数据本地化措施正当化路径:RCEP公共政策目标例外适用探析
The Justification Path of Data Localization Measures: An Analysis of the Application of the Public Policy Objective Exception in RCEP
摘要: 随着信息技术的不断进步,数字贸易逐渐取代传统的贸易模式,而数据跨境流动作为数字贸易中的关键一环,引发了各国的重视,在国际贸易协定之中对其进行规定。我国作为缔约国之一的《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》,原则上禁止数据本地化措施,但是设置了“公共政策目标”等例外条款。2024年3月22日,互联网信息办公室颁布的《促进和规范数据跨境传输规定》生效,其中明确特定数据种类采取数据本地化措施。因而我国数据本地化措施违背该协定的原则性的规定,但能否通过“公共政策目标”例外豁免仍需进一步分析。根据WTO专家组的实践,我国的数据本地化措施满足适用公共政策目标例外具有可行性,但由于我国目前的数据治理体系仍然存在缺陷,我国需要采取统一和细化数据分类标准,积极参与并主导制定国际数字经贸协定,并明确我国促进数据跨境流动的价值取向等措施,促进数据治理体系进一步完善,带动我国数字贸易的有序健康发展。
Abstract: With the continuous advancement of information technology, digital trade has gradually replaced traditional trade models, and cross-border data flow, as a key link in digital trade, has attracted the attention of various countries and has been stipulated in international trade agreements. As one of the signatories of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), China, in principle, prohibits data localization measures but has set up exception clauses such as “public policy objectives”. On March 22, 2024, the Regulations on Promoting and Regulating Cross-Border Data Transmission issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China came into effect, which clearly stipulates that certain types of data should adopt data localization measures. Therefore, China’s data localization measures violate the principle provisions of the agreement, but whether they can be exempted through the “public policy objective” exception still needs further analysis. According to the practice of the WTO expert group, China’s data localization measures are feasible to meet the application of the public policy objective exception. However, due to the current deficiencies in China’s data governance system, China needs to take measures such as unifying and refining data classification standards, actively participating in and leading the formulation of international digital trade agreements, and clarifying China’s value orientation for promoting cross-border data flow to further improve the data governance system and drive the orderly and healthy development of China’s digital trade.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
张晓君, 屈晓濛. RCEP数据跨境流动例外条款与中国因应[J]. 政法论丛, 2022(3): 3-21.
|
|
[2]
|
徐莉. 跨境数据流动规制之“合法公共政策目标例外”与中国实践[J]. 求索, 2023(4): 15-28.
|
|
[3]
|
王玫黎, 陈雨. 中国数据跨境流动规则与CPTPP的对接研究[J]. 国际贸易, 2022(4): 89-102.
|
|
[4]
|
刘金瑞. 数据安全范式革新及其立法展开[J]. 环球法律评论, 2021(1): 45-60.
|
|
[5]
|
梁九业. 民法典体系下数据保护的权利配置研究[J]. 大连理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2024, 45(3): 97-106.
|
|
[6]
|
许可. 自由与安全: 数据跨境流动的中国方案[J]. 环球法律评论, 2021(1): 78-93.
|
|
[7]
|
安佰生. WTO“必要性测试”规则探析[J]. 财经法学, 2015(2): 102-115.
|
|
[8]
|
彭岳. 数据本地化措施的贸易规制问题研究[J]. 环球法律评论, 2018, 40(2): 178-192.
|
|
[9]
|
许多奇. 论跨境数据流动规制企业双向合规的法治保障[J]. 东方法学, 2020(2): 88-103.
|
|
[10]
|
邵怿. 跨境数据流动规制的自由化与本地化之辩[J]. 政法论丛, 2023(5): 12-26.
|
|
[11]
|
吴玄. 数据主权视野下个人信息跨境规则的建构[J]. 清华法学, 2021, 15(3): 67-82.
|
|
[12]
|
范婴. 数据本地化的规制模式研究及启示[J]. 南京工程学院学报(社会科学版), 2023, 23(4): 21-35.
|
|
[13]
|
陈咏梅, 张姣. 跨境数据流动国际规制新发展: 困境与前路[J]. 上海对外经贸大学学报, 2017, 24(6): 37-52.
|
|
[14]
|
刘金河, 崔保国. 数据本地化和数据防御主义的合理性与趋势[J]. 国际展望, 2020, 12(6): 89-107.
|
|
[15]
|
李艳华. 发展中国家的数字发展权: 跨境数据流动治理规则何去何从[J]. 人权, 2023(5): 82-106.
|
|
[16]
|
刘业. 美欧数据跨境流动博弈中的欧盟技术主权战略及其实现[J]. 国际法研究, 2023(6): 64-85.
|
|
[17]
|
时业伟. 跨境数据流动中的国际贸易规则: 规制, 兼容与发展[J]. 比较法研究, 2020(4): 173-184.
|
|
[18]
|
马光. FTA数据跨境流动规制的三种例外选择适用[J]. 政法论坛, 2021, 39(5): 14-24.
|
|
[19]
|
谭观福. 数字贸易中跨境数据流动的国际法规制[J]. 比较法研究, 2022(3): 169-185.
|