法律层面 Token 国际贸易的定性（服务贸易、数据贸易等）与规制方法等研究

当今，数字贸易已经成为促进世界经济发展的强大引擎，展现出强大的生命力。数字贸易国际规则的制订对于提升一国的数字贸易发展水平起着至关重要的作用，因而目前各国的竞争焦点主要聚集在数字贸易国际规则的制订中。我国作为世界上第二大经济体，数字贸易已经具备相当大的规模，但是，相比世界上主要的发达经济体来说，我国的数字贸易水平仍相对落后，在数字贸易国际规则领域仍存在不足之处，基于此，本文将立足于数字贸易的国际大背景，通过文献分析法，比较分析法等方法，对相关领域进行深入研究，探究主要发达经济体的数字贸易规则特征、在阐明数字贸易国际规则发展趋势基础上，结合我国发展现状，为我国应对数字贸易国际规则发展趋势提出符合我国发展状况的应对之策。

作为连接全球经济的纽带和新秩序博弈的焦点，跨境数据流动在极大提升跨国协作效率的同时，也面临着数据主权、国家安全、利益冲突、隐私保护、数据监管等问题。文章首先从数据要素的经济影响出发，梳理跨境数据流动对经济全球化的作用；进而，分析全球范围内跨境数据流动的制约因素，总结我国数据生产总值的优势和不足；最后，结合我国数字经济发展实践，提出有为政府与有效市场更好结合、推动数字隐私技术研发应用、发挥自贸区和自港区先行先试作用、实行分类分级的差别化监管政策、发起多边协定为国际数据治理提出中国方案、坚持系统思维引领数字经济全球化的政策建议，以期推动跨境数据安全有序流动，使我国更好地把握数字经济全球化的战略机遇。

数据要素是人工智能时代的新型生产要素,但鲜有研究系统解析如何加快推动数据跨境流动,释放数据要素乘数效应。针对数据跨境流动面临的场景稀缺和制度逻辑冲突等瓶颈问题,基于场景驱动创新和制度逻辑理论,构建“主体—场景—制度”三位一体理论框架,探讨场景如何驱动数据要素跨境流动。研究发现:制度逻辑差异是制约数据跨境流动和融通交易的核心因素,场景驱动的“需求牵引—数据增值—循环反哺”机制能够破解制度摩擦,加快数据跨境流动并促进高效交易,从而释放数据要素乘数效应。进一步结合医疗数据跨境流动典型案例,分析场景驱动数据跨境流动新机制在优化资源配置、促进国际合作方面发挥的关键作用。据此,提出培育跨境场景生态、完善复合监管体系、利用可信数据空间破解信任难题等政策建议,为我国加快数据要素流动、提升全球数字经济竞争力提供理论支撑与实践启示。

数字经济已成为驱动全球经济增长的核心动力，粤港澳大湾区依托独特的制度优势、成熟的产业集群布局以及领先的数字化应用场景，在数据要素市场建设领域占据先发地位。当前全球数据跨境流动监管力度持续加大，湾区在发展过程中面临着规则衔接不顺畅、监管标准不统一等现实难题。本文提出，粤港澳三地应强化协同合作，构建统一的规则体系、专门的协调机构及高效的技术支撑平台，在保障数据安全的基础上促进数据自由流动，推动大湾区打造成为亚太地区乃至全球领先的数据处理中心，为全国统一数据要素市场的建设提供有力支撑。

当前，围绕数据跨境流动为中心的数字权力博弈进入白热化阶段，全球竞争格局已初步形成。我国高度关注数据跨境流动安全治理，在经历迭代优化后，目前已形成独具特色的平衡数据安全与发展的治理模式，这将为破解全球数据治理难题提供中国方案。本文剖析了实现数据跨境安全可信流通面临的多重挑战，从国际组织、经贸协定、主要经济体三个维度解构了现有的全球数据跨境流动治理竞争格局，对我国平衡数据安全与发展的治理方案进行全局性的考察。这一方案以总体国家安全观为理论根本，以“统筹安全与发展”为政策目标，以安全可信流通为评判基准，体现出浓厚的中国特色与创新色彩，并服务于维护国家安全、促进数字贸易、扩大对外开放等战略目标。在此基础上，本研究从全球视域出发，提出我国治理方案的后续完善对策，包括优化治理理念、推动国际合作、突出技术治理、强化人才培养、开展国际宣贯等。

加强数据跨境流动监管与推进国际合作业已形成广泛共识，但行业性数据跨境流动治理的重视程度仍不足，存在监管规则“一刀切”倾向，亟需开展针对性研究，助力破解当前的治理困局。本文梳理了行业性数据跨境流动的核心概念、类型以及在金融、医疗、制造、电商等典型行业的特征与治理需求，分析了数据跨境流动治理的国际主流范式以及主要发达经济体的行业性数据跨境流动治理的政策实践，揭示了我国行业性数据跨境流动治理的现状及面临的挑战。研究发现，全球数据跨境治理的共性趋势愈发显著，正从“主权保护、自由流动、平衡治理”三足鼎立的格局转向以安全为前提的“管控流动”。我国数据跨境流动治理的基础制度与行业规则初步成型，但存在行业风险梯度模糊与“泛安全化”倾向、新兴技术适配难与“技术 ‒ 规则”脱节、部门协同不足与监管响应滞后、规则碎片化与国际话语权受限等问题。研究建议，完善数据跨境流动治理体系、深化国际数据治理规则参与、强化分行业精细化监管机制、构筑跨境数据协同治理生态，探索形成安全与发展并重的行业性数据跨境流动治理的“中国路径”。

