A Battle of the Big Three?—Competing Conceptualizations of Personal Data Shaping Transnational Data Flows

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Chinese Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2023-11-23 DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmad040
Raymond Yang Gao
{"title":"A Battle of the Big Three?—Competing Conceptualizations of Personal Data Shaping Transnational Data Flows","authors":"Raymond Yang Gao","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmad040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the unfolding digital era, personal data has increasingly been conceptualized in a hybrid way, primarily drawing on notions of economics, privacy, and national security. Such a sui generis nature makes personal data something of its own category, opening the door to different conceptualizations by different actors. This article identifies three primary conceptualizations of personal data adopted by three major powers (the US, the EU, and China) with respect to cross-border data transfers—namely, a factor of production, an embodiment of fundamental rights, and an element of national security. Highlighting different attributes of personal data, these conceptualizations differ in what they understand personal data to be, how they address the relationship between individuals, their data, and the governments, as well as what they frame as the most important normative goals for regulatory interventions. Moreover, these conceptualizations are embedded in different philosophies and ideologies, ranging from neo-liberalism to human rights and to sovereignty. These irreducible normative elements render the contestations among such conceptualizations unable to be easily resolved. Further, divergent conceptualizations of personal data mandate and justify different legal paradigms to institutionalize their basic logics and policy choices. Built on different primary conceptualizations of personal data, three major legal paradigms compete to regulate cross-border personal data flows: a trade paradigm, a privacy paradigm, and a security paradigm. Aligned with its major conceptual framing of personal data, a great power often embraces a particular paradigm as its dominant approach to regulate cross-border transfers of personal data. These paradigms strive to provide legal and regulatory solutions (including legal prescriptions, regulatory institutions, and enforcement tools) to address the salient problems identified and framed by different conceptualizations of personal data.","PeriodicalId":45438,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":"94 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmad040","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the unfolding digital era, personal data has increasingly been conceptualized in a hybrid way, primarily drawing on notions of economics, privacy, and national security. Such a sui generis nature makes personal data something of its own category, opening the door to different conceptualizations by different actors. This article identifies three primary conceptualizations of personal data adopted by three major powers (the US, the EU, and China) with respect to cross-border data transfers—namely, a factor of production, an embodiment of fundamental rights, and an element of national security. Highlighting different attributes of personal data, these conceptualizations differ in what they understand personal data to be, how they address the relationship between individuals, their data, and the governments, as well as what they frame as the most important normative goals for regulatory interventions. Moreover, these conceptualizations are embedded in different philosophies and ideologies, ranging from neo-liberalism to human rights and to sovereignty. These irreducible normative elements render the contestations among such conceptualizations unable to be easily resolved. Further, divergent conceptualizations of personal data mandate and justify different legal paradigms to institutionalize their basic logics and policy choices. Built on different primary conceptualizations of personal data, three major legal paradigms compete to regulate cross-border personal data flows: a trade paradigm, a privacy paradigm, and a security paradigm. Aligned with its major conceptual framing of personal data, a great power often embraces a particular paradigm as its dominant approach to regulate cross-border transfers of personal data. These paradigms strive to provide legal and regulatory solutions (including legal prescriptions, regulatory institutions, and enforcement tools) to address the salient problems identified and framed by different conceptualizations of personal data.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三巨头之争--塑造跨国数据流的个人数据概念之争
在不断发展的数字时代,个人数据越来越多地被以混合的方式概念化,主要借鉴经济学、隐私和国家安全的概念。这种自成一类的性质使个人数据自成一类,为不同行为者的不同概念化打开了大门。本文指出了三个大国(美国、欧盟和中国)在跨境数据传输方面对个人数据采用的三种主要概念--即生产要素、基本权利的体现和国家安全的要素。这些概念强调了个人数据的不同属性,在理解个人数据是什么,如何处理个人、数据和政府之间的关系,以及将什么作为监管干预的最重要规范目标等方面各不相同。此外,这些概念都蕴含在不同的哲学和意识形态中,从新自由主义到人权和主权,不一而足。这些不可还原的规范性要素使得这些概念之间的争论难以解决。此外,不同的个人数据概念授权并证明了不同的法律范式,使其基本逻辑和政策选择制度化。基于不同的个人数据基本概念,三大法律范式竞相规范跨境个人数据流动:贸易范式、隐私范式和安全范式。根据其对个人数据的主要概念框架,大国往往采用特定范式作为其监管个人数据跨境转移的主导方法。这些范式努力提供法律和监管解决方案(包括法律规定、监管机构和执法工具),以解决不同个人数据概念所确定和框定的突出问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of International Law is the leading forum for articles on international law by Chinese scholars and on international law issues relating to China. An independent, peer-reviewed research journal edited primarily by scholars from mainland China, and published in association with the Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing, and Wuhan University Institute of International Law, Wuhan, the Journal is a general international law journal with a focus on materials and viewpoints from and/or about China, other parts of Asia, and the broader developing world.
期刊最新文献
Navigating New Waters: IMO’s Efforts to Regulate Autonomous Shipping Jurisdiction of a State Party under Article 2(1) of the ICCPR: A Comment on A.S. and Others v. Italy The 2022 ICJ Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia: Towards a Theory of Exclusivity in Allocating Rights and Jurisdiction between the Coastal and Other States? Interplay of International Law and Cyberspace: State Sovereignty Violation, Extraterritorial Effects, and the Paradigm of Cyber Sovereignty Military Alliances under International Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1