Digital Trade Agreements: The Invisible Rules Shaping How Data and Services Cross Borders

The Quiet Architecture of the Digital Economy

The rules governing how data crosses borders are not being written by technologists or privacy advocates. They are being written by trade negotiators, embedded in agreements that most people never read, and they will determine whether the global digital economy remains interoperable or fractures into competing blocs. In boardrooms in Geneva, Singapore, and Washington, delegations are negotiating provisions on cross-border data flows, source code disclosure, data localization, digital taxation, and algorithmic transparency that will bind signatory nations for decades.

The numbers underscore the stakes. Global exports of digitally delivered services reached $4.64 trillion in 2024, according to WTO statistics, up 8.3% year-on-year. Digital services trade has grown at roughly 9% annually since 2020, consistently outpacing goods trade by a wide margin. The WTO e-commerce moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions, extended at MC13 in Abu Dhabi to March 2026 or MC14 (whichever comes first), remains a contested but critical pillar of this architecture. Every percentage point of friction added to these flows through regulation, localization mandates, or incompatible standards translates into billions of dollars in lost economic activity.

Three parallel negotiation tracks are shaping this landscape: the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce, involving 91 members representing over 90% of global trade; bilateral and plurilateral agreements like DEPA (Digital Economy Partnership Agreement) and the US-Japan Digital Trade Agreement; and regional frameworks like the EU’s approach to data governance and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) digital trade protocol. Each track embeds different assumptions about data sovereignty, market access, and the role of government in the digital economy.

---

The WTO E-Commerce Negotiations: Progress, Deadlock, and Fragmentation

The WTO Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce, launched at the 2017 Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference, represents the most ambitious attempt to create multilateral rules for digital trade. Co-convened by Japan, Australia, and Singapore, the negotiations have produced converging text on several topics: electronic signatures and authentication, paperless trading, spam, open government data, and consumer protection. The text was stabilized in July 2024, but the more contentious provisions, specifically cross-border data flows and data localization, remain politically fraught, and a decision on the agreement’s incorporation into WTO law could come at MC14 in 2026.

The core tension is structural. The United States, historically the strongest advocate for free data flows, has retreated from its position. In October 2023, the US Trade Representative withdrew support for three key digital trade proposals at the WTO: prohibitions on data localization requirements, bans on requirements to disclose source code, and guarantees of cross-border data flows. The stated rationale was to preserve domestic policy space for regulating AI and big tech, but the move fundamentally shifted the negotiating dynamics. Without US support, the provisions that tech companies and digital trade advocates considered essential lost their most powerful champion.

India and South Africa have consistently opposed binding data flow provisions, arguing that developing countries need policy flexibility to build domestic digital capacity and regulate data in the public interest. China supports cross-border data flows in principle but maintains extensive data localization requirements through its Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, and Personal Information Protection Law. The EU occupies a middle position: it supports data flows with appropriate safeguards, essentially seeking to globalize the adequacy framework embedded in the GDPR.

For Algeria, a non-WTO member that has been in the accession process since 1987 without completion, these negotiations have no direct binding effect. But they have profound indirect consequences. As WTO members adopt digital trade commitments, they create de facto standards that non-members must navigate. Algeria’s data localization requirements under Law No. 18-07 and the new audiovisual law would conflict with WTO data flow provisions, potentially complicating future accession negotiations and creating friction with trading partners that have committed to open data flows.

---

DEPA, USJDTA, and the Rise of Plurilateral Digital Rules

While the WTO negotiations have stalled on the hardest issues, a parallel track of smaller, more ambitious agreements has accelerated. The Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA), signed by Singapore, Chile, and New Zealand in June 2020, represents the gold standard for digital trade rules. South Korea officially acceded in May 2024, becoming the fourth member, and Costa Rica was invited to accede in January 2025. Nine additional economies, including China, Canada, the UAE, and Peru, have applied for accession. DEPA covers AI governance, digital identity interoperability, fintech cooperation, data flows with trust, and emerging technologies, going far beyond what the WTO has achieved.

