|
|
|
| Regulation of Cross-Border Data Flows: Core Issues, International Solutions and China’s Response |
| FENG Jie-han, ZHOU Meng |
| Institute of International Law, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Countries differ in the stringency of the regulations on cross-border data flows due to the difference in their data industry development, privacy protection traditions and concept of national security. At present, there are two representative regulatory schemes of cross-border data flows at global level. One is the unilateral regulation scheme dominated by Europe and the United States; the other is the multi-governance regulation scheme promoted by China and ASEAN. Given their influence in digital trade and personal data protection, developed countries such as Europe and the United States currently dominate the major rules of international data flows. The United States emphasizes the freedom of data flows, while the European Union attaches more importance to privacy protection. However, most developing countries are pressured into accepting relevant provisions and give up opportunities of developing local industries and national security interests. The unilateral regulatory scheme dominated by Europe and the United States results in inequality in the regulation of data flows among countries as well as unfair competition in digital trade. With the successful conclusion of RCEP negotiations in 2020, developing countries for the first time show their leadership on issues concerning fundamental security interests in data flows, and create a multi-governance solution in data flows through cooperation with developed countries. This plan plays down privacy protection issue and gives more discretion to the contracting parties, which is expected to break the long-standing unilateral regulatory pattern dominated by Europe and the United States. However, the wavering stance of Europe and the United States on data flows presents many challenges to RCEP. China needs to flexible in its regulation of data flows and cooperation strategy in digital trade so as to steadily promote the multi-governance between developing and developed countries in data flows.
|
|
Received: 12 March 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] G.Russell Pipe.International Information Policy:Evolution of Transborder Data Flow Issues[J].Telematics and Inform-atics,1984,1(4):409-418.
[2] 黄道丽,胡文华.全球数据本地化与跨境流动立法规制的基本格局[J].信息安全与通信保密,2019,(9):22-28.
[3] 何渊. 数据法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2020.75-76.
[4] 彭岳. 贸易规制视域下数据隐私保护的冲突与解决[J].比较法研究,2018,(4):176-187.
[5] 于鹏. WTO电子商务规则谈判新进展及前景[J].中国经贸导刊,2019,(22):19-22.
[6] 高建树,李晶.数字贸易规则的“求同”与“存异”——以欧盟RTAs电子商务章节为例[J].武大国际法评论,2020, (2):114-136.
[7] 弓永钦,王健.APEC与欧盟个人数据跨境流动规则的研究[J].亚太经济,2015,(5):9-13.
[8] 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):176-177.
[9] 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.
[10] 李墨丝. WTO电子商务规则谈判:进展、分歧与进路[J].武大国际法评论,2020,(6):55-77.
[11] 张磊. 美国提交电子商务倡议联合声明意欲何为[J].WTO经济导刊,2018,(5):62.
[12] 徐程锦.WTO电子商务规则谈判与中国的应对方案[J].国际经济评论,2020,(3):29-57+4.
[13] 田原. 《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》强化中国—东盟合作前景[J].世界知识,2020,(16):58-59.
[14] 李鸿阶.《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》签署及中国的策略选择[J].东北亚论坛,2020,(3):115-126+128.
[15] Matthew P.Goodman,Pearl Risberg.Governing Data in the Asia-Pacific[EB/OL].https://www.csis.org/analysis/gover-ning-data-asia-pacific,2021-04-30. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 38 