【目的】 随着信息技术的高速发展，数据跨境流动已经成为数字经济跨境贸易的重要组成部分，建立高效的数据跨境流动规则是实现数字经济高质量发展的关键。 【方法】 本文采用ECIPE发布的DTRI指数衡量数据跨境流动规则的限制性程度，以出口技术复杂度衡量数字贸易的发展质量，通过构建基准回归模型检验了限制性规则对数字贸易的影响。 【结果】 数据跨境流动限制对数字贸易出口技术复杂度具有显著而稳健的负向影响，该影响可以通过技术创新能力和数字基础设施建设水平这两个作用渠道实现，且在贸易部门和国家经济发展水平两个层面存在异质性。 【结论】 建立包容审慎的数据跨境流动规则、推进区分行业的精细化立法、提升新基建水平和技术创新能力能够有效提升数据跨境流动效率。本文研究成果为我国数字贸易高速、高质量增长以及产业结构转型升级提供了参考。

数据价值链与中国各区域产业链的相互融合、相互促进以及推动中国经济增长作用实现的关键在于通过数据要素市场等实现“货币化”,而中国数据要素市场相对滞后发展,成为高标准市场体系建设和畅通国内大循环、促进国内国际双循环的突出短板,因而很有必要以长三角、珠三角地区等为中心枢纽地区,破解阻碍“补链强链”所需数据国内流动与跨境流动的行业壁垒、区域壁垒、政策壁垒、规则壁垒等“堵点”“痛点”,从宏观、中观和微观机制上促进区域数据要素市场一体化,通过在企业—平台提升“补链强链”水平、在区域—行业层级破除各种壁垒以及国家层面加强数据价值链的治理体系建设,逐步建立统一的“国内大循环为基础、国内国际双循环有效联动”的数据要素市场。

【目的】 数据作为新的生产要素成为全球经济高速发展的新引擎、新动能，数据跨境治理直接影响国家经济、社会、贸易等方面的发展，美国作为数据跨境治理的先行者 and 优势国，研究美国治理的本质策略，通过数据对比分析我国与美国之间的差距，对进一步优化、完善我国数据跨境治理具有良好的助力作用。 【方法】 本文对中美两国在数据产存量、数字贸易、国际互联网流动等方面数据进行整理和比较，更加直观地判断中美两国的数据跨境需求现状，研究分析我国在数据跨境治理中存在的潜在不足。 【结果】 总体上美国对数据跨境流动具有较强的需求和控制，相比下我国数据跨境需求位居世界前列，数据跨境治理措施做到安全与发展统筹兼顾，但还需考虑与数据跨境需求的充分衔接，提升对数据流向的控制力。 【结论】 建议考虑促进数据流动的“软”策略与规范管理数据流动的“硬”策略相结合的方式，构建数据跨境治理长期方案，逐步成为数据跨境流动国际枢纽。

WTO曾经拟启动电子商务规则谈判，但由于成员分歧而搁浅。但WTO相关协定包括GATT和GATS，都涉及或能推断出与电子商务有关的规则。ITA协定、正在谈判的TiSA协定更是直接与电子商务有关。中国政府可发起推动WTO开展《电子商务诸边协定》即俗称的“eWTO”协定谈判。本文就“eWTO”构建的十大原则进行了建议性分析。

服务贸易开放是目前进一步推进中国自由贸易试验区(港)开放的重点与难点。由于服务贸易的交易方式与货物贸易不同，中国自贸试验区(港)对货物贸易“一线放开、二线管住”的监管原则并不能有效对服务贸易风险进行防控。为实现在自贸试验区(港)建设中服务贸易的单边开放目标，并形成中国对标国际贸易投资新规则的规则储备，本文考察了自贸试验区(港)服务贸易开放风险与监管，进而探讨了中国服务贸易开放对标国际贸易投资新规则风险，并分析了美国诉华未完成入世议定书中服务贸易开放内容。

本文对中国与欧盟的数字贸易规则诉求进行详细分析，就中欧数字贸易合作问题给出若干建议。首先，文章对数字产品和数字贸易作了概念辨析。其次，文章分析了个人数据的跨境流动现状：一方面，欧盟会继续从严限制个人数据向中国的流转，这是基于其较严的隐私保护标准，就此中国应进一步加强个人信息保护；另一方面，中国严格限制个人数据的出境，同样难以放松对数据流动的限制，数据传输至欧盟的自由程度很难有实质性提升。再次，分析了数字产品的在线传输问题：一方面，由于体制差异，中国对欧盟数字产品输入中国仍会维持较严的限制，目前采取的一些限制措施不宜或不能取消， 仍有可能要求境外企业披露源代码；另一方面，对于中国数字产品输入欧盟，欧盟总体上持开放态度，但会坚持视听例外等原则。最后，分析了关税、电子签名与认证以及非应邀商业电子信息问题，中欧都会同意依照 WTO 规定对数字产品暂时免征关税，在电子签名与认证方面可以采用已有的自贸协定相关规定，可以在打击非应邀商业电子信息方面做出严格规定，这对中国尽管是挑战，但也是解决国内垃圾邮件和信息泛滥问题的机遇。

