WTO E-Commerce Negotiations
WTO E-Commerce Negotiations
WTO E-Commerce Negotiations
Council mandate
In May 2019, the Council adopted a decision on the negotiating directives (the 'mandate'), supplementing
the mandate for the Doha round, for the European Commission to negotiate on the trade-related aspects
of e-commerce. The mandate is broad, enabling the Commission to negotiate on the full range of items
listed in the EU proposal and on relevant issues proposed by participating members. In terms of red lines,
the EU negotiating directives state that commitments should align with the EU legal framework, and that
Negotiating positions
As of September 2020, 83 WTO members have held several negotiating rounds. Initial delivery, planned for
the 12th Ministerial Conference in Nursultan, was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Australia,
Singapore and Japan are spearheading the talks. Most proposals broadly align with the topics put forward
by the EU. Common ground exists on consumer protection and deceptive practices, where most participants
agree that a set of guiding principles is needed, but the form or permissiveness is not yet clear. While many of
the higher-income members are in favour of rules for e-authentication, the African Group has pointed out
that, inter alia, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) already addresses
these issues in its model law on e-signatures. The African Group has criticised the e-commerce negotiations,
noting that new rules would constrain their domestic policy space and ability to industrialise, condemning
proposals on free flow of data, as well as bans on forced technology transfers and source code disclosures. So
far only a few least developed countries (Benin, Myanmar and Laos) have joined the talks. Among the large
emerging economies, India and South Africa have not joined the negotiations. Indonesia has joined the talks,
but is opposed to the permanent moratorium on tariffs on e-transmissions. The United Kingdom has strongly
welcomed the negotiations.
The US proposal is not public, but a leaked communication resembles the digital trade provisions of the US–
Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). The US advocates free flows of cross-border data, including personal
data, if it is for the business purposes of companies from participating countries. Exceptions for a legitimate
public policy objective are permitted. This approach diverges in part from that of the EU, and data flows have
also been a central question in the US–China trade war. Both the EU and US have indicated a desire to carve
out services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority from the e-commerce negotiations.
The position of China focuses notably on safeguarding cybersecurity, data safety and trade facilitation.
There is common ground with other members’ submissions on promoting the customs moratorium for
e-transmissions, stopping spam, online consumer protection and facilitation of e-signatures. China calls for
a better definition of what trade-related aspects of e-commerce entails, improving customs procedures and
developing mobile payment options. China views data flows as being subject to the precondition of
security. China does not mention source code disclosure, and is unlikely to make commitments in this area.
The distances between the negotiating positions appear wide, but the pandemic has highlighted the
importance of e-commerce, and in August 2020, a first stocktaking text emerged and a consolidated draft
is expected towards the end of 2020. However, the resulting legal form, namely whether it will be a self-
standing agreement or a modification of existing provisions, remains to be defined.
This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their
parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken
to represent an official position of the Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source
is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. © European Union, 2020.
eprs@ep.europa.eu (contact) http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) http://epthinktank.eu (blog)