Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Transformation as a Reshaper of Global Trade Law

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Law and Economics of the Digital Transformation (ILEC 2023)

Part of the book series: Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship ((EALELS,volume 15))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 347 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the far-reaching effects of the digital transformation on trade and trade law. It first sketches the state of affairs under the multilateral forum of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and, second, analyzes the more deliberate regulatory responses to the challenges of digitization formulated in free trade agreements (FTAs). The focus here is placed on distinct advanced models of digital trade regulation, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP), as well as on particular forms of legal innovation, such as the new generation of Digital Economy Agreements. By looking at specific agreements, the chapter also demarcates the positioning of key stakeholders, in particular the US, the EU, and China, and contributes to the understanding of the dynamic and contentious landscape of global trade law, as reshaped by digital transformation in recent years. This chapter finally asks whether the emergent regulatory environment is adequate to match the data-driven economy and whether certain pitfalls of international cooperation and path dependencies hinder this.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. Brownsword and Yeung (2008); Gervais (2010); Kauffman Taskforce on Law, Innovation and Growth (2011).

  2. 2.

    Cottier (2017), p. 1017.

  3. 3.

    Manyika et al. (2016).

  4. 4.

    Admittedly the report was published before the Covid-19 pandemic; the effects of online commerce has only been enhanced during the pandemic times. See e.g. WTO (2020).

  5. 5.

    Manyika et al. (2016), p. 73 and Chap. 4.

  6. 6.

    Manyika et al. (2016), p. 7.

  7. 7.

    See e.g. Shapiro and Varian (1999).

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Ezrachi and Stucke (2016); Burri (2019). This has been reflected in recent legislative efforts of the European Union, such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Acts.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. Couldry and Mejias (2019); Fisher and Streinz (2021).

  10. 10.

    See e.g. Castro and McQuinn (2015); Manyika et al. (2016).

  11. 11.

    UNCTAD (2021). Notably, worldwide exports of digitally deliverable services fell by only 1.8%, while total services exports declined by 20% (an unprecedented drop since records began in 1990) (ibid.).

  12. 12.

    See e.g. Kommerskollegium (2012); Lanz and Maurer (2015).

  13. 13.

    We have seen regulatory reforms unfold due to convergence effects—the European Union, for instance, has adopted twice such reform packages and is now in the process of undergoing a third reform as part of its Digital Single Market Strategy. See European Commission (2015).

  14. 14.

    Although there were some debates on data flows in the 1980s. See e.g. Kuner (2011); Aaronson (2015); OECD (2011).

  15. 15.

    Manyika et al. (2011); Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2013); Burri (2019).

  16. 16.

    The Economist (2017).

  17. 17.

    See e.g. Daskal (2015); Burri (2019); for a fully-fledged analysis, see Scholz (2019).

  18. 18.

    Manyika et al. (2011).

  19. 19.

    See e.g. Manyika et al. (2011); Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2013); Henke et al. (2016); World Bank (2021).

  20. 20.

    See e.g. Manyika et al. (2011).

  21. 21.

    See Chander (2016), p. 2; Chander (2021).

  22. 22.

    Irion and Williams (2019).

  23. 23.

    Burri and Schär (2016); Gasser (2021); Burri (2021a).

  24. 24.

    See e.g. USITC (2013); USITC (2014); USTR (2022).

  25. 25.

    Localization measures can be defined as measures that compel companies to conduct certain digital trade-related activities within a country’s borders. They may include policies that require data servers to be located within the country; that require local content; government procurement preferences and technology standards that favour local digital companies. See e.g. OECD (2015).

  26. 26.

    WTO (1998).

  27. 27.

    Burri (2015); WTO (2018).

  28. 28.

    For a fully-fledged analysis, see Burri and Cottier (2012).

  29. 29.

    See e.g. Sacerdoti et al. (2006).

  30. 30.

    Major GATS cases have had a substantial Internet-related element. See Panel Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (US—Gambling), WT/DS285/R, adopted 10 November 2004; Appellate Body Report, US—Gambling, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 7 April 2005; Panel Report, China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (China—Publications and Audiovisual Products), WT/DS363/R, adopted 12 August 2009; Appellate Body Report, China—Publications and Audiovisual Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, adopted 21 December 2009; Panel Report, China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services (China—Electronic Payment Services), WT/DS413/R, adopted 31 August 2012.