The quantitative research on the trade effects of digital trade rules is urgently needed with the continuous development of digital trade rules under the framework of regional trade agreements.Based on the panel data of bilateral digital export trade of 40 countries (or regions) around the world to all their trading partners from 2005 to 2019,this paper has acquired the following findings.Firstly,the digital trade rules under the framework of regional trade agreements have a significantly positive impact on the digital service export trade of the contracting parties.The smaller the gap of the digital infrastructure and the regulatory level between the contracting parties,the greater the export promoting effect.Signing digital trade rules will promote the growth of digital service export trade by lowering digital trade barriers between the contracting parties.Secondly,whether it is trade-promotion-related clauses,data-related clauses,or privacy protection clauses,they all reflect a stronger promoting effect on digital service export trade.Thirdly,the European template and other templates have all shown a positive promoting effect on digital service export,while the American template has shown an inhibitory effect.Lastly,digital trade rules have also shown a significant promoting effect on the export of digital goods,especially the export of information and communication-technology products.

Handel elektroniczny kwestionuje tradycyjne kategorie handlu międzynarodowego, utrudniając klasyfikację transakcji jako usług, produktów czy czynników produkcji. W artykule zbadano, czy klasyczne klasyfikacje ekonomiczne skutecznie oddają istotę e-handlu. Autorki podważają podział towarów i usług stosowany w ramach WTO (m.in. GATT, GATS, RTAs) i twierdzą, że „towar” nie odpowiada w pełni handlowi cyfrowemu. E-handel często łączy różne kategorie w jednej transakcji, przez co tradycyjne pojęcia prawne, ekonomiczne i handlowe są niewystarczające. Brak precyzyjnej definicji e-handlu prowadzi do problemów praktycznych, takich jak określenie rodzajów barier handlowych i wprowadzanie regulacji. W pracy przedstawiono niedoskonałości obecnych ram regulacyjnych, przeanalizowano klasyfikację handlu WTO oraz omówiono ograniczenia dotyczące pojęcia „towar” w kontekście e-handlu. Autorki badają specyfikę handlu cyfrowego, sugerując potrzebę nowej klasyfikację dla obiektów handlu elektronicznego.

The digitalization of trade is a reality, and yet the regulation of the world trading system as embedded in the World Trade Organization (WTO) only tangentially, if at all, touches upon this issue. True, digitalization of the economy, the fourth industrial revolution as it is colloquially referred to, is a recent phenomenon, and to some extent post-dates the conclusion of the Uruguay round agreements (1994). True also, however, is the reality that the world trading system has shown a remarkable inability to adjust to modern business realities in its multilateral rule architecture. To the extent these transformations are being reflected in new rules, they are being introduced in regional or bilateral frameworks, albeit in an incomplete fashion. It is also the case that the world is witnessing several different regimes around data and information economy developing in the world today – most notably in the US, Europe, and China. As always, part of the reason that international frameworks have not been born stems from the fact that international rules rarely occur before domestic regulatory and legal regimes are well developed.

This article reviews the evolution of rules on digital trade in US Free Trade Agreements (US FTAs), and argues that the US approach has shifted from treating it largely as a traditional trade issue to recognizing its unique digital nature and tailoring the rules accordingly, as it has done in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. The article begins with a review of the efforts to regulate e-commerce in the WTO, as well as the achievements of the pre-TPP US FTAs so far, followed by a critical appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the e-commerce chapter in the TPP. It is hoped that, by reviewing the evolution of the regulation of e-commerce from theWTOto the TPP, we can learn some lessons on how the rules are being shaped, as well as how they might evolve in the future.

In this age of rapid digital transformations, the principle of technological neutrality can help the international economic community adapt dated rules to changing realities. While the acceptance of this principle would respond to the difficulty of timely norm making and norm updating in international relations, it could also cause legal uncertainty in the case of unforeseen technological developments in the future. Therefore, not every country today is willing to unconditionally acknowledge the applicability of ‘old’ rules for any emerging trading patterns enabled by, or based on, digital and other technological innovations. The World Trade Organization, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and several regional trade agreements have addressed technological neutrality in the context of electronic commerce and digital trade. This article examines this issue, focusing on such areas of trade regulation as services, intellectual property and paperless trading, and concludes that the principle of technological neutrality should be given universal recognition, supplemented by policy flexibilities where necessary.

