Global digital integration is desirable and perhaps even inevitable for most States. However, there is currently no systematic framework or narrative to drive such integration in trade agreements. This article evaluates whether community values can offer a normative foundation for rules governing digital trade. It uses the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Digital Trade Protocol as a case study and argues that identifying and solidifying the collective needs of the African region through this instrument will be key to shaping an inclusive and holistic regional framework. These arguments are substantiated by analysis of the regulation of cross-border data flows, privacy and cybersecurity.

This article discusses and contextualizes the very recent advancements in digital trade regulation based on the insights provided by the Trade Agreement Provisions on Electronic-commerce and Data (TAPED) dataset. Within the time frame of January 2020 to November 2023 that we analyze, digital trade negotiations have increased in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) significantly, and there has been a sharp rise in the negotiation of new types of treaties, known as ‘Digital Economy Agreements’. Beyond the critical advances in substantive rulemaking, we observe non-traditional actors stepping into the gap left by the shifting interest of traditional rulemakers to craft rules that best fit their policy priorities. Additionally, we see a broadening of topics beyond conventional digital trade matters, underscored by commitments of limited legal enforceability. The TAPED dataset has been updated to reflect these recent developments, emphasizing the importance of regular reviews to stay current and accurately inform research and policymaking in the area of digital trade regulation.

The links between and among digital trade, development, and inequality are multifaceted and ever evolving. They depend on what is understood as development and as inequality, concepts that transcend the North-South divide, and the fora in which these issues arise. Conceptually, development and inequality are intrinsically intertwined as the measures to address both are often complementary or even the same. In this essay, we consider development and inequality as pertaining to the ability of developing countries and least-developed countries (LDCs) to shape and participate in the digital economy, and particularly, the regulatory framework for digital trade. We explore how the relationships between digital trade, development, and inequality are addressed in the main venues for digital trade rulemaking: the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs). We then examine two contentious issues in digital trade: the customs duty moratorium and data governance.

The dispute relates to anti-dumping duties imposed by Russia on certain light commercial vehicles (LCVs) from Germany and Italy. These anti-dumping duties were applied pursuant to Decision No. 113 of 14 May 2013 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), including the relevant annexes, notices, and reports of the Department for Internal Market Defence of the EEC (DIMD).

This dispute relates to the compliance proceedings in which the panel and the Appellate Body found that that European Union (EU) and certain of the member States acted inconsistently with their obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). The types of measures at issue in the original panel proceedings include the Launch Aid/Member State Financing (LA/MSF) for, inter alia, the A300, A310, and A380; French and German government ‘equity infusions’ provided in connection with the corporate restructuring of Aérospatiale and Deutsche Airbus; certain infrastructure and related measures provided by the German and Spanish authorities; and research and technological development funding provided by the European Communities and certain member States. The EU replaced the terminated the A300 and A310 programmes with new LA/MSF programmes, including the A350XWB LA/MSF subsidies.

The dispute relates to anti-dumping measures imposed by the European Union (EU) on imports of palm oil from Indonesia. It relates to the same investigation that was at issue in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina). The panel and Appellate Body reports in that dispute were adopted in October 2016. Two of the panellists in the dispute involving Argentina served as panellists in the current dispute.

This dispute concerns the challenge by the United States to measures taken by China to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the original proceeding China–Broiler Products. Based on a redetermination issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), China continued to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of broiler products from US producers (Keystone, Tyson, and Pilgrim's Pride). Overall, the compliance panel concluded that China failed to bring its measures into conformity with the Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD Agreement) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).

Indonesia challenged two measures of the United States' (US): first, the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties (CVDs) on certain coated paper from Indonesia. In particular, Indonesia challenged certain aspects of the US States Department of Commerce (USDOC) final determination ‘as applied’ in its CVD investigation on certain coated paper from Indonesia, and the US International Trade Commission's (USCIT) final threat of injury determination regarding subsidized and dumped imports from Indonesia and China. Second, Indonesia challenged ‘as such’ Section 711(11)(B) of the US Tariff Act. In particular, Indonesia challenged the use of this provision in affirmative threat of injury determinations.

