2025年8月29日 周五
Exception clauses of cross-border data flows in trade regulation: Positioning, paradigms and reflection
CSTR:
Author:
Clc Number:

D996.1;F49;F752

  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [42]
  • |
  • Related [20]
  • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    In recent years, cross-border data flow has become the new normal of digital economy. As the legal control of cross-border data flows by various nations produces new types of trade barriers and obstructs the release of global economic vitality, the topic of trade regulation of cross-border data flows has increasingly gained broad attention. The trade regulation of cross-border data flow at the global level is faced with a balance problem between the two regulatory objectives of good data protection and free data flow. This involves a number of interests, including personal privacy, national security, and free flow of data. Currently, due to the social, cultural, political, and economic variations between each country, it is challenging to come to an agreement on the value judgment of the regulatory objectives. For trade regulation of cross-border data flows, reducing differences between various regulatory objectives becomes a crucial task. The exception clause, as a flexibility rule, with special institutional function, can harmonize various regulatory objectives, achieve the compatibility effect of a dynamic balance among various regulatory objectives, and lessen the tension between the need for public policy reservations and the development of an open digital trade environment. The exception clause is an important part of cross-border data flow trade regulation, mainly including three types of WTO exception clauses, CPTPP exception clauses, and RCEP exception clauses. The way exception clauses are designed under various paradigms differs greatly in terms of structure, language expression, conditions of application, etc., as well as their ability to balance and harmonize the degree to which various regulatory objectives can be met. Each has its own advantages, but it also faces different degrees of difficulty and uncertainty in application. China’s participation in the construction of new rules for cross-border data flow has become an unavoidable task, and we should make full use of the institutional functions of exception clauses to enhance the export capacity of China’s institutional discourse power. In the choice of exception clause paradigm in China, first, based on the intrinsic benchmarks, it is necessary to improve domestic digital rule of law, clarify the basic position of cross-border data flow regulation, seek system coordination effects, and avoid vicious system competition. Second, it is necessary to seek external strategies and adhere to the gradual strategy of functional transformation, and develop from pursuing loose or vague exception clauses to clear exception clauses and gradually from pursuing pragmatic and flexible contract cooperation to binding rule cooperation.