Abstract As global data flows and digital technologies transform international trade, governments and regulators have to determine how to benefit from these developments while maintaining the integrity of their domestic regulations. Currently, governments are increasingly restricting global data flows and requiring data localization, undermining the economic benefits of digital trade. To address this trend will require a system of digital trade governance that has two key elements. One element is new digital trade rules, some of which exist in the WTO and others which are being developed in free trade agreements. The other is international regulatory cooperation to develop standards and mutual recognition agreements in areas such as privacy and consumer protection that gives domestic regulators confidence that allowing data to leave their jurisdiction will not undermine achievement of domestic regulatory goals. In the absence of such regulatory cooperation, governments are likely to continue to restrict data flows, relying on the exceptions provisions to their digital trade commitments.

… digital trade such as data localization, as well as addressing "new" regulatory issues pertaining to digital trade … in classification of digital services, makes the nature of legal commitments …

… multilateral trade agreements in securing liberal digital trade, … decision on the correct classification of digital products has been … legally binding laws, the permutation of these digital …

… associated with digital trade in today's digital economy. Digital trade encompasses various … It includes digital services, e-commerce, cross-border data flows, data localisation, data …

The global economy is experiencing the digitalization of production, exchange, and consumption of goods and services. The internet and cross-border data flows are becoming important channels of trade as more products are traded through the web or integrate features that rely on digital connectivity. Reflecting the autonomy states have to enact such policies, national variations in internet governance have expanded over the previous decade, with states increasingly looking to use internet and data policies for economic and trade objectives. These dynamics are having important implications on the international trade regime through challenging existing trade rules and creating demands for new rules. This has resulted in growing debates in the trade arena around “digital trade,” as a number of states, led by the United States, push for rules as a way to discipline national internet policies and support trade in digital goods and services. This paper examines the political economy of this campaign. We argue that the objectives of this campaign go beyond updating rules to better fit the “Internet age” into achieving further liberalization of trade in goods and services. We highlight the technological contingency of existing international rules and show how technological shifts have been a driver of competitive regime creation and forum shifting contributing to processes of fragmentation of the international trade regime.

Abstract As digital trade continues to reshape the global economic landscape, the key objective of this study is to bridge a significant Legal-Technical gap characterised by the discord between rapid technological advancements and slower-evolving legal frameworks. This paper delves into the complexities of this gap and emphasises the need for a holistic approach to understand and address the multifaceted challenges it presents to businesses, policymakers, and the broader international trading system. This research offers a novel theoretical foundation for exploring and bridging the Legal-Technical gap in digital trade. Initially, it discusses the integration of legal and technical knowledge systems, which leads to the emergence of specific transdisciplinary knowledge as described by Andrew Sage's Theory of Systems. Subsequently, it explores the acquisition of universal knowledge about these systems through Herman Dooyeweerd's multi-aspectual philosophy. Furthermore, it proposes the development of a transdisciplinary knowledge representation using Fritz Zwicky's Morphological Method. Our analysis reveals that focusing on lingual, social, economic, and aesthetic aspects enables the prioritisation of critical factors essential for enhancing legal-technical functionality.

The design of a trade agreement should reflect its purpose. Does digital trade change the purpose of a trade agreement? To explore this question, I first describe the definitional and classification issues associated with digital trade, and for modeling purposes I adopt a simple taxonomy of the ways in which digital trade can arise and the policies that can be used to restrict such trade. I then review what the theoretical literature on the economics of trade agreements has to say about the purpose of a trade agreement in a pre-digital model world economy, and how this purpose can be seen to be reflected in the broad design features of both GATT and GATS, the WTO agreements that govern international trade in goods and services respectively. Finally, I introduce digital trade into the model world economy and revisit the purpose of a trade agreement. From this perspective I consider whether the rise of digital trade warrants changes in the design of the WTO.

… Digital trade is one of the very few areas of trade law, where … This classification is by no means trivial, as it triggers very different … The classification dilemma is only one of many issues …

Cross-border data flows and digital trade are causing legal challenges, since the normative WTO framework dates from the pre-internet era. The goods and services classification of WTO law is outdated and needs to be further developed; some revision efforts are ongoing but the results therefrom are not yet satisfactory. The increasing number of preferential trade agreements cannot adequately replace the WTO rules, particularly in view of new technological developments (blockchain, artificial intelligence). The main regulatory issues for the coming decade are privacy, cybersecurity and data access measures (including interoperability). But the implementation of data-oriented digital trade rules and the improvement of international regulatory cooperation are not insurmountable tasks. Even if an enhancement of the present regulatory framework entails complex and uncertain policy changes, it is important to balance the different regulatory concerns in order to reach a stable normative environment for data flows.

With the rapid development of the internet, electronic commerce is also gaining importance in international trade. However, the rules governing digital trade is still largely lacking. While WTO Members have been discussing the regulation of electronic commerce since the last century, little progress has been made. Instead, most of the progresses are made in various free trade agreements, especially those sponsored by the United States. This article starts with a review of the efforts to regulate e-commerce in the WTO, as well as what the pre-TPP US FTAs have achieved so far, followed by a critical appraisal of the achievements and shortcomings of the e-commerce chapter in the TPP. It is hoped that, by reviewing the evolution of the regulation of e-commerce from the WTO to the TPP, we can learn some lessons on how the rules are being shaped, as well as how it might evolve in the future.