The dispute relates to anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States (US) on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) imported from the Republic of Korea (Korea). Korea challenged the ‘laws, regulations, administrative procedures and other measures’ through which the US maintains a ‘viability test’ in anti-dumping investigations, administrative reviews, and other aspects of anti-dumping proceedings ‘as such’ and ‘as applied’ in the underlying investigation in this dispute. Korea also challenged certain aspects of the final anti-dumping measure that was applied by the US on imports of Korean OCTG subsequent to a final determination of dumping by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in the underlying investigation. Moreover, Korea challenged certain conduct of the USDOC during the course of the investigation at issue. Finally, Korea challenged the USDOC's remand determination of 22 February 2016 that was issued while the current dispute was pending before the panel. This determination was taken by the USDOC subsequent to a review conducted by the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) on the final determination challenged by Korea in this dispute. The USCIT found aspects of the final determination to be inconsistent with US law and remanded that final determination to the USDOC to cure the relevant inconsistencies.

The dispute concerns tax incentives granted by the state of Washington in the United States (US) pursuant to the tax-related provisions of the Revised Code of Washington. Nine tax-related provisions incentives were adopted to attract the production of large civil aircraft in that state. The State of Washington adopted seven aerospace measures corresponding to the nine tax-related provisions. The aerospace measures fell into three general categories of measures: a reduced tax rate, tax credits, and tax exemptions, which included the following (i) reduced corporate tax rates for aircraft manufacturers and retailers (B&O aerospace rate); (ii) tax credits for property and leasehold excise taxes on computer manufacturing facilitates and aerospace product development; and (iii) exemptions of sales and use tax for certain computer hardware, software and peripherals and construction services and materials, and leasehold excise tax and leaseholder property tax. According to the European Union (EU), the measures at issue are prohibited under Article 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) because they are contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods. This contingency results from two siting provisions: the First Siting Provision and the Second Siting Provision, which are contained in Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5952 (ESSB 5952).

This dispute concerns China's claims regarding three issues related to certain anti-dumping measures applied by the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC): the use of the weighted average-to-transaction (WA-T) method in dumping margin calculations, the treatment of multiple companies as a non-market economy-wide entity (NME-wide entity), and the way that USDOC determines anti-dumping duty rates for this type of entity and the level of these duty rates.

This dispute concerns an anti-dumping measure imposed by China on imports of cellulose pulp form Canada. Canada specifically challenged the determination of injury made by China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) in the anti-dumping investigation. MOFCOM applied an ad valorem duty on imports from producers in the investigated countries. It applied anti-dumping duties of 13% on cooperating Canadian producers and 23.7% on all other Canadian producers, except for one producer that was excluded from the investigation due to a de minimis dumping margin.

The dispute concerns the GATT Article XXVIII negotiations of the European Union's (EU) Schedule of Concessions. The EU sought to modify its tariff concessions in respect of certain poultry products. The EU conducted this modification through two separate negotiations. The first round of negotiations were initiated in 2006 and covered the modification of tariff concessions on poultry products falling under HS Codes 0210 99 39, 1602 31, and 1602 32 19 (First Modification Package). The second round of negotiations began in 2009 and pertained to the modification of products falling under HS Codes 1602 20 10, 1602 32 11, 1602 32 30, 1602 32 90, 1602 39 21, 1602 39 29, 1602 39 40, and 1602 39 808 (Second Modification Package). In both rounds, the EU notified its intention to modify its tariff concessions under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994. It subsequently entered into negotiations with Brazil and Thailand, which it considered to have the required legal interest to enter into these negotiations. The EU reached agreements with Brazil and Thailand and replaced its previous tariff concessions in respect of the tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for certain poultry products.

The dispute principally concerns the provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures applied by Canada on imports of certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe (CSWP) from Chinese Taipei.