  31. 31.

    See e.g. Fleuter (2016).

  32. 32.

    Weber and Burri (2012); Peng (2012); Willemyns (2019).

  33. 33.

    Wunsch-Vincent and Hold (2012).

  34. 34.

    WTO (2019b).

  35. 35.

    See e.g. Burri (2021b); Burri (2023).

  36. 36.

    See e.g. Cooper (2014); Corbin and Perry (2019).

  37. 37.

    This analysis is based on a dataset of all data-relevant norms in trade agreements (TAPED). See Burri and Polanco (2020) and https://unilu.ch/taped (last access 05 August 2022).

  38. 38.

    See Burri and Polanco (2020); Willemyns (2020).

  39. 39.

    US Congress (2001); Wunsch-Vincent (2003); Gao (2018).

  40. 40.

    See e.g. Elsig and Klotz (2021).

  41. 41.

    For analysis of all relevant chapters, see Burri (2017).

  42. 42.

    Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

  43. 43.

    Article 14.2(2) CPTPP. Excluded for the scope are (a) government procurement and (b) information held or processed by or on behalf of a Party, or measures related to such information, including measures related to its collection. Article 14.2(3) and (4) CPTPP.

  44. 44.

    Article 14.5(2) CPTPP.

  45. 45.

    Articles 14.9 and 14.6 CPTPP respectively.

  46. 46.

    Article 14.13(2) CPTPP.

  47. 47.

    Article 14.11(2) CPTPP.

  48. 48.

    Article 14.11(3) CPTPP.

  49. 49.

    See e.g. Andersen (2015).

  50. 50.

    See e.g. Greenleaf (2017).

  51. 51.

    Article 14.17 CPTPP.

  52. 52.

    Article 14.14 CPTPP.

  53. 53.

    Article 14.10 CPTPP.

  54. 54.

    Article 14.16 CPTPP.

  55. 55.

    Article 14.8(2) CPTPP.

  56. 56.

    Article 14.8(2) CPTPP. A footnote (6) provides some clarification in saying that: “… a Party may comply with the obligation in this paragraph by adopting or maintaining measures such as a comprehensive privacy, personal information or personal data protection laws, sector-specific laws covering privacy, or laws that provide for the enforcement of voluntary undertakings by enterprises relating to privacy”.

  57. 57.

    Article 14.8(5) CPTPP.

  58. 58.

    Article 19.2 USMCA.

  59. 59.

    Article 19.3 USMCA.

  60. 60.

    Article 19.4 USMCA.

  61. 61.

    Article 19.5 USMCA.

  62. 62.

    Article 19.6 USMCA.

  63. 63.

    Article 19.9 USMCA.

  64. 64.

    Article 19.12 USMCA.

  65. 65.

    Article 19.11 USMCA.

  66. 66.

    Article 19.11(2) USMCA. A footnote attached clarifies: “A measure does not meet the conditions of this paragraph if it accords different treatment to data transfers solely on the basis that they are cross-border in a manner that modifies the conditions of competition to the detriment of service suppliers of another Party”. The footnote does not appear in the CPTPP.

  67. 67.

    Article 19.8(2) requires from the parties to “adopt or maintain a legal framework that provides for the protection of the personal information of the users of digital trade. In the development of its legal framework for the protection of personal information, each Party should take into account principles and guidelines of relevant international bodies, such as the APEC Privacy Framework and the OECD Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (2013)”.

  68. 68.

    Article 19.8(3) USMCA.

  69. 69.

    Article19.8(4) and (5) USMCA.

  70. 70.

    Article 19.1 USMCA.

  71. 71.

    Article 19.17(2) USMCA. Annex 19-A creates specific rules with the regard to the application of Article 19.17 for Mexico, in essence postponing its implementation for three years.

  72. 72.

    See e.g. Burri (2022).

  73. 73.

    Article 19.18 USMCA.

  74. 74.

    Article 7: Customs Duties; Article 8: Non-Discriminatory Treatment of Digital Products; Article 9: Domestic Electronic Transactions Framework; Article 10: Electronic Authentication and Electronic Signatures; Article 14: Online Consumer Protection; Article 11: Cross-Border Transfer of Information; Article 12: Location of Computing Facilities; Article 16: Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Messages; Article 19: Cybersecurity US–Japan DTA.

