Essay代写：Digital trade rules－r51due

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- Digital trade rules，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了数字贸易规则。随着大数据技术的发展，全球经济进入了一个迅速的变革时期，数字经济渗透在人类生活的各个领域，数字贸易也得到了迅猛的发展。然而，目前全球数字贸易规则尚未成熟，出于国家利益的考虑，各国正在展开激烈的博弈，争议的焦点在于“跨境数据自由流动、数据存储本土化要求、个人隐私保护、数字知识产权保护、数字贸易关税”等问题上。

With the development of global digital trade, developed countries such as Europe and the United States are actively competing for the dominant power in the formulation of digital trade rules. The free flow of cross-border data, protection of digital intellectual property rights and tariff of digital trade have increasingly become the focus of attention of all countries. In order to cope with this situation, China should, on the premise of giving priority to data sovereignty, paying equal attention to economic development and personal information protection, guide enterprises to improve the degree of compliance with laws and regulations related to digital trade, strengthen the self-discipline of the industry, and actively participate in the formulation of international rules for digital trade through bilateral or multilateral trade negotiations.

With the development of big data technology, the global economy has entered a period of rapid change. Digital economy has penetrated into every field of human life, and digital trade has also achieved rapid development. However, the rules of global digital trade are not yet mature. Due to the consideration of national interests, countries are engaged in a fierce game. The focus of the dispute lies in such issues as "cross-border data free flow, data storage localization requirements, personal privacy protection, digital intellectual property protection, and digital trade tariffs".

As the country with the most developed digital trade, the United States tends to give way to the free flow of cross-border data, so as to maintain its leading position in this field. Under the efforts of the United States, the oecd adopted the guidelines on the protection of personal privacy and the cross-border movement of data in 1980. The third part of the guidelines stipulated that member states should not restrict the free cross-border flow of personal information on the grounds of protecting personal privacy. When the guideline was revised in 2013, it proposed to strengthen data sharing among privacy protection agencies in various countries. Strengthening understanding of privacy and cross-border information flow policies among member states.

The APEC privacy framework of 2004 had a more American will, taking the OECD guide as a guide to encourage information sharing among members and the free flow of data across borders in the asia-pacific region. In order to better implement the APEC privacy protection framework, APEC further launched the information privacy pathfinder project, proposing to establish a transparent, simple and industry-disciplined cross-border privacy rule system applicable to business organizations. However, both the OECD guide and the APEC privacy framework are guiding documents and are not binding on its members.

In recent years, the United States has begun to introduce relevant content of cross-border data flow in various free trade agreement negotiations, in order to build an international digital trade rule system reflecting its own position. The America - South Korea free trade agreement in 2012 for the first time in FTAs e-commerce section into the rules of cross-border data flows, and prescribed in article 15.8 "of the parties need to avoid the cross-border data flows set unnecessary obstacles", in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership agreement, the trans-pacific trade and investment partnership agreement and the service trade agreement negotiations, the United States has also been concerned about cross-border data flows freely. After President trump took office, although the United States announced its withdrawal from the TPP and shelved the negotiations on TTIP and TISA, its attitude towards the free flow of cross-border data has not changed. During negotiations on the north American free trade agreement, which began in 2017, the trump administration made clear that one of the goals of the negotiations was to ensure that NAFTA members did not impose restrictions on cross-border data flows and that they did not require localized data storage. In the us, Mexico and Canada agreement signed in 2018, the us also repeatedly pressed and finally established the requirements of "free flow of cross-border data" and "non-compulsory localization of data storage" in the agreement.

Since the eu's digital industry lags behind that of the United States, and Europe has historically attached great importance to the protection of personal privacy, the eu has always maintained a reservation on the free flow of cross-border data, requiring companies to obtain the prior consent of the information owner before collecting, using and processing personal information.

In digital trade negotiations, the disputes caused by "free flow of cross-border data" and "protection of personal privacy" are the most intense in the game between Europe and America. The United States and the European Union have signed the safe harbor agreement and the privacy shield agreement to coordinate the issue. , according to the safe harbor agreement by America's federal trade commission or the jurisdiction of the department of transportation agencies and organizations can apply to the safe harbor, join the safe havens of organization or institution should promise to respect its eu customer data privacy, and built to meet the requirements of the eu data protection standards, recognition of the enterprise can transmit the data from the eu to overseas. But the snowden affair in 2013 led to a complete loss of confidence in the deal, and the safe harbour agreement was declared null and void in 2016. After that, Europe and the United States signed the privacy shield agreement, which stipulated that American organizations could only access relevant data of eu member states in specific fields or for specific purposes. That same year, the European Union through the general data protection ordinance, GDPR to take effect on May 25, 2018, GDPR to further improve the personal information protection in the eu member states, portable and provisions of the personal information right and forgotten right and other rights, on the premise of citizens could ensure privacy, allowed to cross-border flows of data.

Before trump government came to power, the transatlantic trade and investment in the partnership agreement and the agreement on trade in services, for cross-border data flows and data store localization the two core issues, there are still differences on both sides, the eu's attitude is not completely unlimited is a cross-border data flows, in a "legitimate public policy objectives should be allowed to" localization of data storage, but for what is a "legitimate public policy objectives," the two sides failed to reach agreement. Although the European Union and Canada, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement signed by the eu changes the traditional practice, tried to use negative listing the pledge, but in the computer and related services liberalization commitment at the same time, and the data of financial services, audio-visual services electronically transmitted content services excluded, shows a cautious attitude towards cross-border data flows freely in the European Union.

