Digital services and digital trade in the Asia pacific: an alternative model for digital integration?

ABSTRACT

This article explores digital integration in the Asia Pacific through a comparative analysis of four preferential trade agreements (PTAs): (i) the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP); (ii) the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP); and two-digital only agreements: (iii) the ASEAN Ecommerce Agreement; and (iv) the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement. This article argues that although Asia/ASEAN-led PTAs such as RCEP and ASEAN E-Commerce Agreement appear less ambitious at first sight, when compared to digital trade chapters in PTAs led by western states such as the CPTPP, they are both relevant and appropriately suited to foster digital trade integration in the region. Viewed from the perspective of New Asian Regionalism, these agreements contribute substantially to the global economic order by leveraging the collective power of the Asia-Pacific through a pragmatic, incremental approach. By combining soft law mechanisms with specific legal obligations, these PTAs have better-addressed variations in digital development levels and policy preferences across countries, eventually leading to meaningful consensus-building and long-term engagement in complex areas of digital regulation.

KEYWORDS:

• Free trade agreements
• ecommerce
• digital trade
• ASEAN
• digital integration

Acknowledgements:

The authors thank Binit Agarwal and Ashita Jain for their helpful research assistance and Prof Julien Chaisse, Prof Pasha Hsieh, Dr Thomas Streinz and all other participants of the SMU-Asia Pacific Law Review Workshop (held in October 2022) for their helpful feedback on previous drafts of the article.

Notes

1 APEC Electronic Commerce Steering Group, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, Regulations, Policies and Initiatives on E-Commerce and Digital Economy for APEC MSMEs’ Participation in the Region (March 2020) 7 <www.apec.org/docs/default-source/publications/2020/3/regulations-policies-and-initiatives-on-e-commerce-and-digital-economy/220ecsgregulations-policies-and-initiatives-on-ecommerce-and-digital-economy-for-apec-msmes-particip.pdf?sfvrsn=63b748d7_1> accessed 11 December 2022.

2 Lurong Chen, ‘Improving Digital Connectivity for E-Commerce: A Policy Framework and Empirical Note’ in Lurong Chen and Fukunari Kimura (eds), E-commerce Connectivity in ASEAN (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, 2020) 7 <www.eria.org/uploads/media/E-commerce-Connectivity-in-ASEAN/6_Chapter-2_Improving-Digital-Connectivity-for-E-commerce_A-Policy-Framework-and-Empirical-Note.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

3 World Economic Forum, Advancing Digital Trade in Asia (October 2020) 7 <www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GFC_Advancing_Digital_Trade_in_Asia_2020.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

4 Dashveenjit Kaur, ‘Gojek Sees Profitability Ahead After a Decade of Rapid’ Techwire Asia (16 November 2020) <https://techwireasia.com/2020/11/gojek-sees-profitability-ahead-after-a-decade-of-rapid-growth/> accessed 11 December 2022.

5 Rainer Zitelmann, ‘The Jack Ma Story: Why Thinking Big Is More Important than Technical Knowledge’ Forbes (4 November 2019) <www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/11/04/the-jack-ma-story-why-thinking-big-is-more-important-than-technical-knowledge/> accessed 11 December 2022.

6 Qianyu Han, ‘Why the Gojek and Tokopedia Merger Is Set to Fuel Alibaba and Tencent’s competition in Southeast Asia’ KrAsia (11 June 2021) <https://kr-asia.com/why-the-mint-of-goto-is-set-to-fuel-alibaba-and-tencents-competition-in-southeast-asia> accessed 11 December 2022. See generally ‘Emerging Giants in Asia Pacific’ KPMG (2022) <https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2022/07/emerging-giants-in-AsiaPacific.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

7 United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), Digital Trade Integration in Preferential Trade Agreements (13 May 2020) 1 <www.unescap.org/resources/digital-trade-integration-preferential-trade-agreements> accessed 11 December 2022.

8 Ibid.

9 Julien Chaisse and Pasha Hsieh, ‘Rethinking Asia-Pacific Regionalism and New Economic Agreements’ (2023) Asia Pacific Law Review 1, 3, 10.