As digital connectivity expands and more services become tradable online, international trade is increasingly transitioning into the digital realm. Consequently, the regulatory environment facilitating digital trade has emerged as a central aspect of trade policy. Empirical research plays a vital role in informing the design, implementation, and reform of regulatory policies to facilitate trade in the digital era. However, such research heavily relies on the availability of up-to-date regulatory information across various countries. This paper introduces the Digital Trade Integration (DTI) database, which provides an overview of regulatory policies and practices expected to impact digital trade integration across 146 countries. These measures are organized into 65 indicators and 12 policy pillars covering restrictive and enabling policies. This paper highlights global and regional trends that are considered the four main components of digital trade integration: regulating (Information and Communication Technology) ICT goods, online services, investment in sectors relevant to digital trade, and data. The findings underscore the necessity for ongoing research and policy development to foster an equitable and integrated global digital economy.

… are important in framing blockchain as a digital trade issue. Part III applies GATS as a legal … purpose of that service classification may provide guidance and do not necessarily foreclose …

In an increasingly globalized financial ecosystem, cross-border payment systems continue to face persistent challenges, including high transaction costs, settlement delays, regulatory fragmentation, and exposure to counterparty risk. Traditional banking infrastructures, reliant on correspondent banking networks, are often opaque, inefficient, and vulnerable to compliance breaches and fraud. This study investigates the application of blockchain-based smart contracts as a transformative solution to these longstanding inefficiencies in international finance. From a macro perspective, blockchain’s distributed ledger architecture offers enhanced transparency, immutability, and consensus-driven validation, presenting a robust framework for automating and securing cross-border settlements. The research evaluates the operational mechanisms of smart contracts self-executing code embedded within blockchain protocols that facilitate real-time, trustless transaction execution and regulatory rule enforcement across jurisdictions. A key focus is the integration of Know Your Customer (KYC), Anti-Money Laundering (AML), and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) compliance checks within programmable contracts to ensure legal adherence while reducing operational bottlenecks. The study also explores case applications by global fintech firms and intergovernmental consortia experimenting with blockchain for real-time gross settlement (RTGS), payment-versus-payment (PvP), and delivery-versus-payment (DvP) models. Findings indicate that blockchain-based smart contracts significantly lower cross-border transaction costs, reduce settlement times from days to minutes, and enhance auditability for regulators. However, interoperability, legal recognition, and jurisdictional variance in digital asset treatment remain unresolved obstacles. The paper concludes by proposing a hybrid governance framework combining decentralized architecture with regulatory oversight, enabling secure, compliant, and frictionless global payment infrastructure.

Purpose To analyze the CFTC’s approach to regulating cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies in light of their cross-border nature, limitations on the CFTC’s extraterritorial authority, and the CFTC’s prerogative to work cooperatively with foreign regulators. Design/methodology/approach Discusses the principles set forth in CFTC Chairman Christopher Giancarlo’s White Paper regarding cross-border swap regulation; analyzes the similar nature of cross-border issues arising from regulation of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies; examines regulations and guidance implemented by foreign authorities in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space; and assesses the limitations of the CFTC’s extraterritorial authority. Findings The principles set forth in Chairman Giancarlo’s White Paper regarding cross-border swap regulation apply equally to blockchain technologies and cryptocurrencies, and as such, the CFTC may wish to pursue an analogous approach to regulating cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. Practical implications The CFTC should exercise deference to and cooperate with foreign counterparts to regulate cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies that traverse international borders, thereby avoiding overlapping and potentially conflicting regulation while fostering an innovative growth environment for emerging technologies. Originality/value In-depth analysis and insight from experienced professionals in the CFTC and cross-border investigations and enforcement space.

… an adequate regulatory approach to crypto assets, tokens, and … because of their anonymity or cross-border circulation, money … suggested the cross-border harmonization of regulations. …

… and crossborder activity of the regulated entities."In other words, although the existing … financial markets regulation to crypto tokens. In Section V we will conclude with a summary. …

This chapter examines the management of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) within the EU's cross-border legal framework, focusing on the implications of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). It discusses the legal structure of DeFi DAOs, the code deference approach, current regulations under MiCA, and best practices for achieving decentralization. The chapter emphasizes the need for clarity in defining ‘full decentralization’ to navigate the regulatory landscape effectively. It concludes that while DeFi DAOs present novel management and governance models, they must operate within the purview of evolving regulations, necessitating informed legal strategies to mitigate risks.

This paper mainly studies the attitude and supervision mode of various countries towards digital tokens.The strength and methods of supervision in various countries are different.There are cross-border transaction tokens and other chaotic situations.It is difficult to supervise and protect the interests of investors, which is not conducive to the healthy development of financial economy in various countries.In addition, with the development of globalization, digital tokens are going to the world and need to circulate among countries.Therefore, a recognized regulatory principle is needed to ensure the healthy development of digital finance worldwide.With the goal of single independent law, with the help of "regulatory sandbox" and "white list", we explore regulatory principles.

