Conflicts and coordination paths in the trade regulation of data localization measures—from the perspective of GATS and regional trade agreements

Qumeng Ye

doi:10.54254/2753-7102/2025.29816

Qumeng Ye^1,*

¹ Macau University of Science and Technology

^* Corresponding author: 3250006504@student.must.edu.mo

Published: 17 November 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7102/2025.29816

Abstract

Against the backdrop of the rapid expansion of the digital economy, cross-border data flows have become the core foundation for the development of digital trade. As a key institutional instrument for countries to balance data security and privacy protection, data localization measures increasingly conflict with international trade rules. These conflicts not only hinder the smooth progress of global digital trade but have also emerged as a central issue in global digital governance, attracting broad attention from governments, international organizations, and academia. Taking the legal nature of data localization measures as its logical starting point, this paper conducts a systematic analysis of the regulatory conflicts between such measures and digital trade within the framework of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and regional trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It explores the specific manifestations and impacts of these conflicts under different trade scenarios, while also mapping the diverse characteristics of data governance models across countries and regions. Through a comparative study of the data governance philosophies, legal systems, and policy practices of major economies—including the United States, the European Union, and China—the paper proposes a coordination path for resolving such conflicts based on the principle of technological neutrality and the “principle-plus-exception” framework. The findings of this study not only enrich the theoretical system of global digital trade governance but also provide important theoretical and practical references for China’s active participation in the formulation of international digital trade rules, the enhancement of its discourse power in global digital governance, and the promotion of the healthy and orderly development of its digital trade.

Keywords: data localization , digital trade , GATS , regional trade agreements , cross-border data flow

ASBR Vol.16 , Issue 10

ISSN (Print): 2753-7102

ISSN (Online): 2753-7110

Download Cover

Article Information

Received: 16 November 2025

Published: 17 November 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7102/2025.29816

Article Type: Research Article

Cite this article

Ye,Q. (2025). Conflicts and coordination paths in the trade regulation of data localization measures—from the perspective of GATS and regional trade agreements. Advances in Social Behavior Research,16(10),1-13.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer/Publisher's Note

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

About this Volume

Volume Title: ASBR Vol.16

Part of Series: Advances in Social Behavior Research

ISSN: 2753-7102 (Print) / 2753-7110 (Online)

Copyright & License

[1]Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China [Z]. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House.

[2]Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2012). Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act (PCEHR) [Z]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Publishing Service.

[3]World Trade Organization. (1994). General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) [Z]. Geneva: World Trade Organization.

[4]New Zealand Government. (2016). Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) [Z]. Auckland: New Zealand Government.

[5]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat. (2020). Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) [Z]. Hanoi: ASEAN Secretariat.

[6]European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data [Z]. Brussels: European Union Official Journal.

[7]Reed, C. (2022). The role of technical neutrality in digital trade agreements.Journal of International Economic Law, 25(1), 45–68.

[8]State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2013). Regulations on the Administration of Credit Reporting Industry [Z]. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House.

[9]United States Trade Representative. (2018). United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) [Z]. Washington, D.C.: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

[10]China Academy of Information and Communications Technology. (2024). China Digital Trade Development Report (2024) [R]. Beijing: China Academy of Information and Communications Technology.

[11]Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2021). Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China [Z]. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House.

[12]Wang, G. (2022). Legal regulation of digital trade.China Legal Science, (3), 132–150.

[13]Liu, S. (2023). Conflicts and coordination of cross-border data flow rules in regional trade agreements.Modern Law Science, (2), 178–192.