10 Ibid.

11 We use the terms ‘digital trade’ and ‘electronic commerce’ interchangeably in the article; experts however argue that ‘digital trade’ is broader than traditional e-commerce and also refers to the use of technologies in supply chain management, trade logistics, efficient communication mechanisms and data exchange systems. See UNESCAP, Asia Pacific Trade and Investment Report (10 November 2016) 103 <www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/aptir-2016-ch7.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

12 Further, Chaisse and Hsieh argue that these new Asian approaches form a core part of New Regional Economic Order and can be seen as a much-needed response to the inadequacy of Washington Consensus or the Brussels effect. See Chaisse and Hsieh (n 9) 1, 5, 12.

13 See generally Pasha Hsieh, New Asian Regionalism in International Economic Law (CUP, 2022).

14 Ibid, 12.

15 The IPEF is an initiative launched by the Biden administration in the US to create rules of the twenty-first century across four pillars: Fair and resilient trade; supply chain resilience; infrastructure, clean energy and decarbonization; and tax and anti-corruption. See ‘FACT SHEET: In Asia, President Biden and a Dozen Indo-Pacific Partners Launch the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity’ The White House (23 May 2022) <https://web.archive.org/web/20220531202744/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/23/fact-sheet-in-asia-president-biden-and-a-dozen-indo-pacific-partners-launch-the-indo-pacific-economic-framework-for-prosperity/> accessed 11 December 2022.

16 A distinction must be made between the digital trade initiatives of Singapore with non-Asian countries, which are often far more liberalising (given Singapore’s state of digital development and size of economy), and ASEAN initiatives with the rest of the world.

17 It is outside the scope of this article to engage in a detailed discussion of electronic commerce chapter across all PTAs. See generally Mira Burri and Rodrigo Polanco, ‘Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset’ (2020) 23(1) Journal of International Economic Law 187; Mark Wu, ‘Digital Trade-Related Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Existing Models and Lessons for the Multilateral Trade System’ (November 2017) <http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RTA-Exchange-Digital-Trade-Mark-Wu-Final-2.pdf> accessed 2 March 2023.

18 Burri and Polanco (n 17) 193.

19 Binit Agarwal and Neha Mishra, ‘Addressing the Global Data Divide Through Digital Trade Law’ (2022) 14(2) Trade, Law & Development <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4276764> accessed 11 December 2022.

20 University of Lucerne, ‘TAPED Dataset’ <www.unilu.ch/en/faculties/faculty-of-law/professorships/burri-mira/research/taped/> accessed 11 February 2023.

21 Ibid.

22 See generally Neha Mishra, ‘The Role of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement in the Internet Ecosystem: Uneasy Liaison or Synergistic Alliance?’ (2017) 20 Journal of International Economic Law 31.

23 Manfred Elsig and Sebastian Klotz, ‘Data-Related Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Trends and Patterns of Diffusion’ in Mira Burri (ed), Big Data and Global Trade Law (CUP, 2021) 42.

24 Stephanie Honey, ‘Enabling Trust, Trade flows, and Innovation: The DEPA at Work’ <www.hinrichfoundation.com/research/article/digital/enabling-trust-trade-flows-and-innovation-depa-at-work/> accessed 23 February 2023.

25 Peter Lovelock, ‘Chapter 2: The New Generation of “Digital” Trade Agreements: Fit for Purpose?’ PECC (2021) <www.pecc.org/state-of-the-region-reports/287-2020-2021/888-chapter-2-the-new-generation-of-digital-trade-agreements-fit-for-purpose> accessed 27 February 2023. See Section IIB.

26 Thomas Streinz, ‘RCEP’s Contribution to Global Data Governance’ (19 February 2021) <www.afronomicslaw.org/category/analysis/rceps-contribution-global-data-governance-0> accessed 12 February 2023.

27 UNESCAP (n 7).

28 ‘Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)’ (Australian Government – Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) <www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/cptpp/comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership> accessed 11 December 2022.

29 Ibid.

30 Rachelle Taheri, Olivia Adams, and Pauline Stern, ‘DEPA: The World’s First Digital-Only Trade Agreement’ Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (7 October 2021) <www.asiapacific.ca/publication/depa-worlds-first-digital-only-trade-agreement> accessed 27 February 2023.