    Reference
    [1] WTO.World Trade Report 2018:The future of world trade:How digital technologies are transforming global commerce[R/OL].(2018-05-10)[2021-06-29].https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/world_trade_report18_e.pdf.
    [2] MGI.Digital globalization:The new era of global flows[R/OL].(2016-02-24)[2021-06-23].https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/McKinsey%20Digital/Our%20Insights/Digital%20globalization%20The%20new%20era%20of%20global%20flows/MGI-Digital-globalization-Full-report.ashx.
    [3] 彭岳.数据本地化措施的贸易规制问题研究[J].环球法律评论,2018(2):178-192.
    [4] 石静霞.数字经济背景下的WTO电子商务诸边谈判:最新发展及焦点问题[J].东方法学,2020(2):170-184.
    [5] KOREMENOS B,LIPSON C,SNIDAL D.The rational design of international institutions[J].International Organization,2001,55(4):761-799.
    [6] PELC K J.Making and bending international rules: The design of exceptions and escape clauses in trade law[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2016.
    [7] 黄宁,李杨."三难选择"下跨境数据流动规制的演进与成因[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2017(5):172-182,199.
    [8] 余筱兰.个人数据处理中权益的冲突与和解[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2022(9):72-81.
    [9] 齐爱民.拯救信息社会中的人格:个人信息保护法总论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009:77.
    [10] 程啸.论大数据时代的个人数据权利[J].中国社会科学,2018(3):102-122,207-208.
    [11] 周鲠生.国际法(上册)[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:150.
    [12] 袁银传,王馨玥:总体国家安全观的基本内涵、基本要求和实现路径[J].思想教育研究,2023(4):3-9.
    [13] 王玥.试论网络数据本地化立法的正当性[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2016(1):54-61.
    [14] 吴玄.数据主权视野下个人信息跨境规则的建构[J].清华法学,2021(3):74-91.
    [15] 周念利,李金东.俄罗斯出台的与贸易相关的数据流动限制性措施研究:兼谈对中国的启示[J].国际商务研究,2020(3):85-96.
    [16] 黄东黎.国际经济贸易制度与法律:中国案例[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2020:15-16.
    [17] RYAN P S,FALVEY S,MERCHANT R.When the cloud goes local: The global problem with data localization[J].Computer,2013,46(12):54-59.
    [18] 陈寰琦,周念利.从USMCA看美国数字贸易规则核心诉求及与中国的分歧[J].国际经贸探索,2019(6):104-114.
    [19] 陈咏梅,张姣.跨境数据流动国际规制新发展:困境与前路[J].上海对外经贸大学学报,2017(6):37-52.
    [20] FLEUTER S.The role of digital products under the WTO: A new framework for GATT and GATS classification[J].Chicago Journal of International Law,2016,17(1):153-177.
    [21] 刘维.跨境数据流动监管措施在GATS下的合规性分析[J].理论月刊,2018(3):151-158.
    [22] 陈卫东.WTO例外条款解读[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,2002:207-217.
    [23] 刘雪红.世界贸易组织一般例外条款适用误区之批判[J].东方法学,2018(4):72-82.
    [24] 马乐.GATT一般例外条款适用的价值导向与司法逻辑[J].华东政法大学学报,2015(1):16-24.
    [25] 梁咏.论国际贸易体制中的安全例外再平衡[J].法学,2020(2):142-155.
    [26] 黄志雄.WTO安全例外条款面临的挑战与我国的对策:以网络安全问题为主要背景[J].国际经济法学刊,2014(4):141-156.
    [27] 丁丽柏,陈喆.论WTO对安全例外条款扩张适用的规制[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2020(2):127-140.
    [28] MITCHELL A D,HEPBURN J.Don’t fence me in: Reforming trade and investment law to better facilitate cross-border data transfer[J].The Yale Journal of Law and Technology,2017,19:182-237.
    [29] 洪延青.推进"一带一路"数据跨境流动的中国方案:以美欧范式为背景的展开[J].中国法律评论,2021(2):30-42.
    [30] BURRI M.The regulation of data flows through trade agreements[J].Georgetown Journal of International Law,2017,48(1):408-448.
    [31] LEE J.Commercializing national security? National security exception outer parameter under GATT Article XXI[J].AJWH,2018,13:277-310.
    [32] SINGER N.Data protection laws,an ocean apart[EB/OL].(2013-02-02)[2021-06-29].https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/technology/consumer-data-protection-laws-an-ocean-apart.html.
    [33] 何志鹏.国家本位:现代性国际法的动力特征[J].当代法学,2021(5):110-126.
    [34] 王成.个人信息民法保护的模式选择[J].中国社会科学,2019(6):124-146,207.
    [35] 崔国斌.大数据有限排他权的基础理论[J].法学研究,2019(5):3-24.
    [36] 申卫星.论数据用益权[J].中国社会科学,2020(11):110-131,207.
    [37] ITIF.Why China should be disqualified from participating in WTO negotiations on digital trade rules[R/OL].(2019-05-14)[2021-06-29].https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Why-China-Should-Be-Disqualified-From-Participating-Cory/5ce81cdfdbc6dbef13aaf11440b917f821ff8759.
    [38] 刘天骄.数据主权与长臂管辖的理论分野与实践冲突[J].环球法律评论,2020(2):180-192.
    [39] 俞胜杰,林燕萍.《通用数据保护条例》域外效力的规制逻辑、实践反思与立法启示[J].重庆社会科学,2020(6):62-79.
    [40] 叶开儒.数据跨境流动规制中的"长臂管辖":对欧盟GDPR的原旨主义考察[J].法学评论,2020(1):106-117.
    [41] GREZE B.The extra-territorial enforcement of the GDPR: A genuine issue and the quest for alternatives[J].International Data Privacy Law,2019,9(2):109-128.
    [42] 何志鹏.国际关系的宪法之治:理想与现实[J].政法论丛,2016(1):11-20.
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

杨署东,谢卓君.跨境数据流动贸易规制之例外条款:定位、范式与反思[J].重庆大学学报社会科学版,2023,29(6):233~245

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:674
  • PDF: 700
  • HTML: 1047
  • Cited by: 0
History
  • Online: January 17,2024
Article QR Code