  75. 75.

    Article 20 US–Japan DTA.

  76. 76.

    Article 17 US–Japan DTA.

  77. 77.

    Article 18 US–Japan DTA.

  78. 78.

    See e.g. the 2016 Chile–Uruguay FTA; the 2016 Updated Singapore-–Australia Free Trade Agreement, the 2017 Argentina–Chile FTA, the 2018 Singapore–Sri Lanka FTA, the 2018 Australia–Peru FTA, the 2018 Brazil–Chile FTA and the 2019 Australia–Indonesia FTA.

  79. 79.

    See e.g. Articles 102 and 37 EU–Chile FTA.

  80. 80.

    Article 7.48 EU–South Korea FTA.

  81. 81.

    Article 16.3 CETA.

  82. 82.

    Article 16.5 CETA.

  83. 83.

    Article 16.4 CETA.

  84. 84.

    Article 8.81 EU-Japan EPA.

  85. 85.

    See European Commission (2018).

  86. 86.

    Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ 2016 L 119/1 [hereinafter GDPR].

  87. 87.

    WTO (2019a).

  88. 88.

    See e.g. Article 6(1) draft EU–Australia FTA (emphasis added). The same wording is found in the draft EU–New Zealand and the EU–Tunisia FTAs.

  89. 89.

    See e.g. Article 6(2) draft EU–Australia FTA. The same wording is found in the draft EU–New Zealand and the EU–Tunisia FTAs.

  90. 90.

    See e.g. Article 5(2) draft EU–Australia FTA. The same wording is found in the draft EU–New Zealand and the EU–Tunisia FTAs.

  91. 91.

    See e.g. Article 2 draft EU–Australia FTA. The same wording is found in the draft EU–New Zealand and the EU–Tunisia FTAs.

  92. 92.

    Yakovleva (2020), p. 496.

  93. 93.

    Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, OJ L [2021] 149/10. See also Irion and Burri (2022).

  94. 94.

    For details, see People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Commerce: http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/english/fta_qianshu.shtml (last access 05 August 2022).

  95. 95.

    Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

  96. 96.

    Leblond (2020).

  97. 97.

    Prior to the RCEP, of all of Chinaʼs 22 FTAs, 12 of them have e-commerce chapters or provisions. These are China–Cambodia FTA, China–Mauritius FTA, China–Georgia FTA, China–Australia FTA, China–Korea FTA, China–New Zealand Upgraded FTA, China–Chile Upgraded FTA, China–Singapore Upgraded FTA, China–ASEAN Upgraded FTA, China–Hong Kong Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation, China–Macao Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation and China–Taiwan Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. Although the China–US Phase I Agreement does not have an e-commerce chapter, it contains provisions on Piracy and Counterfeiting on E-Commerce Platforms in Section E of Chap. 1: Intellectual Property. In this section, the parties seek to combat online infringement of IP, including infringement on major e-commerce platforms.

  98. 98.

    Article 12.14 RCEP.

  99. 99.

    Article 12.15 RCEP.

  100. 100.

    Emphasis added.

  101. 101.

    Emphasis added. The “essential security interest” language has been endorsed by China also in the framework of the WTO electronic commerce negotiations.

  102. 102.

    Article 16.2 DEPA.

  103. 103.

    After Module 1, specifying general definitions and initial provisions, Module 2 focuses on “Business and Trade Facilitation”; Module 3 covers “Treatment of Digital Products and Related Issues”; Module 4 “Data Issues”; Module 5 “Wider Trust Environment”; Module 6 “Business and Consumer Trust”; Module 7 “Digital Identities”; Module 8 “Emerging Trends and Technologies”; Module 9 “Innovation and the Digital Economy”; Module 10 “Small and Medium Enterprises Cooperation”; and Module 11 “Digital Inclusion”. The rest of the modules deal with the operationalization and implementation of the DEPA and cover common institutions (Module 12); exceptions (Module 13); transparency (Module 14); dispute settlement (Module 15); and some final provisions with regard to amendments, entry into force, accession and withdrawal (Module 16).

  104. 104.

    Article 9.4 DEPA.

