Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- 11 The Politics of Renewables: Lessons for International Economic Dispute Settlement from Renewable Energy Disputes
- 12 International Economic Dispute Settlement and Digital Trade in Services – Useful Multilateral Principles for the Emerging Global Regulatory Landscape?
- 13 Trade’s Experimental Compliance Mechanisms
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
12 - International Economic Dispute Settlement and Digital Trade in Services – Useful Multilateral Principles for the Emerging Global Regulatory Landscape?
from Part III - New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2021
Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- 11 The Politics of Renewables: Lessons for International Economic Dispute Settlement from Renewable Energy Disputes
- 12 International Economic Dispute Settlement and Digital Trade in Services – Useful Multilateral Principles for the Emerging Global Regulatory Landscape?
- 13 Trade’s Experimental Compliance Mechanisms
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
Summary
That multilateralism is at risk has become a truism underlying global politics and, more specifically, the international regulation of trade. Besides the ongoing escalation of measures impeding international trade between trading nations, a decisive and well-recognized risk to economic multilateralism as we know it also stems from the growing emergence of plurilateral regulation formats. Governments are seeking to deepen international regulation in areas where they find common interests – and such progress has proven to be very difficult to achieve in large negotiation formats after the successful conclusion of the WTO Uruguay Round. The most disputed issues fall in an area of international trade law, which is directly concerned with state sovereignty and disciplines on – in the language of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) – domestic regulation. The rules that are decided and implemented in jurisdictions that regulate economic activities are highly normative political decisions and notoriously tricky to assess with regards to their impact on cross-border commercial exchanges.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Economic Dispute SettlementDemise or Transformation?, pp. 323 - 349Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Aaronson, S. 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 Review 14(4): 671–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, U. 2019. “The Importance of Cross-Border Regulatory Cooperation in an Era of Digital Trade,” World Trade Review 18(1): 99–120.Google Scholar
Burri, M. and Polanco, R. 2020. “Digital Trade provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset,” Journal of International Economic Law 23(1): 1–34.Google Scholar
Chander, A. 2019. “The Internet of Things: Both Goods and Services,” World Trade Review 18(1): 9–22.Google Scholar
Chander, A. and Le, U. 2014. “Breaking the Web: Data Localization vs. the Global Internet,” UC Davis legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 378.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. 2015. “The EU Data Protection Law Reform: Challenges for Services Trade liberalization and Possible Approaches for Harmonizing Privacy Standards into the Context of GATS,” Spanish Yearbook of International Law 19: 211–20.Google Scholar
Drake, W. and Nicolaïdis, K. 2000. “Global Electronic Commerce and GATS: The Millennium Round and Beyond.” In Sauvé, P. and Stern, R. M. (Eds.), GATS 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization. Washington DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 399–437.Google Scholar
Flowers, Z. 2019. “The Role of Precedent and Stare Decisis in the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body,” International Journal of Legal Information 47(2): 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gari, G. 2018. “Recent Preferential Trade Agreements’ Disciplines for Tackling Regulatory Divergence in Services: How Far beyond GATS?” World Trade Review 19(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Haywood, K. 2016. “The Treatment of State Enterprises in the WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements,” Emerging Issues Briefing Note (3), March, London Commonwealth Secretariat, http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/inline/StateOwned%20EnterprisesTPP1008.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Horn, H., Maggi, G. and Staiger, R. 2010. “Trade Agreements as Endogenously Incomplete Contracts,” American Economic Review 100(1): 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iakovleva, S. V. and Irion, K. 2016. “The Best of Both Worlds? Free Trade in Services and EU Law on Privacy and Data Protection,” European Data Protection Law Review 2(2): 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janow, M. and Mavroidis, P. 2019. “Digital Trade, E-Commerce, the WTO and Regional Frameworks,” World Trade Review 18(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
Kuner, C. 2011. “Regulation of Transborder Data Flows under Data Protection and Privacy Law: Past, Present and Future,” OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 187.Google Scholar
Latrille, P. and Lee, J. 2012. “Services Rules in Regional Trade Agreements: How Diverse and Creative Compared to the GATS Multilateral Rules?” WTO Staff Working Paper, ERSD-2012–19, www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201219_e.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Leblond, P. and Aaronson, S. 2019. “A Plurilateral ‘Single Data Area’ Is the Solution to Canada’s Data Trilemma,” CIGI Papers, No. 226.Google Scholar