In light of inevitable cross-border scenarios in today’s highly interconnected financial markets and since financial stability may be put at risk by the rising phenomenon of financial technology (known as fintech), the importance of developing effective ways to regulate fintech across borders cannot be neglected. The financial sector has changed from a traditional one marked by conventional financial intermediation structures towards an increasingly technology-affected one. Not only this change but anticipated developments too require if not extensively reconsidering the design of financial regulation,1 then at least not turning a blind eye to shaping developments. Whether the numerous recently sprouting bilateral fintech cooperation agreements are adequate transnational regulatory instruments to address fintech effectively across borders is for this paper to elucidate.

Abstract This Article attempts to explore the challenges in situating a multilateral digital trade agreement within the legal framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Section 1 of the article discusses the broad challenges that digitization poses for the international legal framework for trade regulation. I argue first that the traditional classification of products into goods and services under the WTO system is structurally incompatible with the digital economy. I also argue that striking the appropriate balance between trade liberalization and the pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives in a digital trade agreement will be uniquely challenging because certain features that are intrinsic to the digital industry and business strategies of established players in the digital market raise serious anticompetition challenges. A multilateral agreement regulating digital trade needs to acknowledge and address these challenges. Section 2 surveys the efforts that have been undertaken to regulate digital trade as manifested in the WTO Work Program on Electronic Commerce. Acknowledging that the digital trade agenda of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement could be used as a benchmark for discussions on e-commerce at the WTO, I argue that future negotiations for a multilateral digital trade policy will not benefit from using the TPP's digital trade agenda as a benchmark. The TPP does not reconcile systemic tensions between the digital economy and the extant WTO system or address the anticompetition challenges that are unique to the digital ecosystem.

… to both these essential elements of digital trade. However, there are many … in digital trade. This will involve, at a minimum, a clear recognition that all WTO rules apply to online trade in …

There were 288 regional trade agreements (RTAs) in force at the end of 2018, approximately one quarter (27%) of which included digital trade provisions. These e-commerce chapters have evolved from simple statements, to more comprehensive attempts to cultivate digital trade. This article tests the hypothesis that as e-commerce chapters have become more common and more detailed, their legal enforceability has also risen. Enforceability is measured using a qualitative empirical analysis of seventy-eight e-commerce chapters in RTAs notified to the World Trade Organization. The first section reviews recent initiatives to map and track e-commerce provisions in RTAs. The second section uses count data and text-as-data to develop a time-sequence, process tracing examination of the relationship between e-commerce chapters and dispute settlement. The analysis emphasizes the trajectory of development, from earliest related provisions in 2001 to next-generation agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the newNorth American agreement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA). The conclusion provides a discussion of the consequences of this evolving relationship for the multilateral governance of trade at the WTO.

Abstract As digital trade expands worldwide, the importance of policy factors in digital trade is garnering attention. However, the effectiveness of digital trade‐related policies on digital trade flow is empirically underinvestigated because of challenging data requirements. To overcome this, we combine recently developed, but separately used digital trade‐related datasets to empirically test how digital trade policies affect digital trade flows. In particular, we examine the effects of digital trade policies from two dimensions: unilateral domestic regulations and bilateral trade agreements. Our results reveal that a pair of countries experiences an increase in digital trade flow when they have a trade agreement containing digital trade‐related provisions. This tendency is even stronger when digital trade agreements contain more specific rules. On the contrary, domestic regulations recognised as digital trade barriers actually inhibit digital trade flows, and their negative effect is greater when the regulations are implemented by the importing country than the exporting one. Decomposing the barriers into several areas of regulations, we examine which area is more crucial than the others. These results may seem rather obvious, but conversely, they confirm the validity of our approach to measure digital trade flows across countries and the relevance of the digital trade policy variables.

… patterns of digital trade for global trade law and … the WTO rules have so far not adapted to the various changes triggered by digitization. Nonetheless, WTO law does regulate digital trade …

Trade and cybersecurity are increasingly intertwined. Global data flows and digital technologies accelerate the global connectivity of businesses, governments, and supply chains. Yet, this digital connectivity increases exposure to cyberattacks. The potential costs of cyberattack have underpinned a turn to conceiving of cybersecurity as a national security threat and to using trade and investment restrictions to reduce the risk of cyber-attack. Cybersecurity measures are, however, likely to constitute barriers to data flows and digital trade. The turn to using trade policy to address cybersecurity threats creates two distinct challenges for the WTO and FTAs. The first is the challenge of distinguishing genuine cybersecurity measures from disguised protectionism. The second is how to deal with growth in trade restrictions for legitimate cybersecurity purposes. The approach to the national security exception The WTO and FTA national security exception is poorly designed to deal with these trade policy challenges. This paper analyzes the implication of the WTO panel finding in Russia-Transit case to show why the national security exception and generally exception provisions are poorly designed to deal with cybersecurity-based trade restrictions. The paper concludes by outlining new trade rules and mechanisms for cooperation.