  105. 105.

    Article 3.4 DEPA. The article also provides detailed definitions of cryptography, encryption, and cryptographic algorithm and cipher.

  106. 106.

    Article 2.2: Paperless Trading; art 2.3: Domestic Electronic Transactions Framework.

  107. 107.

    Article 2.2(5) DEPA. “Single window” is defined as a facility that allows Parties involved in a trade transaction to electronically lodge data and documents with a single-entry point to fulfil all import, export and transit regulatory requirements (Article 2.1 DEPA).

  108. 108.

    Article 8.2(2) and (3) DEPA.

  109. 109.

    Articles 8.3 and 8.4 DEPA.

  110. 110.

    Article 9.2 DEPA.

  111. 111.

    Article 11.2 DEPA.

  112. 112.

    See e.g. Burri (2021b).

  113. 113.

    See e.g. Burri (2021b); also Shaffer (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 Rev 14:671–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen H (2015) Protection of non-trade values in WTO appellate body jurisprudence: exceptions, economic arguments, and eluding questions. J Int Econ Law 18:383–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword R, Yeung K (2008) Regulating technologies: legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri M (2015) The international economic law framework for digital trade. Zeitschrift Für Schweizerisches Recht 135:10–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri M (2017) The governance of data and data flows in trade agreements: the pitfalls of legal adaptation. UC Davies Law Rev 51:65–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri M (2019) Understanding the implications of big data and big data analytics for competition law: an attempt for a primer. In: Mathis K, Tor A (eds) New developments in competition behavioural law and economics. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–263

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burri M (2021a) Interfacing privacy and trade. Case Western J Int Law 53:35–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri M (2021b) Towards a treaty on digital trade. J World Trade 55:77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burri M (2022) Fake news in times of pandemic and beyond: exploring of the rationales for regulating information platforms. In: Mathis K, Tor A (eds) Law and economics of the coronavirus crisis. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burri M, Cottier T (2012) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burri M, Polanco R (2020) Digital trade provisions in preferential trade agreements: introducing a new dataset. J Int Econ Law 23:187–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burri M, Schär R (2016) The reform of the EU data protection framework: outlining key changes and assessing their fitness for a data-driven economy. J Inf Policy 6:479–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri M (2023) A WTO agreement on electronic commerce: an enquiry into its substance and viability. Trade Law 4.0 Working Paper No. 1/2021, forthcoming Georgetown journal of international law, vol 53

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro D, McQuinn A (2015) Cross-border data flows enable growth in all industries. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Chander A (2021) AI and trade. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 115–127

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chander A (2016) National data governance in a global economy. UC Davis legal studies research paper 495

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WH (2014) Free trade agreements: impact on US trade and implications for US trade policy. Congressional Research Service Report, RL31356

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin L, Perry M (2019) Free trade agreements: hegemony or harmony. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cottier T (2017) Technology and the law of international trade regulation. In: Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (eds) The oxford handbook of law, regulation and technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1017–1051

    Google Scholar 

  • Couldry N, Mejias UA (2019) Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Telev New Media 20:336–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daskal J (2015) The un-territoriality of data. Yale Law J 125:326–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsig M, Klotz S (2021) Data flow-related provisions in preferential trade agreements: trends and patterns of diffusion. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 42–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015) A digital single market strategy for Europe. COM(2015) 192 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018) Horizontal provisions for cross-border data flows and for personal data protection in EU trade and investment agreements. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/may/tradoc_156884.pdf. Last access 05 Aug 2022

  • Ezrachi A, Stucke ME (2016) Virtual competition: the promise and perils of the algorithm-driven economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher A, Streinz T (2021) Confronting data inequality. international law and justice. Working Paper 1, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleuter S (2016) The role of digital products under the WTO: a new framework for GATT and GATS classification. Chic J Int Law 17:153–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao H (2018) Regulation of digital trade in US free trade agreements: from trade regulation to digital regulation. Legal Issues Econ Integr 45:47–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasser U (2021) Futuring digital privacy. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 95–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais D (2010) The regulation of inchoate technologies. Houston Law Rev 47:665–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf G (2017) Free trade agreements and data privacy: future perils of Faustian bargains. In: Svantesson D, Kloza D (eds) Transatlantic data privacy relationships as a challenge for democracy. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 181–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke N et al (2016) The age of analytics: competing in a data-driven world. McKinsey Global Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Irion K, Burri M (2022) Digitaler handel. In: Kübek G, Tams CJ, Terhechte JP (eds) Handels- und Kooperationsvertrag EU/GB Handbuch. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 343–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Irion K, Williams J (2019) Prospective policy study on artificial intelligence and EU trade policy. The Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman Taskforce on Law, Innovation and Growth (2011) Rules for growth: promoting innovation and growth through legal reform. Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City MO

