driven digital economy. The nexus of digital trade and data privacy in its conceptual ambiguity and polycentric normative underpinnings epitomizes the exigent challenges for trade governance in a global digital economy. This chapter examines and develops approaches for a recontextualisation of trade law against the backdrop of digital globalisation as well as for a reconciliation of digital trade and data privacy.

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 Mitigating the Data Privacy Collision in Digital Trade

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

See Peng (2011), p. 769.

Gasser (2021).

See further Chander and Schwartz (2023), p. 50; Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 204–208.

See with further references Chander and Schwartz (2023), p. 52; Kaminski (2015); Swire and Litan (2010), pp. 194–196.

Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 205–208.

Chander and Schwartz (2023), p. 105, p. 113.

Wolfe (2018), p. 13.

See for example Burri (2016); Meltzer (2016), pp. 18–24; Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1126–1132; Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), pp. 216–219.

See in particular with regard to an “AI economy” Peng et al. (2021).

See Burri (2017), p. 414; Mitchell and Mishra (2019), p. 390.

See Yakovleva (2020), p. 517.

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016).

European Commission (2021).

IMF et al. (2023).

World Economic Forum (2020).

See further for the complex political economy of digital trade Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1081–1088. For the emergence of “data realms”, see Aaronson and Leblond (2018). See for an account of the current challenges facing the WTO and trade law Weiß et al. (2022), pp. 1–7.

See for an account of the birth of the WTO and in particular US influence VanGrasstek (2013), pp. 62–64. See also with regard to a changed environment for trade Cho and Kelly (2013).

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), pp. 1076–1077.

See for an account of the actors of a “Global Information Law” Tietje (2012), pp. 49–52. See further with regard to Internet regulation in particular Mishra (2019b), pp. 20–23. See also Zeno-Zencovich (2021), pp. 186–188.

Aaronson (2018). In fact, instruments of international law have rarely been used effectively in the field of the regulation of data flows and the Internet as the relevant infrastructure, see Streinz (2019), pp. 328–329.

Casalini et al. (2021), pp. 30–31.

See further World Economic Forum (2020), which has introduced “the Osaka Track – a collective term for global governance processes needed to realize the DFFT vision and unleash the benefits from cross-border data flows”, p. 6. Cf. also the very first point of the preamble of G20 Osaka Leaders’ Declaration: “[…] We will work together to foster global economic growth, while harnessing the power of technological innovation, in particular digitalization, and its application for the benefit of all.” G20 (2019), p. 1, para. 1.

World Economic Forum (2020), p. 6.

Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1077; Sen (2018), pp. 323–324. This is particularly the case with regard to the failure of regulatory initiatives in other multilateral fora such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), see World Bank Group (2016), p. 295.

Mitchell (2001), pp. 687–688. See also with regard to the Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce supra Sect. 3.3.1.2.

Regulatory convergence is used here as an overarching term for various mechanisms to reduce unnecessary regulatory incompatibilities, see with further references to definition and nomenclature Polanco and Sauvé (2018), pp. 578–579; Weiß (2020), pp. 286–287.

See with further references Burri (2021a), p. 85.

See further Swire and Litan (2010), p. 194. See with a more nuanced approach Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 117–125.

Reidenberg (1999), p. 1360.

Reidenberg (1999), p. 1361.

Reidenberg argues that: “[…] the incorporation of GAIP within the WTO along with other noneconomic values will transplant socialprotection norms to the trade arena. In effect, this transplantation will promote convergence of governance norms.”, and further: “Noneconomic values will bring non-market based governance norms to WTO. This is likely to happen with or without GAIP negotiations in a WTO context. Indeed, in the context of information flows, this transformation has already begun.”, referring to Article XIV (c)(ii) GATS, see Reidenberg (1999), p. 1362. Swire and Litan underscore: “We are inclined to be cautious about expanding the reach of WTO treaties into complex issues such as privacy protection that are only modestly related to free trade and protectionism. WTO treaties are difficult to update quickly, and binding WTO privacy rules might soon become out of synch with technological and marketplace realities.”, Swire and Litan (2010), p. 196.

See only Yakovleva (2018), p. 478.

Cf. WTO (2001). The statement reads in full: “No decision or action on the protection of Internet privacy has ever been taken in the WTO. Far from “forcing governments to forego sovereign privacy protections” (which it would have no power to do in any case), the WTO has had nothing whatever to do with Internet privacy. Moreover, a safeguard for individual privacy is built into the framework of the GATS itself.”.

