Domestic E-Commerce Promotion Through State-Managed Liberalisation

The Developmental State model predates the digital era and is absent from legal instruments governing Electronic CommerceElectronic Commerce (hereinafter E-CommerceElectronic CommerceE-Commerce). Therefore, China optimised the socialist market economy ethos through State-managed digital tradeDigitaldigital trade liberalisation. However, it remained cautious about liberalising internationally. Moreover, the World Trade Organisation and Free Trade Agreements (hereinafter FTA) are insufficient for E-Commerce governance, unable to offer a timely legal response to technological developments or harmoniously binding regime on data governanceDatadata governance. Yet, FTAs remain the only existing avenue bridging diverging domestic priorities. Although the Chinese and liberal regimes are congruent on competition and consumer protection, the State-centred Chinese regime based on strict data localisationDatadata localisation and security assessment for cross-border data transferSecuritysecurity assessment for cross-border data transfer poses significant challenges to the liberal regimes: The EU regime is concerned about data protectionDatadata protection, while the business-driven US regime regards China’s data localisation requirements as protectionistProtectionist. The three regimes thus clash most regarding data governance. To support the above arguments, this chapter analyses the limitations of the global E-CommerceElectronic Commerce regime and explains the rationales behind States resorting to FTAs. It then examines the legal features of Chinese FTAs in relation to domestic laws with emphasis on socialist market economy principles, and concludes in contrasting the Chinese regime with the US and EU regimes, each of which has its own distinctive strengths and limitations.