An exploration of the current state of global trade law in the era of Big Data and AI. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

Governing Cross-Border Data Flows explores how the European Union can simultaneously reconcile and pursue two important legal and policy objectives, namely: protecting fundamental rights guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter) concerning privacy and personal data, while also maintaining and developing a binding, rules-based global trading system to ensure appropriate access to foreign digital markets for EU businesses. The book demonstrates a significant conflict between international trade law and European data privacy law when it comes to the governance of cross-border flows of personal data. To resolve the tensions caused by this clash, the book proposes concrete and detailed ways to ameliorate the situation from both ends (international trade and personal data protection), specifically through reforms of both international trade and chapter V of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). To explain how such reforms could be effectuated, Yakovleva examines the role of discourse in the evolution of trade law in the last two decades. The book also paves the way for the further research necessary to design a fully-fledged reform proposal of the EU framework for the transfer of personal data outside the European Economic Area.

Governing cross-border data flows is inherently difficult given the ubiquity and value of data, and the impact government policies can have on business, innovation and societal interests. This book engages with the unexplored topic of why and how governments should develop a coherent and consistent framework regulating cross-border data flows.

Written by a renowned expert on data protection law, this work examines the history, policies, and future of transborder data flow regulation, and is the only text to provide a detailed legal analysis of its global implications.

This book focuses on the PRC’s cross-border data transfer legislation in recent years, as well as the implications for international trade law. The book addresses the convergence of industries and technologies notably caused by digitization; the issue of conflicts between goods and services; and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) as well as the difficulty of classifying service sectors under WTO members’ commitments. The book also examines the FTAs that entered into force after 2012 that regulate digital trade beyond the venue of the WTO and analyzes their rules of relevance for cross-border data flows and international trade. It asks whether and how these FTAs have deliberately reacted to the increasing importance of data flows as well as to the trouble of governing them in the context of global governance

In modern international competition and cooperation, digital trade rules centered on the cross-border flow of data have become a competitive advantage for countries. Under the guidance of commercial freedom, the United States chooses to actively promote the free flow of data across borders. The European Union has placed the protection of personal data rights before the cross-border flow of data through the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and developing countries generally reserve space for industry policy interpretation. As one of the world's largest economies, facing the needs of domestic industrial development and the pressure of international systems, China's cross-border data flows' policy is to ensure data flows under the premise of security, protection of personal information, seek international coordination of rules, and the freedom of transmission. The key question, therefore, is how to facilitate interoperability or find a middle ground among the divergent approaches in order to avoid the fragmentation of the digital trade system. The article suggests that a thin and narrowly scoped WTO agreement on e-commerce rules on cross-border data flows with sufficient policy space to accommodate different needs, policy preferences and priorities, and local contexts via legitimate exception provisions would be a welcome movement.