<jats:p/>

… rules and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, written long before the worldwide trade accepted digital trade … multilateral framework governing digital trade. Additionally, it …

… The most recent development in the regulatory approach to digital trade by WTO member states is the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement signed in the middle of 2020, the year of …

This paper explores the characteristics and trends of services trade from the perspective of domestic value added (DVA) and examines the impact of digital trade rules on it using bilateral sector‐level panel data among 64 economies from 1996 to 2018. Our research reveals distinct trends of expansion, densification, and de‐modularization of the international services trade relations among economies. Furthermore, leading services exporters basically maintain their dominant positions, demonstrating a clear first‐mover advantage. We then investigated the impact of digital trade rules on the DVA of services trade using multiple empirical methods, which consistently show that the impact is positive. Based on the text analysis method, we find that improving the broadness and depth of digital trade rules can both enhance the DVA of services trade. Finally, the impact of digital trade rules on the DVA of services trade demonstrates heterogeneity, depending on sectoral, economy‐specific, and agreement‐specific characteristics.

The article introduces a new dataset that seeks to comprehensively trace developments in the area of digital trade governance. The TAPED (Trade Agreements Provisions on Electronic-Commerce and Data) dataset includes a detailed mapping and coding of all preferential trade agreements that cover chapters, provisions, annexes, and side documents that directly or indirectly regulate digital trade. This article presents the methodology behind TAPED and provides an overview of the evolution of digital trade provisions in preferential trade agreements, highlighting also some emerging trends. It then takes a look at the substance of selected rules found particularly in electronic commerce chapters and maps the diversity of approaches in tackling issues meant to facilitate online trade, such as the customs duty moratorium on electronic transactions or paperless trading, and discusses the very recent rule-making with regard to cross-border data flows. This is of course merely a glimpse of the wealth of information that TAPED provides, and the goal of this article is simply to uncover the great variety and the complexity of the norms found in the preferential trade agreements on digital trade governance, which reveals the value of the dataset.

… This Article is about cross-border data flows, the impact of EU data … for data governance. The structure of this Article is as follows: after this introduction, cross-border personal data …

Purpose Companies, governments and individuals are using data to create new services such as apps, artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT). These data-driven services rely on large pools of data and a relatively unhindered flow of data across borders (few market access or governance barriers). The current approach to governing cross-border data flows through trade agreements and has not led to binding, universal or interoperable rules governing the use of data. The purpose of this article is to explain the new role of data in trade and to explain why data in trade is different from trade in other goods and services. We then suggest a new approach at the national and international levels. Design/methodology/approach The author uses a mixed methods approach to examine what the literature says about data as a traded good and or service, examines metaphors regarding the role of data in the economy, and then examines whether or not data is really “traded.” Findings Many countries do not know how to regulate data driven services. There is no consensus on what the appropriate regulatory environment looks like, nor is there a consensus on what are the barriers to cross-border data flows and what constitutes legitimate domestic regulation. Originality/value This is the first article to explain both the unique nature of data and the ineffectiveness of the trade system to address that distinctiveness.

… to cross-border data flow. However, with the introduction of new rules governing these flows in … potential implications of this shift for global data governance. Specifically, it analyzes how …

Abstract The growing global exchange of healthcare data requires more cohesive and effective regulatory frameworks to ensure fair access and protect patient privacy. However, cross-border regulatory rules for healthcare data diverge across countries, such as the EU, which highlights personal data rights and restricts cross-border flow of healthcare data through the GDPR, the United States, which emphasizes the free flow of healthcare data trade or services, and China, which emphasizes cross-border regulatory rules for healthcare data at the level of national data security. Such inconsistent policies often impede international medical research collaborations, undermine the effectiveness of telemedicine, and create barriers for healthcare providers to share patient information. Documents containing national human rights laws, the Global Initiative on Digital Health and the Global Digital Compact, which advocate for cooperation and behavioral co-regulation of healthcare data stakeholders to achieve the strategic goal of putting people at the center of healthcare, provide new ideas for solving the problem. Based on an exploration of these challenges, this paper proposes a harmonized, human rights-based approach that in turn bridges regulatory gaps and ensures data security, privacy, and accessibility in all countries.

In modern international competition and cooperation, digital trade rules centered on the cross-border flow of data have become a competitive advantage for countries. Under the guidance of commercial freedom, the United States chooses to actively promote the free flow of data across borders. The European Union has placed the protection of personal data rights before the cross-border flow of data through the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and developing countries generally reserve space for industry policy interpretation. As one of the world’s largest economies, facing the needs of domestic industrial development and the pressure of international systems, China’s cross-border data flows’ policy is to ensure data flows under the premise of security, protection of personal information, seek international coordination of rules, and the freedom of transmission. The key question, therefore, is how to facilitate interoperability or find a middle ground among the divergent approaches in order to avoid the fragmentation of the digital trade system. The article suggests that a thin and narrowly scoped WTO agreement on e-commerce rules on cross-border data flows with sufficient policy space to accommodate different needs, policy preferences and priorities, and local contexts via legitimate exception provisions would be a welcome movement.

