Challenges to Data Sovereignty Under CBAM and China’s Legal Response

Xinran Han

doi:10.54097/5p3sys67

Authors

Xinran Han

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/5p3sys67

Keywords:

CBAM, Data Sovereignty, Developing Country, International Economic Law

Abstract

The EU's Carbon Boundary Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) poses a significant challenge to data sovereignty, especially for China and other developing countries. This paper systematically explores the legal nature of data sovereignty, the implementation process of CBAM and the data sovereignty conflicts it has triggered. It analyses how CBAM's requirements for emissions data disclosure affect China's legal and regulatory framework. In addition, the paper examines how other countries have responded to similar challenges and extracts valuable lessons for China's response. By assessing the international experience and the specific challenges faced by China, this study proposes a Chinese response strategy to strengthen China's data sovereignty while ensuring the necessary co-operation in the global carbon trading mechanism. The findings emphasise the need for China to improve its legal framework, strengthen cross-border carbon data regulation, and actively participate in international co-operation to mitigate the risks to data sovereignty under CBAM.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

[2] Leal-Arcas, R., Faktaufon, M., & Kyprianou, A. (2022). A legal exploration of the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 31(4).

[3] Zhang, H. Y. (2023). Regulatory dilemma of carbon emissions data export and China’s solution: Against the background of CBAM. Peking University Law Review.

[4] Geng, X. Y. (2024). The governance of cross-border data flows in trade agreements: A study on the "freedom–regulation" dilemma. Journal of Changzhou University (Social Science Edition), (3), 52–62.

[5] Wolff, H. V. H. (2013). Territorial sovereignty and neutrality in cyberspace. International Law Studies, 89, 123–124.

[6] Hong, Y. Q. (2021). On classification and hierarchical protection of data from the perspective of national security. China Law Review, 5.

[7] Zhang, Q., & Chen, Y. (2022). Research on data classification and grading methods and practices. Technology and Market, 29(8), 150–153.

[8] Xu, D. S. (2022). Building a cross-border data flow system aligned with international rules. Foreign Economics and Trade Practice, (1), 72–76.

[9] Hong, Y. Q. (2021). Data classification and grading protection from the perspective of national security. China Law Review, (5), 142–158.

[10] Chen, S., & Ma, Q. (2022). China's approach to regulatory coordination of cross-border data flows. China Business & Market, 36(9), 116–126.

[11] Liang, Y., & Wu, D. (2018). Implications of the EU’s GDPR strict regulatory model for data governance in China’s financial industry. Finance Technology Times, (9), 27–29.

[12] Zhang, Z. L. (2024). A study on the carbon emissions data reporting obligations under the EU CBAM. Journal of Information Science, 43(7), 172–178.