The Regulation of RCEP Data Cross-border Flows and China's Strategies in the Context of Digital Trade

Ziyi  Liu; Ke Zhang; Jinqiu  Jiang; Changqing  Li; Ye  Ju

doi:10.54691/e5jfw990

Authors

Ziyi Liu
Ke Zhang
Jinqiu Jiang
Changqing Li
Ye Ju

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/e5jfw990

Keywords:

Digital Trade; RCEP; Cross-border Data Flows; Conflict of Laws; Collaborative Governance Mechanisms.

Abstract

The RCEP regulation of cross-border data flow reflects the regulatory theory of “limited openness and prudent supervision”, but in the balance between data localization and free flow, the ambiguity and binding nature of the exception clause lead to conflict in its application, and the adoption of the “Kaldor Hicks efficiency” standard to construct the institutional framework may improve the current dilemma. The adoption of the “Kaldor Hicks efficiency” standard to construct the institutional framework may improve the current dilemma. At present, the data protection legal system among RCEP member countries is fragmented, which is manifested in the diversity of legislative modes and regulatory priorities but has become a trend of convergence. The RCEP data cross-border flow regulatory system has conflicts in jurisdiction, legal application, law enforcement, etc., so it should optimize the path of synergy among legislation, judiciary and law enforcement; strengthen the interaction between the framework agreement and domestic laws; promote the deepening of cooperation and the construction of mutual trust; and promote the innovation and capacity building of the mechanism. Innovation and Capacity Building. In the RCEP cross-border data flow law, China should carry out multi-dimensional innovation of “system-mechanism-technology”, form a new paradigm of differentiated regulation, build a multi-level collaborative governance framework with vertical and horizontal coordination and internal and external linkage, create a new model of cross-border secure data flow, and establish a dynamic technical protection system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Congjing Ran and Yan Liu: A theoretical genealogy of data sovereignty, Journal of Wuhan University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition),75(2022)No.6,p.24.

[2] Xiang Sheng, Lin Yu and Haiying Huang: Cross-border data localization: sovereignty considerations, security bottom line and strategic positioning, Library Forum,43(2023)No.9,p.22.

[3] Martina Francesca Ferracane: Data flows and national security: a conceptual framework to assess restrictions on data flows under GATS security exception, Digital Policy Regulation and Governance,21(2019)No.1,p.47.

[4] Zhipeng He and Tianjiao Shen: Exploring the effectiveness of international soft law in global governance, Academic Monthly,(2021)No.1,p.111.

[5] Chengyu Zhang: RCEP Basic Security Exceptions for Cross-Border Data Flows and China's Response, Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences,14(2024),p.39.

[6] Gui Huang and Yin Lei: The Norms on Cross-Border Data Flows in the RCEP, Asian Journal Of Law And Economics,(2022)No.3,p.384.

[7] Yuqiong Du and Xinyu Luo: The Application of the Exception Clause of the RCEP Data Cross-border Flow Rules and China's Response, Journal of Sichuan Normal University (Social Science Edition),(2023)No.5,p.77-78.

[8] Bo Feng, Yang Tong: The Origin and Difficulties of Legal Economics, Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition),47(2017)No.4,p.230.

[9] Kang Yuan and Wanru Zhao: Jurisdictional conflicts and their coordination in cross-border data flow, Journal of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (Social Science Edition), (2024)No.2,p.67-68.

[10] Congjing Ran, Guirong Chen and Huan Wang: Study on the Manifestation of Jurisdictional Conflicts of Cross-border Data Flows in Europe and the United States and the Main Solution Paths, Library and Intelligence, (2020)No.3,p.78.

[11] Zhiqi Zhou: A case study of extraterritorial jurisdictional boundaries of data under global legal practice: balancing interests in expansion and contraction[J]. Journal of International Economic Law, (2023)No.4,p.46.

[12] Paul de Hert,Cihan Parla and Juraj Sajfert: The Cybercrime Convention Committee's 2017 Guidance Note on Production Orders. Unilateralist transborder access to electronic evidence promoted via soft law, Computer Law & Security Review, (2018)No.2,p.328.

[13] Bin Liao and Minxian Liu: Research on cross-border electronic data forensics under data sovereignty conflict, Journal of Law, (2021)No.8,p.149.

[14] Xuebo Zhang and Zhitao Wang: RCEP data cross-border flow rules and China's data cross-border flow legislation, SAR Practice and Theory, (2024)No.1,p.100.

[15] Junwei Feng: Development and reflection of cross-border e-discovery system, Journal of Law, (2019)No.6,p.34.

[16] Guangxi Wei and Xiangshu Liu: Specific path of public-private cooperation in cross-border data forensics, Journal of the People's Public Security University of China (Social Science Journal), (2024)No.1,p.70.

[17] Fulin Chi: Comprehensive and high-quality implementation of RCEP requires joint efforts of all parties (Observatory), People's Daily (Overseas Edition), 2024-9-7.

[18] Chen,Meng. Developing China's Approaches to Regulate Cross-border Data Transfer: Relaxation and Integration, Computer Law & Security Computer Law & Security Review, (2024)No.54,p.10.

[19] Mingyue Liao, Jiayi Wang and Yingxue Yang: Security risks in cross-border enforcement of US CLOUD Act data and China's response, Library Forum, (2024),p.8.

[20] Jun Sun: China's Role and New Development Pattern in RCEP, Academic Forum, 46(2023)No.2,p.61.

[21] Xi Wang and Jinhan Gao: Research on the Construction of RCEP Dispute Settlement Mechanism, International Outlook,10(2018)No.2,p.150.

[22] Qiang Yang: AI and data privacy protection: A crack at federated learning, Information Security Research,5(2019)No.11,p.963.

[23] Pengfei Wang, Zongzheng Wei and Dongsheng Zhou et al: A review of federated forgetting learning research, Journal of Computer Science,47(2024)No.2,p.398.