Protectionism Online: Internet Censorship and International Trade Law
Protectionism Online: Internet Censorship and International Trade Law
复制标题
在线保护主义：互联网审查和国际贸易法
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Act
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brian Hindley;Hosuk Lee;A. Act
互联网是一个全球市场。互联网，特别是基于互联网的商务的快速发展，很大程度上发生在涵盖大多数其他形式的跨境商务的标准贸易监管框架之外。随着互联网市场规模的不断扩大，对整体经济的贡献越来越明显，贸易限制措施、破坏电子商务、信息服务和在线传输领域的贸易和投资环境等监管问题受到越来越多的关注。其中一项措施是阻止访问网站。本文建议许多世贸组织成员国在法律上有义务允许不受限制地提供跨境互联网服务。由于至少一些最发达的审查制度（尤其是中国）可以选择选择性审查而不是完全阻止服务，因此专家组很有可能裁定对搜索引擎、照片共享应用程序和其他服务的永久阻止不符合 GATS 条款，即使考虑到道德和安全例外情况也是如此。资源较少的国家，没有更有选择性的过滤手段，并且有基于道德和宗教理由的审查制度，也许能够在世贸组织中捍卫此类禁令。但这些例外并不能掩盖任意和不成比例的审查制度，尽管审查政府可以进行选择性过滤，但这种审查制度仍然存在。 ECIPE 工作文件 • 编号。 12/2009
Internet is a global market place. The rapid development of the Internet, and especially of Internet-based commerce, has largely taken place outside the standard trade-regulatory frameworks that cover most other forms of cross-border commerce. As the size of the Internet markets has grown, and as their contribution to the overall economy has become more pronounced, more attention has been given to regulatory concerns, such as traderestrictive measures, damaging the climate of trade and investment in the fields of e-commerce, informationbased services and online transmissions. One such measure is the blockage of access to websites. This paper suggests that many WTO member states are legally obliged to permit an unrestricted supply of crossborder Internet services. And as the option to selectively censor rather than entirely block services is available to at least some of the most developed censorship regimes (most notably China), there is a good chance that a panel might rule that permanent blocks on search engines, photo-sharing applications and other services are inconsistent with the GATS provisions, even given morals and security exceptions. Less resourceful countries, without means of filtering more selectively, and with a censorship based on moral and religious grounds, might be able to defend such bans in the WTO. But the exceptions do not offer a blanket cover for the arbitrary and disproportionate censorship that still occurs despite the availability to the censoring government of selective filtering. ECIPE WorkIng PaPEr • no. 12/2009