Legal and Economic Analysis on Digital Trade Policies and Rulemaking in WTO, RTA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The environment surrounding the digital economy is evolving, and governmentshave not yet reached a sufficient level of consensus to establish international trade norms governing it.This mainly results from divergent national perspectives on the key issues surrounding digital trade.It is challenging to meet all the demands of the countries, such as U.S. whose liberal approach to digital trade is based on its competitiveness in the global market, the EU to protect the region's single market and its companies, China to secure future opportunities, and developing countries to protect domestic companies.The purpose of this study is to discuss the recent politics and trends of digital trade negotiations in various international fora.This study aims to provide an account of existing norms and standards which are essential for digital trade and analysis of several priority issues for digital trade norms in terms of RTAs; for example, data-related regulations that are critical for the liberalization of digital commerce (e.g., data transfer), and prohibition of localization of data facilities.In addition, the study analyzes the implications and limitations of digital trade agreements that have already been made among the RTA and WTO JSI discussion at the multilateral level through literature analysis published by international organizations and statistical data.This study found the "heterogeneity" of digital trade agreements and policies.Not only does every government have various approaches to digital regulation, but also digital trade covers a wide range of issues that lead to overlapping rules and a complicated network of numerous digital trade agreements with varying partner countries.Even in some agreements negotiated by the same country, each provision, the scope, and the ambition of its agreement are heterogeneous.This paper looked into the different binding commitments and exception clauses of some main provisions of RTAs which can show the countries' intent and ambition towards specific policy issues.It also showed the correlation that if the country is restrictive, its digital policy could differ from the other countries' policies.Lastly, the study highlights trade barriers, which undermine the effectiveness of making rules.It introduces key concepts of digital trade barriers and discusses the restrictiveness and divergence of digital trade policies in detail.The barriers can be classified as tariff-related and non-tariff barriers: a moratorium on electronic transmission, restriction on cross-border data flow, and data infrastructure localization.It examines the political economy of the digital trade agenda and the legal landscape of provisions within the digital trade negotiation, such as USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), DEPA, and WTO JSI.The signing of multilateral digital trade agreementsthrough the WTO is likely to be prolonged; however, it is a crucial and necessary tool for advancing the digital environment.Therefore, digital trade agreements must be agreed upon by many countries with enough policy space, and at the same time, it should contain enough content on various issues that have been made so far.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».