DATA LOCALISATION AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW:RECONCILING DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY WITH TRADE AND INVESTMENT DISCIPLINES

Autor/innen

  • Pooja Damodaran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46763/

Schlagwörter:

Data Localisation, Digital Sovereignty, International Economic Law, Digital Trade, Investment Law

Abstract

This article examines whether state measures requiring data
localisation, restricted transfer and increased regulatory control of
platform generated data can be reconciled with international
economic law (IEL). The central question is whether data
localisation measures, justified on cybersecurity and sovereignty
grounds, can satisfy the disciplines of market access, national
treatment, and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
Article XIV necessity test, and investment protection standards.
While data localisation and cybersecurity policies reflect states’
pursuit of digital sovereignty, they may simultaneously restrict cross
border digital services, increase compliance costs for foreign
platforms and affect digital investors. Using a doctrinal and
comparative approach, the article analyses GATS Articles XVI,
XVII and XIV, selected digital trade provisions in the United StatesMexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and Comprehensive and
Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and
investment law principles relating to fair and equitable treatment,
indirect expropriation and police powers. China’s Cybersecurity Law is used as the main example. The article argues that IEL permits
legitimate regulation of platform data, but only where such
regulation is transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and not
a disguised restriction on trade or investment. 

Downloads

Download-Daten sind nocht nicht verfügbar.

Literaturhinweise

Aaronson, S. A. (2018). Data is different: Why the world needs a new approach

to governing cross-border data flows (CIGI Paper No. 197). Centre for

International Governance Innovation.

https://www.cigionline.org/publications/data-different-why-worldneeds-new-approach-governing-cross-border-data-flows/

Arasasingham, A., & Goodman, M. P. (2023, April 13). Operationalizing data

free flow with trust (DFFT). Center for Strategic and International

Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/operationalizing-data-free-flowtrust-dfft

Baker, W., Goudie, M., Hutton, A., Hylender, C. D., Niemantsverdriet, J., Novak,

C., Ostertag, D., Porter, C., Rosen, M., Sartin, B., & Tippett, P. (2011).

2011 data breach investigations report. Verizon RISK Team.

Bauer, M., Lee-Makiyama, H., van der Marel, E., & Verschelde, B. (2014). The

costs of data localisation: Friendly fire on economic recovery (ECIPE

Occasional Paper No. 3/2014). European Centre for International

Political Economy. https://ecipe.org/publications/the-costs-of-datalocalisation/

Burri, M. (2017). The governance of data and data flows in trade agreements: The

pitfalls of legal adaptation. UC Davis Law Review, 51(1), 65–132.

Cargill, Incorporated v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/2,

Award (September 18, 2009).

Chander, A. (2020). Is data localization a solution for Schrems II? Journal of

International Economic Law, 23(3), 771-784.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaa024

Chander, A., & Lê, U. P. (2015). Data nationalism. Emory Law Journal, 64(3),

677–739.

Cohen, B., Hall, B., & Wood, C. (2017). Data localization laws and their impact

on privacy, data security and the global economy. Antitrust, 32(1), 107–

114.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

(2018). https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/Tradeagreements/CPTPP/Comprehensive-and-Progressive-Agreement-forTrans-Pacific-Partnership-CPTPP-English.pdf

Cory, N., & Dascoli, L. (2021). How barriers to cross-border data flows are

spreading globally, what they cost, and how to address them. Information

Technology and Innovation Foundation.

https://itif.org/publications/2021/07/19/how-barriers-cross-border-dataflows-are-spreading-globally-what-they-cost-and-how-to-address-them/

Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China. (2017).

Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian

Schrems, Case C-311/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:559 (2020).

Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China. (2021).

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023, India Code (2023).

Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14

December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity

across the Union, 2022 O.J. (L 333) 80.

Dolzer, R., & Schreuer, C. (2012). Principles of international investment law

(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Espinoza, F., Maryska, M., Doucek, P., & Kovářová, M. (2023). DORA and NIS2

and their impact on database security. In IDIMT 2023: New challenges

for ICT and management-31st Interdisciplinary Information

Management Talks (pp. 81–87). https://doi.org/10.35011/IDIMT-2023-

81

Federal Law No. 242-FZ of 21 July 2014 amending Federal Law No. 152-FZ on

Personal Data (Russia). (2014).

General Agreement on Trade in Services, April 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 183.

Kadena, E., & Gupi, M. (2021). Human factors in cybersecurity: Risks and

impacts. Security Science Journal, 2(2), 51–64.

https://doi.org/10.37458/ssj.2.2.3

Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais [General Data Protection Law], Law

No. 13,709/2018 (Brazil). (2018).

Meltzer, J. P. (2013). The internet, cross-border data flows and international

trade (Issues in Technology Innovation No. 22). Brookings Institution.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2292477

Meta Platforms, Inc. (n.d.). Privacy policy. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from

https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/

Mitchell, A. D., & Hepburn, J. (2017). Don’t fence me in: Reforming trade and

investment law to better facilitate cross-border data transfer. Yale Journal

of Law & Technology, 19, 182–237.

Office of the United States Trade Representative. (n.d.). USMCA Chapter 19:

Digital trade. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/Text/1

9-Digital-Trade.pdf

Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. (2021).

Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A.

v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award

(July 8, 2016).

Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award on the Merits,

Phase 2 (June 26, 2000).

Qi, A., Shao, G., & Zheng, W. (2018). Assessing China’s cybersecurity law.

Computer Law & Security Review, 34(6), 1342-1354.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.08.007

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27

April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.

Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14

December 2022 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector,

2022 O.J. (L 333) 1.

Reserve Bank of India. (2018, April 6). Storage of payment system data (Circular

No. DPSS.CO.OD No. 2785/06.08.005/2017-18).

https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11244

Sargsyan, T. (2016). Data localization and the role of infrastructure for

surveillance, privacy, and security. International Journal of

Communication, 10, 2214-2237.

Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and

freedoms globally. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1-14.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335

Taylor, R. D. (2020). “Data localization”: The internet in the balance.

Telecommunications Policy, 44(8), Article 102003.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.102003

Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case

No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (May 29, 2003).

TikTok. (n.d.). Privacy policy. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from

https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/row/privacy-policy/en

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2011). Scope and

definition: UNCTAD series on issues in international investment

agreements II. United Nations.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2012). Expropriation:

UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II.

United Nations.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2021). Digital economy

report 2021: Cross-border data flows and development-For whom the

data flow. United Nations. https://unctad.org/system/files/officialdocument/der2021_en.pdf

United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. (2018).

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/Text/19-

Digital-Trade.pdf

World Trade Organization. (n.d.). Schedules of specific commitments and lists of

Article II exemptions. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_commitments_e.htm

World Trade Organization. (1991, July 10). Services sectoral classification list

(MTN.GNS/W/120).

World Trade Organization. (1998, September 30). Work programme on

electronic commerce (WT/L/274).

World Trade Organization. (2002, February 14). China-Schedule of specific

commitments (GATS/SC/135).

World Trade Organization Appellate Body. (2005). United States-Measures

affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services

(WT/DS285/AB/R).

World Trade Organization Appellate Body. (2016). Argentina-Measures relating

to trade in goods and services (WT/DS453/AB/R).

X Corp. (n.d.). Privacy policy. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from

https://x.com/en/privacy

Veröffentlicht

2026-10-06

Zitationsvorschlag

DATA LOCALISATION AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW:RECONCILING DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY WITH TRADE AND INVESTMENT DISCIPLINES. (2026). Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference "Social Changes in the Global World", 13(13). https://doi.org/10.46763/