Other countries outside Europe and America have their own agendas. For example, under the concept of data sovereignty first, Russia opposes the free flow of cross-border data and proposes that the storage and processing of its citizens' data must be carried out in servers within its own territory. Brazil, India, Malaysia, Vietnam and other countries hold the same attitude. The reasons behind this conservative cross-border data flow regulation, which will prohibit the transfer of domestic personal data abroad, are complex, mainly based on information security, privacy protection, domestic information monitoring and industrial protection. On the one hand, Japan, Singapore, Australia and other countries cannot fully agree with the free flow of cross-border data because the development of digital technology and digital economy lags behind that of the United States. On the other hand, they are also concerned about the negative impact of too strict restrictions on the Internet economy in their country, so they adopt a compromise attitude, suggesting that some data localization measures can be implemented when considering public policy goals.

Since the objects of digital trade are mostly knowledge-intensive products, intellectual property protection has naturally become an important issue in digital trade negotiations. In the digital trade negotiations led by the United States, the protection of intellectual property has always been emphasized. The U.S. side's demands on intellectual property are mainly reflected in the following aspects: first, the U.S. believes that source code has high value and belongs to the business secrets of enterprises. Source of mandatory public of digital technology which is leading us companies, and therefore the digital trade talks dominated nearly all put forward the requirement of the "source code" optional localization, for example in chapter TISA e-commerce and TPP14.17 provisions shall not be forced open software source code as the premise of market access.

Second, the us side pays great attention to ipr enforcement and emphasizes the enhancement of ipr enforcement in cross-border goods, as well as the transparency of enforcement process and results. This demand has been reflected in early anti-counterfeiting trade agreements and more recently in the us-mexico-canada agreement.

In addition, the United States in a variety of digital trade negotiations also stressed intellectual property rights infringement network service providers should not bear joint and several liability, the U.S. trade representative office even argue that when the infringing content is provided by the other party, let ISPS bear tort joint liability is a kind of digital trade barriers, ISPS have to do is just at the request of the holder of the intellectual property right of remove infringing content will be relevant.

Regarding the localization of source code, the eu and the us hold the same attitude, that is, "transfer or access to software source code should not be a prerequisite for market access". As ipr intensive enterprises account for nearly 40% of the eu economy, they are crucial to the economic development of the eu. Therefore, the eu also has a similar demand with the us on the formulation of intellectual property rules for digital trade: comprehensively promoting the provisions of "TRIPS plus" in the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Although the European parliament ultimately rejected ACTA because of concerns over privacy, the eu has insisted on terms consistent with ACTA in trade negotiations with mid-sized economies such as South Korea, India and Canada. Examples include the eu-korea free trade agreement and the eu-canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Since the Internet intermediary service platform of the eu is not well developed, and American companies such as Google and facebook occupy the main share, the eu and the us have different demands on ISPs liability, insisting that ISPs should be jointly and severally liable with a few exceptions.

To protect network security, countries with less developed digital technology, such as Brazil and Indonesia, have made providing software source code or restricting encryption a prerequisite for foreign companies to enter their markets. Brazil and Indonesia, for example, both regulated government procurement in 2015, requiring foreign it companies to disclose source code when providing services related to public services. In terms of intellectual property protection and ISPs responsibilities, these countries also have different claims for their own national interests.

As early as 1998, WTO members had reached a consensus on "temporary exemption of tariffs for electronic transmission itself" in the declaration on e-commerce. But there is still no agreement on whether electronic transmissions should be permanently exempt from tariffs and whether they should be legalized. That is because some WTO members, such as India and Indonesia, worry that permanent exemptions would reduce their own revenue and lose leverage with their negotiating partners on other issues.

Electronic transmission itself shall be exempted from tariff consensus means that digital products if electronically transmitted can be no tariffs, but for the attached to the physical carrier of digital products, whether for cross-border transactions should impose tariffs or reduce tariffs, WTO members have different opinions, if assessed, seemed to contradict technology neutrality principles. The information technology products agreement, reached in Singapore in March 1997, adopted a positive list approach, providing for the elimination of tariffs on some 200 information technology products, including computers, computer software, communications equipment, semiconductors, etc. by 1 January 2000. Due to the rapid upgrading of information technology products, the parties agreed to further expand the scope of digital products subject to tariff exemption and reduction after consultation in 2015.

The general agreement on tariffs and trade should apply if the digital products transmitted electronically are considered to be goods, but if such transmissions are considered to be services, the general agreement on trade in services should apply. The degree of liberalization and treatment of international trade under the two rules are different.

As a major exporter of information network products, the United States' position is that e-commerce should be governed by the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and wants zero tariffs for digital trade. As early as 1998, the United States passed the Internet tax exemption act at home, and in 2003, it was extended through legislation. The Internet tax exemption system has continued to this day.

The European Union, on the other hand, expressed its reservations, stressing that e-commerce should be governed by the general agreement on trade in services, so members could refrain from making substantive commitments. At the same time, in order to protect its own culture and limit the invasion of foreign culture, the eu links e-commerce with audio-visual services and adheres to the principle of "cultural exception". In bilateral or multilateral trade agreements, the eu attaches audio-visual exceptions to the chapter on trade in services. The eu also don't agree with digital products in the United States permanent tax exemption, the VAT change act of 2000, the European Union to services provided in digital way, and online trading goods are included in the scope of VAT, although temporarily not to impose tariffs, but requires that all eu member states of the consumer via the Internet to sell audio and video products, software, electronic products such as the eu member states, all should be paid to the eu VAT. In a back and forth with the us, the eu has finally agreed to stick to tax neutrality and not to impose new taxes on companies trading in digital goods other than VAT.

想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。