Approaches to Digital Trade and Data Flow Regulation Across Jurisdictions: Implications for the Future ASEAN-EU Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last two decades the venue of free trade agreements has turned into an important platform for digital trade rule-making. Yet, the approaches of individual states differ profoundly and the emerging data governance regime is deeply fragmented.The article seeks tomap these developments by looking at selected preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their design. The enquiry focuses on the United States (US) and European Union (EU) approaches and discusses the differing stances with regard to data flows regulation in particular, while highlighting innovative solutions found in recent trade deals, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). The article then provides an overview of ASEAN’s initiatives with respect to electronic commerce. Against this backdrop, the article evaluates the prospects of digital trade related rules in the future ASEAN-EU agreement. CPTPP, electronic commerce, EU FTAs, data flows, digital trade, RCEP, USMCA
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".