The US-Japan Digital Trade Agreement, concluded in 2019, sets binding rules on cross-border data flows, prohibits data localization (with limited exceptions for financial services), bans requirements to transfer or provide access to source code and algorithms, and prohibits customs duties on digital products. It is widely considered the strongest bilateral digital trade agreement in existence. The UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) incorporates similar provisions, as does the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

These agreements are creating a club of countries that operate under compatible digital trade rules. Membership in the club provides preferential market access for digital services, regulatory certainty for tech companies, and a framework for data exchange. Non-members, including Algeria, face asymmetric conditions: their companies must comply with the rules of club members when accessing those markets, but they receive no reciprocal commitments on market access or regulatory treatment.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) adds a continental dimension. The AfCFTA Protocol on Digital Trade was approved by State Party Ministers in February 2024, and its eight annexes, covering cross-border data transfers, digital identity, digital payments, source code, online safety, emerging technologies, financial technology, and rules of origin, were adopted by the AU Assembly in February 2025. The protocol now awaits ratification by 22 State Parties to enter into force. African negotiators sought a middle path: enabling intra-African data flows to support continental market integration while preserving national sovereignty over data governance. Algeria, as an AfCFTA signatory, will be directly bound by these provisions once the protocol enters into force. The final text could either accommodate Algeria’s data localization approach or require significant policy adjustments depending on how implementation unfolds.

---

The Fragmentation Scenario: Digital Trade Blocs and Their Consequences

The most significant risk in the digital trade landscape is not that rules are being written, but that incompatible rules are being written simultaneously. The world is converging toward two or three distinct regulatory approaches to cross-border data, each embedded in binding trade commitments, each requiring different compliance architectures for companies operating across jurisdictions.

The first approach, championed by the US (pre-2023) and codified in agreements like USJDTA and CPTPP, prioritizes free data flows with minimal government intervention. The second approach, embodied by the EU’s GDPR-adjacent model, permits data flows subject to adequacy determinations and safeguards. The third approach, practiced by China, Russia, and several developing countries, requires data localization for various categories of data, with cross-border transfers subject to security assessments. India’s approach, combining elements of the second and third models through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, adds a fourth variant.

For a company operating across all four regimes, compliance requires maintaining separate data architectures, legal frameworks, and operational processes for each jurisdiction. This is feasible for companies with the scale of Alphabet ($350 billion revenue in 2024) or Microsoft ($245 billion). It is not feasible for an Algerian startup trying to sell SaaS services to customers in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East simultaneously. Regulatory fragmentation disproportionately disadvantages smaller companies and smaller countries, effectively creating non-tariff barriers to digital trade that reverse the democratizing potential of the internet.

Algeria’s data localization requirements position it firmly in the third camp, alongside countries that prioritize sovereignty over interoperability. This is a legitimate policy choice with real tradeoffs. Localization protects against foreign surveillance, ensures domestic law enforcement access to data, and can stimulate local data center investment. It also increases costs for businesses, limits access to global cloud services (the nearest major cloud regions are in France, Spain, and Bahrain), and may deter foreign digital investment. The cost-benefit calculation depends on whether Algeria’s localization requirements are implemented as rigid mandates or as defaults with negotiated exceptions for specific sectors and partners.

---

---

Sources & Further Reading

• WTO Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce
• WTO Digitally Delivered Services Trade Statistics
• Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) – Singapore MTI
• USTR Upends US Negotiating Position on Cross-Border Data Flows – CSIS
• AfCFTA Protocol on Digital Trade – African Union
• AfCFTA Digital Protocol Analysis – IISD
• US-Japan Digital Trade Agreement – USTR
• Algeria WTO Accession Working Party
• India Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 – MeitY
• WTO E-Commerce Moratorium Extension at MC13 – White & Case