31 Australia – Singapore Digital Economy Agreement (6 August 2020).

32 Agreement between the United States of America and Japan concerning Digital Trade (7 October 2019).

33 ‘Singapore and Republic of Korea conclude negotiations on a Digital Economy Agreement’ Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore (15 December 2021) <www.mti.gov.sg/-/media/MTI/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2021/12/Singapore-and-the-Republic-of-Korea-conclude-negotiations-on-a-Digital-Economy-Agreement.pdf> (accessed 16 September 2022); The United Kingdom – Singapore Digital Economy Agreement (14 June 2022).

34 In this context, Soprana questions whether DEPA meets the test under Article V of GATS or if parties should incorporate this instead as additional commitments under GATS art XVIII. While this article does not delve into this issue, this question is increasingly relevant due to the emerging network of DEAs. See Marta Soprana, ‘The Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA): Assessing the Significance of the New Trade Agreement on the Block’ (2021) 13(1) Trade, Law & Development 145, 167.

35 e-ASEAN Framework Agreement (24 November 2000) (no longer in force).

36 Ibid, Arts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; See generally Pichet Durongkaveroj, ‘An Overview of e-ASEAN Initiative’ (ITU Workshop on Creating Trust in Critical Network Infrastructures, Seoul, 20–22 May 2002) <www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/security/workshop/presentations/cni.24.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

37 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint (20 November 2007) 23 <www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/archive/5187-10.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022; The other three objectives included: (1) an ASEAN single market and production base (2) a region of equitable economic development (3) a region fully integrated into the global economy.

38 Ibid.

39 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint 2025 (November 2015) 24 <https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AECBP_2025r_FINAL.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

40 ASEAN Digital Integration Framework (August 2018); ASEAN Digital Integration Framework Action Plan (DIFAP) 2019–2025 (September 2019).

41 See Section I for background on ASEAN.

42 ASEAN Agreement on E-Commerce (22 January 2019) (AAEC).

43 ASEAN, Work Plan on the Implementation of ASEAN Agreement on Electronic Commerce (9 September 2021) <https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Work-Plan-E-commerce-Agreement_endorsed_logo.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022 (ASEAN E-Commerce Workplan).

44 ASEAN, Bandar Seri Begawan Roadmap: An ASEAN Digital Transformation Agenda to Accelerate ASEAN’s Economic Recovery and Digital Economy Integration (18 October 2021) 7 <https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Bandar-Seri-Begawan-Roadmap-on-ASEAN-Digital-Transformation-Agenda_Endorsed.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

45 Ibid, 8.

46 Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (8 March 2018), Arts 14.2.2–14.2.3 (CPTPP); Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (15 November 2020), Arts 12.3.1–12.3.3 (RCEP); RCEP additionally clarifies that the commitments of the Parties in the WTO shall prevail over those under the RCEP.

47 CPTPP, ibid, Arts 14.11.2, 14.13.2 each read with Art 14.1 ‘covered person’; RCEP, ibid, Arts 12.15.2, 12.14.2 each read with Art 12.1(b).

48 CPTPP also includes a ‘Financial Services’ Chapter.

49 CPTPP (n 46), Arts 14.2.4–14.2.5; RCEP (n 46), Arts 12.3.4–12.3.5.

50 CPTPP (n 46), Annex II – Australia’s Schedule.

51 Except for certain sectors and subsectors, namely, ‘Basic Telecommunication Services’, ‘Mobile Services’, ‘value-added Network services’, See RCEP (n 46), Annex III – Schedule of Singapore 68.

52 AAEC (n 42), Art 3.

53 Ibid, Arts 7.4(c), 7.6(c).

54 Ibid, Art 4.

55 Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (12 June 2020), Art 1.1.1 (DEPA).

56 Stephanie Honey, ‘Asia-Pacific Digital Trade Policy Innovation’ in Ingo Borchert and Alan L Winters (eds), Addressing Impediments to Digital Trade (CEPR Press, 2021) 227.

57 DEPA, Art 1.1.2.

58 See generally Henry Gao, ‘Digital or Trade? The Contrasting Approaches of China and US to Digital Trade’ (2018) 21(2) Journal of International Economic Law 297.

59 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.5.1; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.10.1; The RCEP allows Parties to also take into account other applicable international conventions and model laws.

60 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.9.

