The Conflict Balance Model between Sovereignty and National Treatment in the Digital Age
Keywords:
data sovereignty, national treatment, digital taxation, international investment lawAbstract
With the advent of the era of data sovereignty, the traditional principle of national treatment (NT) in international investment law faces significant challenges. Digital sovereignty emphasizes a state's absolute control over cross-border data flows and technical standards, prompting countries to impose trade barriers such as data localization and unfair digital taxes, which conflict with the principle of non-discrimination. This paper focuses on the dynamic balance between data sovereignty and national treatment, analyzing the root causes of their conflict, including the tension between sovereignty and open markets and the ambiguity of exception clauses. Measures strengthening digital sovereignty — such as fragmented technical standards and digital services taxes — exacerbate hidden discrimination against foreign investors, posing key dilemmas for the implementation of NT in the digital era. This study aims to explore institutional innovations that reconcile controllable market access with security interests, contributing to the reform of international investment law.
References
1. R. Dolzer, U. Kriebaum, and C. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. ISBN: 9780192857804.
2. Q. Zhang and A. Mitchell, “Data Localization and the National Treatment Obligation in International Investment Treaties,” World Trade Rev., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 391–410, 2022, doi: 10.1017/S1474745621000549.
3. J. R. Markusen, Trade versus Investment Liberalization, 1997, doi: 10.3386/w6231.
4. L. Sun, H. Zhang, and C. Fang, “Data security governance in the era of big data: status, challenges, and prospects,” Data Sci. Manag., vol. 2, pp. 41–44, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.dsm.2021.06.001.
5. S. Wood et al., “Digital Sovereignty: the overlap and conflict between states, enterprises and citizens,” Plum Consulting, 2020.
6. Fa, Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Shuju Anquan (Data Security Law of the People's Republic of China), promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat'l People's Cong., June 10, 2021.
7. D. Trump, “Executive Order 13942: Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, and Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency with Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,” Office of the Federal Register, 2020.
8. J. Bonnitcha, L. N. S. Poulsen, and M. Waibel, The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. ISBN: 9780198719540.
9. S. P. Hadebe, “Digital Sovereignty and Tight Regulation in the EU: Analysing the motivation behind the Digital Markets Act,” 2022, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4785054.
10. P. Naithani, “Analysis of India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023,” Int. J. Law Manag., ahead-of-print, 2024, doi: 10.1108/IJLMA-05-2024-0174.
11. Federal Communications Commission, “Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs; Huawei Designation; ZTE Designation,” Federal Register, 2020.
12. M. Lazirko, “Quantum computing standards & accounting information systems,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2311.11925, 2023, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.11925.
13. K. Mätäsniemi, “Solving Inter-Organizational Data Sharing Challenges with GAIA-X,” 2023.
14. S. Mann, V. Potdar, R. S. Gajavilli, and A. Chandan, “Blockchain Technology for Supply Chain Traceability, Transparency and Data Provenance,” in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Adv. Inf. Technol., New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2018, doi: 10.1145/3301403.3301408.
15. S. W. Bauguess, “The Role of Big Data, Machine Learning, and AI in Assessing Risks: A Regulatory Perspective,” SEC Keynote Address: OpRisk North America 2017, Jun. 21, 2017.
16. E. P. Rusakova and E. E. Frolova, “Digital disputes in the new legal reality,” RUDN J. Law, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 695–704, 2022, doi: 10.22363/2313-2337-2022-26-3-695-704.