    Google Scholar 

  • Kommerskollegium (2012) Everybody is in services: the impact of servicifcation in manufacturing on trade and trade policy. Swedish National Board of Trade, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuner C (2011) Regulation of transborder data flows under data protection and privacy law: past, present and future. OECD Digital Economy Paper 187

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanz R, Maurer A (2015) Services and global value chains—some evidence on servicification of manufacturing and services networks. WTO Working Paper ERSD 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Leblond P (2020) Digital trade: is RCEP the WTO’s future? Centre for International Governance Innovation

    Google Scholar 

  • Manyika J et al (2011) Big data: the next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Manyika J et al (2016) Digital globalization: the new era of global flows. McKinsey Global Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) The evolving privacy landscape: 30 years after the OECD privacy guidelines. OECD Digital Economy Papers

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015) Emerging policy issues: localisation barriers to trade. TAD/TC/WP(2014)17/FINAL

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng S (2012) Renegotiate the WTO schedule of commitments? Technological development and treaty interpretation. Cornell Int Law J 45:403–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacerdoti G, Yanovich A, Bohanes J (2006) The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz LH (2019) Big data is not big oil: the role of analogy in the law of new technologies. Tennessee Law Rev 86:863–893

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer G (2021) Trade law in a data-driven economy: the need for modesty and resilience. In: Peng S, Lin C, Streinz T (eds) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: disruption, regulation, and reconfiguration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro C, Varian HR (1999) Information rules. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2017) The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data. Print edition

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2021) Impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on trade in the digital economy. UNCTAD Technical Notes on ICT for Development No. 19

    Google Scholar 

  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC) (2013) Digital trade in the US and global economies. Part 1, Investigation No. 332–531, USITC, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United States International Trade Commission (USITC) (2014) Digital trade in the US and global economies. Part 2, Investigation No. 332–540, USITC, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2022) 2022 national trade estimate report on foreign trade. USTR, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • US Congress (2001) Bipartisan trade promotion authority act of 2001, H. R. 3005

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber RH, Burri M (2012) Classification of services in the digital economy. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Willemyns I (2019) GATS classification of digital services—does “the Cloud” have a silver lining? J World Trade 53:59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemyns I (2020) Agreement forthcoming? A comparison of EU, US, and Chinese RTAs in times of plurilateral E-commerce negotiations. J Int Econ Law 23:221–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2021) World development report 2021: data for better lives. World Bank, Washington DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2018) World trade report 2018: the future of world trade. World Trade Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (1998) Work programme on electronic commerce. WT/L/274

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2019a) Joint statement on electronic commerce, EU proposal for WTO disciplines and commitments relating to electronic commerce, communication from the European union. INF/ECOM/22

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2019b) Joint statement on electronic commerce. WT/L/1056

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2020) E-commerce, trade and the Covid-19 pandemic. Information Note by the WTO Secretariat

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunsch-Vincent S (2003) The digital trade agenda of the US. Aussenwirtschaft 1:7–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunsch-Vincent S, Hold A (2012) Towards coherent rules for digital trade: building on efforts in multilateral versus preferential trade negotiations. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 179–221

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yakovleva S (2020) Privacy protection(ism): the latest wave of trade constraints on regulatory autonomy. Univ Miami Law Rev 74:416–519

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Mira Burri

Authors
  1. Mira Burri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mira Burri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Klaus Mathis

  2. School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

    Avishalom Tor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Burri, M. (2023). Digital Transformation as a Reshaper of Global Trade Law. In: Mathis, K., Tor, A. (eds) Law and Economics of the Digital Transformation. ILEC 2023. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25059-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25059-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-25058-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-25059-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation