下面是小编为大家整理的建立稳健数据和数字贸易监管架构（英文）,供大家参考。
Table of Contents
vi About the Authors vi Acronyms and Abbreviations 1 Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 A Multi-dimensional Policy Dilemma 2 Governance Will Not Wait 4 The Economic Value Capture Pillar 6 The Sovereignty Pillar 9 The National Security Pillar 11 Discussion: Toward a Global Data Governance Framework 13 Works Cited
vi CIGI Papers No. 240 — April 2020 • Dan Ciuriak and Maria Ptashkina
About the Authors Dan Ciuriak is a senior fellow at CIGI, where he is exploring the interface between Canada’s domestic innovation and international trade and investment, including the development of better metrics to assess the impact of Canada’s trade agreements on innovation outcomes. Based in Ottawa, Dan is the director and principal of Ciuriak Consulting, Inc. Dan is also a fellow in residence with the C. D. Howe Institute, a distinguished fellow with the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and an associate with BKP Economic Advisors GmbH of Munich, Germany. Previously, he had a 31-year career with Canada’s civil service, retiring as deputy chief economist at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (now Global Affairs Canada). Maria Ptashkina is an economics Ph.D. candidate at University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. Her main research interests include macroeconomics, international economics and trade policy. She is a former fellow at the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development and former delegate from the Russian Federation to the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. Maria is a former member of intergovernmental policy research groups on issues related to international trade and investment (the Group of Twenty, BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] and the One Belt, One Road initiative).
Acronyms and Abbreviations
5G fifth-generation AI artificial intelligence BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa CUSMA Canada-United States- Mexico Agreement D9 Digital 9 FDI foreign direct investment G20 Group of Twenty GATS
General Agreement on Trade in Services GATT
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GDPR General Data Protection Regulation IoT Internet of Things IP intellectual property OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development R&D research and development SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership TRIPS Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects Agreement of Intellectual Property Rights WTO World Trade Organization
Toward a Robust Architecture for the Regulation of Data and Digital Trade 11
Executive Summary The digital transformation occurring worldwide poses significant challenges for a governance framework that evolved gradually and incrementally over centuries, shaped by lessons learned during the long era of industrialization and globalization in which much of today’s technology was still science fiction. At the heart of the governance challenge is “datafication” — the capture of truly astronomical amounts of information on the functioning of societies, economies and even the industrial processes of firms. Once transformed into data, information can be analyzed and used to modify the behaviours that generated the information in the first place for economic, political or geopolitical advantage. Given the multiple roles that data plays — as the medium of digital commercial transactions and digital trade, as a valuable capital asset, as part of the intangible infrastructure of the digital economy, and as the very fabric of a modern information society — the governance challenge is immense. Moreover, given the multitude and pervasiveness of data analytics applications, there is urgency in coming to grips with the regulation of data, since other governance challenges, ranging from climate change to income distribution, depend on safeguarding democratic processes and functional markets. Numerous efforts are under way to address aspects of the regulation of data. These efforts include the recently launched e-commerce negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), other work programs under the WTO, and the initiatives of
the Group of Twenty (G20) on the free flow of data based on trust. There is, as well, work in more specialized areas, such as competition policy and intellectual property (IP), taxation in the digital realm, and multi-stakeholder processes addressing the plethora of other digital governance issues ranging from privacy to cyber security. This paper suggests a conceptual framework for addressing the multi-dimensional policy dilemma that societies now face of reconciling the many competing policy priorities raised by digital transformation domestically and of preparing the ground for negotiations toward a robust and broadly accepted governance regime internationally, fit for purpose for the age of data.
Introduction How will rules written for the world of 1994 fare in a world of talking teapots and connected cars? —Anupam Chander (2019)
The digital transformation is generating exponentially growing flows of data within and across national borders and enabling the rapid development and virtually frictionless global dissemination of new technologies. These data flows and technologies touch virtually every aspect of our society and economy, dangling the promise of wealth and power to the winners of the race to commercialize, while also threatening pervasive economic disruption, raising the spectre of social dystopia and incentivizing strategic competition between nations. To say the least, these developments pose significant challenges for a governance framework that evolved gradually and incrementally, shaped by lessons learned during the long era of industrialization and globalization, in which much of today’s technology was still science fiction. At the heart of the governance challenge is “datafication” — the capture of truly astronomical amounts of information on the functioning of societies, economies and even the industrial processes of firms. Data applications are ubiquitous: data serves as the medium of digital commercial transactions, including cross-border trade; it has value as a capital asset, independent of the message it carries; it constitutes part of the intangible infrastructure of the digital economy, in particular for the rapidly expanding Internet of Things (IoT); and it embodies the information that is generated through social and political engagement in a modern information society. Reflecting the value proposition that data offers, strategic competition to dominate the data-driven economy has already escalated into a full-blown trade and technology war between the two leading digital economies, the United States and China, with spillover effects on trading partners. Frictions are also being felt along other digital fault lines, including between the United States and the European Union; along the digital borders of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa); and along the digital divide between the data “haves” and the “have-nots.” These
2 CIGI Papers No. 240 — April 2020 • Dan Ciuriak and Maria Ptashkina
conflicts are often mirrored in frictions within societies over how the economic gains from the new technologies are to be shared and how these technologies are to be governed and by whom. Simply put, the postwar global governance model is being shaken to its foundations and governments are being driven to act. Ready or not in terms of policy development, governance reform will not wait.
A Multi-dimensional Policy Dilemma Each of the roles of data requires its own governance regime. As a medium of transactions, cross-border data flows are, in principle, subject to commitments that countries have made under the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which provides for technological neutrality for trade in services (see, for example, Janow and Mavroidis 2019, S2). This is the
role of data that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) data provisions address. However, whereas data was mostly “exhaust” when the GATS was developed — an unexploited by-product of commercial transactions, business and industrial processes, and other interactions —
it has now become the most valuable asset of the digital age (the “new oil” [ The Ec ONOMIST
2017]) and, indeed, the essential capital asset for the emerging data-driven economy (Ciuriak 2018b). It is hardly surprising that governments are seeking to capture this value through industrial policies and taxation reforms. Further, states will need to take measures to ensure the security and integrity of their essential services both internally and externally, especially the “backbone” infrastructure services —
finance, transportation, communications and energy (European Commission 2019). Metaphorically, a nation’s digital borders must be as secure as its physical borders. With the rollout of the IoT and the flow of data into the inherently insecure “cloud” (which, from the perspective of any user of cloud services, is just some other entity’s computers), the security challenges escalate not only from the perspective of vulnerability to hacking but also from the consequences of interference with the functioning of an infrastructure that increasingly acts as an interactive central nervous system for the economy. Finally, in parallel with the security concerns are the myriad issues raised in transposing the rules and norms governing social and political behaviour into the digital realm. These issues run the gamut from “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff 2019) to state surveillance (an issue that is now flaring in democracies in connection with the digital tracing technologies being considered as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic [McDonald 2020]); to the use of personally identifiable information for commercial and political objectives, including “fake news” and targeted messaging for manipulation of electorates; to the governance of urban spaces; and, indeed, to many other areas. 1 The vastness of the scope of these issues is due in part to the protean nature of data. Not only can data be used and reused in endless...
推荐访问:建立稳健数据和数字贸易监管架构（英文） 英文 稳健 架构