全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

论数据立法管辖权的域外扩张与冲突
Analysis on the Extraterritorial Expansion and Conflict of Digital Prescriptive Jurisdiction

DOI: 10.12677/DS.2024.101017, PP. 118-124

Keywords: 数据跨境流动,数据本地化,域外立法管辖权,GDPR
Transborder Data Flows
, Data Localization, Extraterritorial Prescriptive Jurisdiction, GDPR

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

欧盟与美国相继颁布GDPR与CLOUD法案,暗含不同种类的数据立法管辖权域外扩张,体现了双方争夺全球数据治理领域的话语权,寻求以自身标准构建全球数据治理的话语体系的目的。虽然我国坚持对境内处理数据管辖,尊重他国境内数据处理主权,但是在数字经济背景下,数据在全球范围内跨国界的流动,跨境流动数据的管辖权域外扩张必将影响到他国的境内数据管辖权,故我国也难以置身事外。因此,针对包括美国、欧盟、第三国在内的多方管辖权冲突,我国也应当积极主动地参与全球数据治理,以双边谈判的形式寻求数据立法的域外适用,同时完善本国国内法律,对信息分类处理,保护数据主权与国家安全。
European Union and the United States promulgate GDPR and CLOUD Act one after another, implying different kinds of extraterritorial expansion of data legislation jurisdiction, reflecting the two sides scramble for the discourse right in the field of global data governance, seeking to establish the discourse system of global data governance with their own standards. Although we adhere to the jurisdiction over data processed within the territory of our country and respect the sovereignty of domestic data processing of other countries, in the context of the digital economy, data flows across borders all over the world and the extraterritorial expansion of jurisdiction over cross-border flow of data will definitely affect the jurisdiction over domestic data of other countries, so we cannot stay out of it. Therefore, with respect to multi-jurisdictional conflicts including the United States, the European Union and third countries, China should actively participate in global data governance, seek the extraterritorial application of data legislation in the form of bilateral negotiation, and at the same time improve its domestic laws, classify and process information, and protect data sovereignty and national security.

References

[1]  叶开儒. 数据跨境流动规制中的“长臂管辖”——对欧盟GDPR的原旨主义考察[J]. 法学评论, 2020, 38(1): 106-117.
[2]  孙益武. 数字贸易与壁垒: 文本解读与规则评析——以USMCA为对象[J]. 上海对外经贸大学学报, 2019, 26(6): 85-96.
[3]  Fishman, W.L. (1980) Introduction to Transborder Data Flows. Stanford Journal of Inter-national Law, 16, 1-26.
[4]  Christopher, K. (2011) Regulation of Transborder Data Flows under Data Protection and Privacy Law: Past, Present and Future. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 187, 14.
[5]  刘志雄. 跨境数据流动的全球态势及对我国的启示[J]. 人民论坛, 2021(33): 102-105.
[6]  许多奇. 个人数据跨境流动规制的国际格局及中国应对[J]. 法学论坛, 2018, 33(3): 130-137.
[7]  王虎华. 国际公法[M]. 第四版. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2015: 84.
[8]  周晓林. 美国法律的域外管辖与国际管辖权冲突[J]. 国际问题研究, 1984(3): 41-49.
[9]  冉从敬, 陈贵容, 王欢. 美国跨境数据流动的管辖模式研究及对中国的启示[J]. 图书情报知识, 2020(6): 136-143.
[10]  沈逸. 美国压制华为出于私心和错误认识[EB/OL].
https://opinion.huanqiu.com/article/9CaKrnKjcSQ, 2022-01-06.
[11]  京东法律研究院. 欧盟数据宪章: 《一般数据保护条例》GDPR评述及事务指引[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2018: 21.
[12]  王志安. 云计算和大数据时代的国家立法管辖权——数据本地化与数据全球化的大对抗? [J]. 交大法学, 2019(1): 5-20.
[13]  Safari, B.A. (2016) Intangible Privacy Rights: How Europe’s GDPR Will Set a New Global Standard for Personal Data Protection. Seton Hall Law Review, 47, 812.
[14]  周梦迪. 美国CLOUD法案: 全球数据管辖新“铁幕” [J]. 国际经济法学刊, 2021(1): 14-24.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413