61 RCEP (n 46), Art 12.5.1.

62 Agrawal and Mishra (n 19).

63 AAEC (n 42), Art 12.

64 Except in circumstances otherwise provided for under its laws and regulations.

65 AAEC (n 42), Art 7.2.

66 Ibid, Art 9.

67 Agreement to Establish and Implement the ASEAN Single Window (9 December 2005).

68 DEPA (n 55), Art 2.3.

69 Ibid, Art 2.2.1.

70 Ibid, Art 2.2.2.

71 Except where there is a contrary domestic or international legal requirement or doing so would reduce the effectiveness of trade administration – DEPA (n 55), Art 2.2.3.

72 DEPA (n 55), Arts 2.2.4–2.2.5.

73 Ibid, Art 2.7.

74 Ibid, Art 2.5.2.

75 Ibid, Art 10.2; Australia – Singapore Digital Economy Agreement (6 August 2020).

76 Submission from India and South Africa, ‘The Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions: Need for Clarity on its Scope and Impact’, WTO Doc WT/GC/W/833 (8 November 2021).

77 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.3.1.

78 RCEP (n 46), Arts 12.11.1, 12.11.3.

79 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.3.2; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.11.5.

80 DEPA (n 55), Art 3.2.

81 ASEAN E-Commerce Workplan (n 43) 31.

82 Lorand Laskai and Adam Segal, ‘The Encryption Debate in China’ Carnegie (30 May 2019) <https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/05/30/encryption-debate-in-china-pub-79216> accessed 27 February 2023.

83 Jyh-An Lee, ‘Hacking into China’s Cybersecurity Law’ (2018) 53 Wake Forest Law Review 57.

84 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.17.1.

85 Ibid, Arts 14.17.2, 14.17.3(b).

86 Neha Mishra, ‘The Role of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement in the Internet Ecosystem: Uneasy Liaison or Synergistic Alliance?’ (2017) 20(1) Journal of International Economic Law 31, 49.

87 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.4.1.

88 DEPA (n 55), Art 3.3.

89 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.7.2; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.7.2.

90 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.7.3; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.7.3.

91 RCEP (n 46), Art 12.7.4.

92 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.8.2; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.8.1.

93 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.8.2; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.8.2.

94 AAEC (n 42), Arts 7.3(b), 7.5(a).

95 Ibid, Art 7.3(b).

96 Ibid, Art 7.3(c).

97 DEPA (n 55), Art 6.3.3.

98 Ibid, Art 6.3.4.

99 Ibid, Art 6.3.3.

100 Ibid, Art 6.3.5.

101 Ibid, Art 6.3.8.

102 These include ‘collection limitation’, ‘data quality’, ‘purpose specification’, ‘use limitation’, ‘security safeguards’, ‘transparency’, ‘individual participation’, and ‘accountabilty’.

103 DEPA (n 55), Art 4.2.3.

104 Ibid, Art 4.2.4.

105 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.8.3.

106 DEPA (n 55), Art 4.2.5.

107 Ibid, Art 4.2.8.

108 Ibid, Art 4.2.6.

109 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.14.1; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.9.1; DEPA (n 55), Art 6.2.1.

110 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.10.

111 DEPA (n 55), Art 9.5.2.

112 Ibid, Art 9.5.3.

113 CPTPP (n 46), Arts 14.11.2, 14.13.2; RCEP (n 46), Arts 12.15.2, 12.14.2.

114 CPTPP (n 46), Arts 14.11.3, 14.13.3.

115 DEPA (n 55), Art 4.3.

116 RCEP (n 46), Arts 12.15.3(a), 12.14.3(a).

117 Ibid, Arts 12.15.3(b), 12.14.3(b).

118 AAEC (n 42), Art 7.4(b).

119 Ibid, Art 7.6(b).

120 ASEAN Telecommunications and Information Technology Ministers Meeting, Framework on Digital Data Governance (2018) <https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/6B-ASEAN-Framework-on-Digital-Data-Governance_Endorsedv1.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022.

121 ASEAN E-Commerce Workplan (n 43) 38.

122 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.16; RCEP (n 46), Art 12.13.