Noting the “awakening” of data cognition in the governance of global cross-border data flows over the past half-century, this article calls for a deeper understanding and exploration of the cultural dynamics underlying this phenomenon from a constructivist perspective. It identifies “cultural value” as one of the key driving factors in the governance approaches of four representative countries and regions: the US, China, the EU, and Russia. We extract “attribute cognition” and “value pursuit” from the core of data culture to the center of data governance under the concept of “evaluative cognition.” By observing how policy stances change, we separate different evaluative cognitions from a complex game field through a historical and comparative analysis, and thus provide a theoretical understanding of the current intense geopolitical game around data.

… participating in regional institutions for cross-border data flows.Beijing focuses on building a … pilot program, focusing on cross-border data flow governance in such sectors as automobile …

In the digital trade era, cross-border data flows have comprehensively reshaped international trade in terms of trade costs, trade volumes, trade structure, and trade efficiency. Control over data has become a key factor in competition among major powers. The United States, and the European Union have all developed regulatory templates for cross-border data flows, which exhibit significant heterogeneity. China's governance of cross-border data flows started relatively late, and there are differences in governance philosophy compared to the United States and Europe. Additionally, China needs to expand its "circle of friends" in cross-border data flows, improve its domestic data cross-border flow system, and optimize its overall development environment. This paper proposes that China should participate in the global governance of cross-border data flows based on the principles of reciprocity, inclusive development, multi-dimensional governance, and respect for national security and social public interests. Finally, the paper suggests that China should objectively recognize the differences between its rules and those of the United States and Europe. At the international level, China should expand its cross-border data flow network through various binding and non-binding platforms. At the domestic level, China should explore system innovations in cross-border data flows in free trade zones and continuously optimize the digital business environment in terms of digital infrastructure, cyber security, and supporting services.

The exponential rise of the digital economy has amplified the importance of cross-border data flows and data governance as central issues in international trade law. This study critically examines and compares the regulatory frameworks governing data flows under China’s Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, particularly through the lens of the Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on e-commerce. The research investigates how China’s sovereignty-oriented approach to data governance contrasts with the WTO’s liberalization-focused model. Employing a comparative legal methodology, the study analyzes key provisions on data localization, regulatory autonomy, and cross-border data transfer commitments in both regimes. Findings reveal that while the WTO framework advocates minimal barriers to data flows to enhance global trade, China’s FTAs embed broad exceptions based on public policy and national security, reflecting a strategic emphasis on digital sovereignty. The article concludes that this divergence could lead to regulatory fragmentation but also opens space for pluralistic governance models. For developing countries, China’s model offers a pragmatic alternative to reconcile digital trade facilitation with domestic regulatory priorities.

… In response, we propose a World Data Organization (WDO) as a complementary focal … cross-border data governance as a digital-economy problem of quasi-public-good governance, …

… on cross- border data flows. Alternatively, are new rules in order? Are some of the current attempts to cover on- line commerce and data flows in extra… If a government has taken an open …

With the rapid development of AIGC (Artificial Intelligence Generated Content) technology, global cross-border data flows have shown unprecedented growth trends in scale, speed, and complexity. However, the increase in cross-border data flows has also brought about severe governance challenges, especially in areas such as data privacy, data sovereignty, and national security, which are becoming increasingly prominent. This article explores the governance dilemma of cross-border data flows in the AIGC era and its game of rules in international relations. Firstly, this article reviews the current status of global data flow and the governance challenges it brings, analyzes the shortcomings of the existing international data governance framework, and explores the game of international powers in formulating data flow rules. Secondly, the article delves into issues such as data privacy protection, data sovereignty, and technological barriers, and explores the profound impact of AIGC on global data governance. Finally, this article proposes strategic recommendations for optimizing global data governance in the context of AIGC, emphasizing strengthening international cooperation, promoting rule coordination, and calling for the establishment of a more transparent, fair, and sustainable data governance system. This study provides a theoretical basis for the governance of cross-border data flows and serves as a reference for optimizing global data governance in the future.

… approach of cross-border data flows in the big data era. First, … characteristics of cross-border data flow in the big data era. … of cross-border data flows in China is generally government-…

Data sovereignty is the manifestation of national sovereignty in the digital field, which is also a matter of national security. While the U.S. ostensibly emphasizes the cross-border free flow of data, it actually implements the powerful policy of long-arm jurisdiction damaging the data sovereignty of other countries. On the other hand, the EU promotes European rules to the world in the name of advocating data protection, furthering data sovereignty through technological sovereignty. Russia asserts data sovereignty by adopting data localization measures. In order to adequately maintain data sovereignty in the cross-border flow of data as well, China should draw up the extraterritorial practice of relevant rules. In view of the problems to Chinese data sovereignty rules, we propose the concept of constructing such to strike a balance between data protection and data open, establish the jurisdictional rules of data sovereignty, determine the reasonable scope of applying data localization, and actively participate in the international legislation of data sovereignty. The proposal is also to provide a Chinese solution that is prudent and encouraging cooperation for global data sovereignty rules.