See also Chander and Schwartz (2023), p. 49; Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1122; Perez Asinari (2003).

Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012), p. 208 referring to a term coined by Alan O. Sykes.

See in this sense with further references generally Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1123; Yakovleva (2020), pp. 517–518. See for a dedicated perspective of data privacy law Kuner (2009).

Kuner (2013), p. 160.

Chander and Schwartz (2023), pp. 56–65, p. 114.

See also Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1123.

See in this sense with regard to a “reconfiguration” of International Economic Law against the backdrop of the emergence of AI Peng et al. (2021), pp. 17–21.

Burri (2021a), p. 87; Chander (2012), p. 39. See with regard to privacy frameworks, Casalini and López González (2019), p. 7.

See further Weiß (2020), p. 46, pp. 98–101 See also Krajewski (2003), p. 56.

See further Weiß (2020), p. 104.

Ahmed (2019), pp. 114–115. See further Schulhofer (2016).

Shaffer (2021), p. 44.

Cory and Dascoli (2021), p. 18. See also Ahmed (2019), p. 115.

See in this context with regard to the “new governance theory” Shaffer (2021), pp. 43–45. See also Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 403–404.

See regarding this definition of regulatory convergence Polanco and Sauvé (2018), p. 579.

Gasser and Palfrey (2012), p. 135, pp. 137–141.

See further on this differentiation Polanco and Sauvé (2018), p. 579; Shaffer (2021), pp. 42–43.

Gasser and Palfrey (2012), p. 135.

See for an analysis of the WTO’s influence on domestic regulatory autonomy in this respect Weiß (2020), pp. 285–376. See also with regard to the shortcomings of mutual recognition in a digital trade context Ahmed (2019), pp. 113–114.

Polanco and Sauvé (2018), p. 595.

See in this sense also Mitchell and Mishra (2019), p. 404.

See further Lang and Scott (2009).

Kuner (2013), p. 142.

Chatham House (2022).

See with further references on the positive effects of internationalisation of regulation in this regard Weiß (2020), p. 6.

Usman Ahmed put this quite succinctly as approaching a mentality of regulatory cooperation and moving away from “horse trading” in traditional trade negotiations, see Ahmed (2019), p. 101. See also Burri (2021a), p. 86.

Kobrin (2004), p. 131.

Cottier (1996), p. 427.

Wolfe (2018), p. 12.

Mishra (2019a), pp. 507–508; Mitchell and Mishra (2019), p. 405; Weber (2021), p. 67.

Casalini et al. (2021), pp. 29–30. See in similar vein with respect to AI regulation and its challenges to the WTO Peng et al. (2021), pp. 17–21.

For example, Article III:5 WTO Agreement reads: “With a view to achieving greater coherence in global economic policy-making, the WTO shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the International Monetary Fund and with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and its affiliated agencies.”. Moreover, there have been commitments to engage with multilateral environmental institutions, see with further references Mitchell and Mishra (2019), p. 405.

See further Weiß et al. (2022), p. 443. See with regard to the integration of digital technologies to transform the functions and operations of the WTO Toohey (2021).

See further Bohne (2010), pp. 165–201.

See in detail Mancini (2020); Polanco and Sauvé (2018).

See for example Chander (2013), p. 156. The author argues: “By subsuming an electronic version of the service within a services commitment and by interpreting treaty commitments in a dynamic form, the treaty can take account of changing technologies.”.

Panel Report, US-Gambling, WT/DS285/R, 10 November 2004, para. 6.311.

See for an overview of the Reference Paper Roseman (2003), pp. 88–89.

WTO (2021a). See further WTO (2021b). However, the scope of the Reference Paper steers clear of extending to “any terms, limitations, conditions, or qualifications set out in a Member’s Schedule pursuant to Articles XVI or XVII of the Agreement” and rather applies “to measures by Members relating to licensing requirements and procedures, qualification requirements and procedures, and technical standards affecting trade in services”, WTO (2021b), p. 6.

Burri (2016), p. 345; Mattoo and Meltzer (2019), p. 787; Mitchell and Mishra (2018), p. 1127. In this context, the EU has proposed that “WTO Members engage in exploratory work towards possible improvements of the provisions contained in the Reference Paper, as well as in discussions on a complementary set of provisions pertaining to telecommunications services that are relevant for today’s electronic commerce landscape.”, WTO (2018).