123 CPTPP (n 46), Arts 14.15(a), 14.15(d); RCEP (n 46), Arts 12.4.1(a), 12.4.1(e).

124 AAEC (n 42), Art 8.1.

125 Ibid, Art 6.

126 DEPA (n 55), Art 7.1.

127 Ibid, Art 8.1(a).

128 Ibid, Art 8.4.2.

129 Ibid, Art 10.2.

130 Ibid, Art 10.3.

131 Ibid, Art 12.5.

132 Ibid, Art 12.1.

133 Ibid, Arts 8.2.2, 8.2.3.

134 Ibid, Art 9.4.

135 Marc Froese, ‘Digital Trade and Dispute Settlement in RTAs: An Evolving Standard?’ (2019) 53(5) Journal of World Trade 783.

136 Ibid.

137 However, Malaysia and Vietnam were given two years relaxation with regard to several key obligations – Art 14.18.

138 RCEP (n 46), Art 12.17.3.

139 Ibid, Art 12.17.1.

140 Ibid, Arts 12.7.2, 18.3.

141 AAEC (n 42), Art 5.2.

142 DEPA (n 55), Art 14.3.

143 Ibid, Arts 14.4, 14.5, 14.6.

144 Ibid, Art 14A.1.

145 See generally OECD, ‘SMEs Going Digital: Policy Challenges and Recommendations’ (2020) <https://goingdigital.oecd.org/data/notes/No15_ToolkitNote_DigitalSMEs.pdf> accessed 1 March 2023.

146 CPTPP (n 46), ch 26.

147 AAEC (n 42), Art 7.3 (a).

148 Ibid, Art 7.3 (a).

149 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.7.1.

150 DEPA (n 55), Art 6.3.1.

151 RCEP (n 46), Art 12.7.

152 AAEC (n 42), Art 11.

153 DEPA (n 55), Art 6.3 (5), (6).

154 CPTPP (n 46), Art 14.8.

155 RCEP (n 46), Art 12.7.4.

156 Ibid, Art 12.8.3.

157 CPTPP (n 46), Art 26.5.1.

158 DEPA (n 55), Art 13.5.1.

159 RCEP (n 46), Art 17.4.

160 CPTPP (n 46), Arts 14.11.3, 14.13.3; DEPA (n 55), Art 4.3.

161 RCEP (n 46), Arts 12.15.3(a), 12.14.3(a); AAEC (n 42), Art 7.4(b)–7.6(b).

162 For example, the Ookla Net Index Rankings (July 2014) depicted significant differences in the average download speeds in the ASEAN Member States, the highest (for Broadband) being in Singapore (69.68 Mbps) and some of the lowest in Indonesia (4.54 Mbps for Broadband), Laos (3.76 Mbps) and the Philippines (3.4 Mbps). See Bambang Irawan ‘AEC Blueprint 2025 Analysis’ (14 March 2017) CIMB ASEAN Research Institute 1/19, 4 <www.cariasean.org/AEC_Blueprint_2025_Analysis/AEC_Volume1_Paper19.pdf> accessed 11 December 2022. A 2004 UNESCAP study showed that even when countries used the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) as guidance for enacting domestic e-commerce laws, total legal interoperability could not be enabled (possibly) because certain provisions are omitted or modified during national implementation. See UNESCAP, Harmonized Development of Legal and Regulatory Systems for E-Commerce in Asia and the Pacific: Current Challenges and Capacity Building Needs (ST/ESCAP/2348, 2004) 17 <https://repository.unescap.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12870/2805/ESCAP-2004-RP-Harmonized-development-legal-regulatory-systems-e-commerce-AsiaPacific.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y> accessed 11 December 2022.

163 Hsieh (n 13) 261; Thomas Streinz, ‘Digital Megaregulation Uncontested? TPP’s Model for the Global Digital Economy’ in Benedict Kingsbury et al (eds), Megaregulation Contested: Global Economic Ordering After TPP (OUP 2019) 312.

164 ‘RCEP: Asia Pacific Countries form World’s Largest Trading Bloc’ BBC (16 November 2020) <www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54949260> accessed 27 February 2023.

165 Asif Muztaba Hassan, ‘Will Bangladesh Benefit by Joining RCEP?’ The Diplomat (5 November 2021) <https://thediplomat.com/2021/11/will-bangladesh-benefit-by-joining-rcep/> accessed 27 February 2023.

