Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 3 results.

Resolving the Conflict Between Trade and Data Protection Law journal article

Paul M. Schwartz, Anupam Chander

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 9 (2023), Issue 3, Page 296 - 304

The next decade will see increasing conflict between data privacy laws and international trade law. Governments are already concerned that privacy will be lost amid global data flows and have responded by enacting regulatory measures that might impede modern trade. While the European Union’s findings of ‘adequacy’ offer a potentially trade-friendly solution to cross-border data flows, fewer than a dozen countries have been found adequate. In addition, more than sixty countries have enacted laws where they too evaluate the adequacy of foreign privacy laws. This splintering of data privacy law complicates global trade as more nations review and potentially restrict outbound data flows. New solutions are needed to ensure the benefits of trade while safeguarding privacy. This paper argues that a broad international agreement is needed that sets minimum standards, develops common regulatory language, and creates binding commitments in the context of data privacy and trade law. Keywords: trade law, data protection law, World Trade Organization, adequacy finding, General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)


Challenging the EU's ‘Right to Be Forgotten’? Society's ‘Right to Know’ in Japan journal article

Frederike Zufall

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 5 (2019), Issue 1, Page 17 - 25

This article asks the extent to which the concept of the ‘right to be forgotten’ has been received by Japanese law – or whether, to the contrary, Japan is challenging the EU's concept. In a 2017 judgment, the Japanese Supreme Court rejected a request for injunctive relief to delete search results from the search engine Google. The decisive argument focused on the public interest around the facts concerned: a crime committed by the applicant several years earlier. The court did not just award the right to freedom of expression to Google, but centred its decision on society's right to know – thereby putting society's interest before that of the individual. In the light of the pending adoption of the EU-Japan adequacy decision, this divergence from the EU concept raises doubts as to whether 'adequacy' can be achieved between legal systems founded on cultural differences. Can we still afford to base our legal regimes on different social consciousness in the era of a borderless Internet? Keywords: Data Protection Law, Japan, Right to Be Forgotten, Adequacy Decision


  • «
  • 1
  • »