Lionnet, P. 2018. Brexit: A Case-in-Point for a Single Market Treaty, Zurich: Schulthess 2018.Google Scholar
López González, J. and Ferencz, J. 2018. “Digital Trade and Market Openness,” OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 217, https://doi.org/10.1787/1bd89c9a-en. Accessed 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Manyika, J. et al. 2016. “Digital Globalization, The New Era of Global Flows,” McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
Mattoo, A. and Sauvé, P. (Eds.) 2003. Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group.Google Scholar
Meltzer, J. 2015. “A New Digital Trade Agenda, E15 Initiative,” International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum, 2015. www.e15initiative.org/. Accessed 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Mishra, N. 2011. “Data Localization Laws in a Digital World, Data Protection or Data Protectionism,” The Public Sphere: Journal of Public Policy 4(1): 135–58.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. 2001. “Towards Compatibility: The Future of Electronic Commerce within the Global Trading System,” Journal of International Economic Law 4(1): 683–723.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. and Hepburn, J. 2018. “Don’t Fence Me In: Reforming Trade and Investment Law to Better Facilitate Cross-Border Data Transfer,” Yale Journal of Law and Technology 19(1): 182–237.Google Scholar
Monteiro, J.A. and Teh, R. 2017. “Provisions on Electronic Commerce in Regional Trade Agreements,” WTO Staff Working Paper, No. ERSD-2017–11, www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201711_e.htm. Accessed on 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Murray, A., 2018. Information Technology Law, fourth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neeraj, R. S. 2019. “Trade Rules for the Digital Economy, Charting New Waters at the WTO,” World Trade Review 18(1):121–41.Google Scholar
Polanco, R. and Sauvé, R. 2018. “The Treatment of Regulatory Convergence in Preferential Trade Agreements,” World Trade Review 17(4): 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reidenberg, J. 2001. “E-Commerce and Trans-Atlantic Privacy,” The Houston Law Review 38: 717–49.Google Scholar
Roy, M. 2014. “Services Commitments in Preferential Agreements: Surveying the Empirical Landscape.” In Sauvé, P. and Shingal, A. (Eds.), The Preferential Liberalization of Trade in Services: Comparative Regionalism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Roy, M. 2016. “Charting the Evolving Landscape of Services Trade Policies: Recent Patterns of Protection and Liberalization.” In Sauvé, P. and Roy, M. (Eds.), Research Handbook on Trade in Services, London: Edward Elgar, pp. 25–41.Google Scholar
Roy, M. 2019. “Elevating Services: Services Trade Policy, WTO Commitments, and their Role in Economic Development and Trade Integration,” G-24 Working Paper, Washington, D.C.: Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four, www.g24.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Roy_G24_paper__Jan_2019.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Roy, M., Marchetti, J. and Lim Aik, H. 2006. “Services Liberalization in the New Generation of Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs): How Much Further than the GATS?” WTO Staff Working Paper, ERSD-2006–07, World Trade Organization, www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd200607_e.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Roy, M., Sauvé, P. and Shingal, A. 2017. “Do WTO+ Commitments in Services Agreements Reflect a Quest for Regulatory Convergence? Evidence from Asia,” The World Economy 10(11): 123–50.Google Scholar
Sauvé, P. and Shingal, A. 2014. “Reflections on the Nature of Preferences on Services.” In Sauvé, P. and Shingal, A. (Eds.), The Preferential Liberalization of Services Markets: Comparative Regionalism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 410–12.Google Scholar
Shapiro, E. 2003. “All Is Not Fair in the Privacy Trade: The Safe Harbor Agreement and the World Trade Organization,” Fordham Law Review 71(6): 2781–821.Google Scholar
Vidigal, G. 2019. “WTO Adjudication and the Security Exception: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed – Something Blue?” Legal Issues of Economic Integration 46(3): 203–24.Google Scholar
Weber, R. 2015. “Digital Trade and E-Commerce: Challenges and Opportunities of the Asia-Pacific Regionalism,” Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 10(2): 321–48.Google Scholar
Weber, R. 2012. “Regulatory Autonomy and Privacy Standards under the GATS,” Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 7(1): 25–48.Google Scholar
Willems, A. and Kamau, M. 2019. “Of Binding Provisions and Trust Marks; Roadmap to a Global Legal Framework for the Digital Economy,” Legal Issues of Economic Integration 46(3): 225–46.Google Scholar
Wu, M. 2017. “Digital Trade-Related Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Existing Models and Lessons for the Multilateral Trade System,” RTA Exchange. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), www.rtaexchange.org/. Accessed on 1 April 2020.Google Scholar
Wu, T. 2006. “The World Trade Law of Censorship and Internet Filtering,” Chicago Journal of International Law 7(1): 263–87.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. 2019. “Trade Commitments and Data Flows: The National Security Wildcard,” World Trade Review 18(1): 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W. and Gao, H. 2019. “‘Overreaching’ or ‘Overreacting’? Reflections on the Judicial Function and Approaches of WTO Appellate Body,” Journal of World Trade 53(6): 951–78.Google Scholar