166 Julien Chaisse, ‘Hong Kong’s Case for RCEP Membership’ East Asia Forum (7 May 2022) <www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/05/07/hong-kongs-case-for-rcep-membership/> accessed 27 February 2023.

167 Rahul Mishra, ‘Why India Pulled out of the RCEP Free Trade Deal’ DW (11 June 2019) <www.dw.com/en/why-india-pulled-out-of-the-rcep-free-trade-deal/a-51137128> accessed 27 February 2023.

168 María Vásquez Callo-Müller, ‘How to Build Interoperability? – Conceptualizing the Asia–Latin America Relationship for the Data Economy’ (América Latina y Asia: entre la revolución digitaly la globalización cuestionada, Montevedio, December 2019) <www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/events/files/publicacion_aladi_cepal_duran.pdf> accessed 27 February 2023.

169 Dashveenjit Kaur, ‘Five Southeast Asian Nations to Link Their QR Code Payment Systems. Here’s What It Means for Travelers’ TechWire Asia (19 July 2022) <https://techwireasia.com/2022/07/five-southeast-asian-nations-to-link-their-qr-code-payment-systems-heres-what-it-means-for-travelers/> accessed 27 February 2023.

170 Kati Suominen, ‘Integration, Interoperability and Inclusion in East Asia’ East Asia Forum (24 August 2022) <www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/08/24/integration-interoperability-and-inclusion-in-east-asia/> accessed 27 February 2023.

171 ‘China to Fully Prepare for Joining DEPA After Major Progress: MOFCOM’ Global Times (22 August 2022) <www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1273592.shtml> accessed 11 December 2022.

172 See generally The White House (n 15).

173 See generally Agrawal and Mishra (n 19), discussing a model for give and take between developing and developed countries based on mutual needs and preferences.

174 Ricardo Navarro, ‘Chile Is a Technological Reference When It Comes to Foreign Partnerships’ Forbes (18 March 2020) <www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/03/18/chile-is-a-technological-reference-when-it-comes-to-foreign-partnerships/?sh=1dfc58172b6b> accessed 27 February 2023; John Bartlett, ‘Why Indian Startup Founders Are Flocking to Chile’ Rest of the World (29 March 2022) <https://restofworld.org/2022/india-startup-founders-chile/> accessed 27 February 2023; ‘Chile Positions Itself as Latin America’s Tech Hub Par Excellence’ Marca Chile (19 August 2022) <https://marcachile.cl/en/business-exports/chile-positions-itself-as-latin-americas-tech-hub-par-excellence/> accessed 27 February 2023.

175 See, eg RCEP (n 46), Art 12.6.2.

176 Michael Pisa, Pam Dixon, and Ugonma Nwankwo, ‘Why Data Protection Matters for Development: The Case for Strengthening Inclusion and Regulatory Capacity’ CGDev (December 2021) <www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/why-data-protection-matters-for-development.pdf> accessed 27 February 2023; Patrice Dutil and Julie Williams, ‘Regulation Governance in the Digital Era: A New Research Agenda’ (2017) 60 Canada Public Administration 562; ‘Assessment of Digital Trade and E-commerce Readiness and Associated Capacity-building Needs in Six Member States of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)’ (A-Z Information Jamaica, Research Report, 2021) 29 <https://production-new-commonwealth-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/migrated/inline/OECS%20report_final.pdf> accessed 26 March 2023.

177 Aseema Sinha, ‘Understanding the “Crisis of the Institution” in the Liberal Trade Order at the WTO’ (2021) 97(5) International Affairs 1521; Kristen Hopewell, ‘When the Hegemon Goes Rogue: Leadership Amid the US Assault on the Liberal Trading Order’ (2021) 97(4) International Affairs 1025; Richard Baldwin, ‘21st Century Regionalism: Filling the Gap Between 21st Century Trade and 20th Century Trade Rules’ (2011) WTO Staff Working Paper No. ERSD-2011-08 <https://doi.org/10.30875/c67646a3-en> accessed 27 February 2023; Julien Chaisse and Georgios Dimitropoulos, ‘Domestic Investment Laws and International Economic Law in the Liberal International Order’ (2023) 22(1) World Trade Review 1, 2–3.