The UNNExT Expert Group Meeting on Developing a Legal Guide for Cross-border Paperless Trade was held on 15 January 2024. The Meeting was organized by the UNESCAP in response to the the Decision of the Parties to the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade in Asia and the Pacific (CPTA) during the 2nd Meeting of the Standing Committee. According to the report, the Standing Committee requested the secretariat prepare a draft guide on engaging in cross-border paperless trade taking into account regional and international laws and regulations and best practices as appropriate. The draft guide will be presented at the next regular session of the Standing Committee for its review and consideration in June 2024. The Legal Guide is being developed by the UNNExT Experts and other invited participants. A concept note for the Legal Guide encompassing the context, objectives in supporting countries engaging in cross-border paperless trade, and a proposed table of contents was presented at the meeting. Prof. Xue and other experts were invited to comment on the draft and the proposed Guide.
Prof. Xue who had been engaged in the whole formation process of CPTA (from early consultation, negotiation to drafting the implementation documents) contributed the experience and institutional memories that would be valuable for the further work on the Guide. Prof. Xue mentioned that the Guide would need to take into account the complicated documents involved in digital trade. Transaction documents may be very different from regulatory ones with respect to choice and application of law. Harmonization of law through encouraging suitable domestic legal environment and adopting international rules and standards is one of the key legal mechanism of the CPTA. The Guide may provide the road map for implementing this mechanism. Regarding the mutual recognition (MR), which is required by the CPTA, Prof. Xue emphasized its essential role in the whole legal design. Although bilateral and multilateral agreements may be used to operationalize the MR, they are not the exclusive solution under the CPTA. The Paperless Council may delegate the Standing Committee to develop the protocol or other means to specify the standards of MR commonly accepted by the Parties, notwithstanding of the difficulties of consensus and complexity of trade documents and data.
To ensure a robust process, the Secretariat will consider all the discussions and expert feedback to promote the development of the Legal Guide and submit the draft to the Standing Committee.
中国是首先对平台治理权是进行了法制化的,要求平台规则修改要公示,要有透明度。除了有透明度,店铺也有发言权。这店铺可以发言表示说这个规则不合理。然后我们当时起草的时候是说平台是要对这些评论意见予以回应,当然平台觉得压力很大。总之,规则层面已经被法制化了。但是平台不是政府。平台如何实施这些规则,它又没有行政管理权,所以它要落实到有关的服务条款。于是我们看到实际上它不仅和店铺有直接的契约关系,有这种service agreement,他和所有的知识产权人也有。因为作为一个知识产权人发出通知的时候,首先要subscribe to the system。现在都是网络的系统,先要同意这样一个提交通知的系统,才能够提交得成通知,所以与平台建立了协议关系。通过这样一个服务的协议,然后规则得以实现。规则为什么重要?因为通知要符合规则,须是合格的通知,尤其是还要有初步证据。什么是initial proofs,什么是 proves,都可以在规则制定当中予以界定,在跨境电商当中这一点越来越重要。
以前我们只在中国市场看中国商标法等知识产权法就行了。以后在全球的情况下,平台不知道收到的是哪个国的商标注册,比如在突尼斯注册一商标跟注册域名一样,一个礼拜就注册好了,所以这个规则就变得很重要。平台得界定一下一个有效的商标注册究竟是什么样的,基于初步证据判断这是否是一个合格的通知,平台才会采取行动,所以这个都需要在规则中予以明确。而这个规则需要有关各方的参与。而且《电子商务法》这个机制有一项重要的制度创新,为什么大家都不注意这点?我们这个通知不是一般的通知,这个通知是和 Public disclosure联系在一起的。这就是要解决那种所谓的职业通知人或者职业反通知人的问题。有一个人他持续的发出错误的通知,他这是恶意通知。把它公示了以后,那么这样这个商铺就知道这个人有恶意。平台是掌握这些信息的,但是作为普通一商户不掌握,如果公示了,我们基于他的track record,此前他就有劣迹有前科,就可以更有效的提出抗辩、不侵权的通知。所以我觉得植根于平台治理的措施是具有生命力的。
当然这个机制我们不是说百分之百非常好的,它有发展的潜力,它发展的潜力在两个方面我们已经看到了。有些国家虽然学习了我们电商法,比如说欧盟,它学习我们之后,它稍加改动,我觉得还是有一定的可思考性。这个改动可以从两个方面来看,一个方面它确实强化了平台的治理权力,尤其是对 very large platform。这种非常大平台不仅有进行治理的权利,而且有进行治理的义务,就通知而言,它要对收到的通知进行实质性的判断。通知里提出的证据,我们只是说初步证据,他说要sufficiently substantiated,要既要充分地实质化,然后平台要基于它所有的技术能力,它事先掌握的知识来进行一下判断,然后他才采取行动。而同时对店铺而言,有上诉的权利,当然不是向法院上诉,而是向平台上诉。店铺认为这个平台这个措施是不合理,要提起抗辩,认为平台不合理,申请终止这个措施。所以欧美实际上是稍微改动了我们 notice and take down,变成notice and action。稍微把平台作为这么一个争议的中立解决者的地位,这当然是一个思考的角度。