The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 43 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT The article introduces a new dataset that seeks to comprehensively trace developments in the area of digital trade governance. The TAPED (Trade Agreements Provisions on Electronic-Commerce and Data) dataset includes a detailed mapping and coding of all preferential trade agreements that cover chapters, provisions, annexes, and side documents that directly or indirectly regulate digital trade. This article presents the methodology behind TAPED and provides an overview of the evolution of digital trade provisions in preferential trade agreements, highlighting also some emerging trends. It then takes a look at the substance of selected rules found particularly in electronic commerce chapters and maps the diversity of approaches in tackling issues meant to facilitate online trade, such as the customs duty moratorium on electronic transactions or paperless trading, and discusses the very recent rule-making with regard to cross-border data flows. This is of course merely a glimpse of the wealth of information that TAPED provides, and the goal of this article is simply to uncover the great variety and the complexity of the norms found in the preferential trade agreements on digital trade governance, which reveals the value of the dataset.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 Own result · 33 Sources not found · 7 Own interpretation · 6 Not checked yet · 5 No basis given · 4 Own method
In the paper
“The first e-commerce provision is found in the 2000 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Jordan and the US.28”
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > II. THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: OVERVIEW AND SOME EMERGING TRENDS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Figure 1, digital trade provisions are, on average, included in more than 61% of all PTAs that were concluded between 2010 and 2018.”
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > II. THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: OVERVIEW AND SOME EMERGING TRENDS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The largest number of provisions is found in e-commerce and IP chapters; overall, the provisions remain however highly heterogeneous, addressing various issues ranging from customs duties and non-discriminatory treatment of digital products to domestic regulatory framework, electronic signatures, consumer protection, data protection, paperless trading, and unsolicited electronic messages.”
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > II. THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: OVERVIEW AND SOME EMERGING TRENDS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Three years later, the 2003 Australia-Singapore FTA (SAFTA) 29 was the first PTA to have a dedicated chapter on e-commerce.”
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > II. THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: OVERVIEW AND SOME EMERGING TRENDS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From those treaties, 184 PTAs include provisions that are related to digital trade, 108 have specific e-commerce provisions and 78 consider dedicated e-commerce chapters and side agreements.”
- Also stated in: § II. THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: OVERVIEW AND SOME EMERGING TRENDS · plain
“At the moment of this writing, specific provisions applicable to e-commerce can be found in 108 PTAs, mostly in dedicated chapters (78 in our dataset).”
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > Using the kick-off of the US Digital Agenda (with the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002), and the EU's 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § II. THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: OVERVIEW AND SOME EMERGING TRENDS · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
Create a free account to see these claims.
58 more claims
Create a free account to see all 114 claims and every source verdict.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > Using the kick-off of the US Digital Agenda (with the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002), and the EU's 2000
“108 have specific e-commerce provisions and 78 consider dedicated e-commerce chapters and side agreements.”
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > III. SUBSTANTIVE DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: INSIGHTS FROM THE E-COMMERCE CHAPTERS
“From the 108 PTAs that have e-commerce chapters or side agreements, only 48 agreements include such reference”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > II. THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL TRADE PROVISIONS IN PTAS: OVERVIEW AND SOME EMERGING TRENDS
“While the first PTA including such provisions in general terms is the 2007 Korea-US FTA (KORUS),”
§ Digital Trade Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Dataset > 3. Electronic authentication
“The first agreement having such a provision is the 2006 Taiwan-Nicaragua FTA, where as part of the cooperation activities, the parties affirmed the importance of working 'to maintain cross-border flows of information as an essential element to promote a dynamic environment for electronic commerce.'”
Citations
Cites
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
The EU-U.S. Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures
Schwartz, P. M. (2013) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 87
"Reconciling Personal Information in the United States and European Union"
Schwartz, P. M. (2014) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · doi:10.15779/z38z814 · Cited by 85
Reconciling Personal Information in the United States and European UnionPreprint
Schwartz, P. M., & Solove, D. J. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2271442 · Cited by 73
1. Background to the Korea-Singapore FTA
Kesavapany, K., & Sen, R. (2007) · ISEAS Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1355/9789812304940-003 · Cited by 24
EU-Vietnam FTA: GUE, Greens, and civil society obtain partial but important victory for human rights
(2016) · Human Rights Documents online · doi:10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-0035-2014464 · Cited by 5
The EU-Mexican FTA and Art. XXIV GATT
Niedrist, G. (2016) · Peter Lang eBooks · doi:10.3726/978-3-653-03734-0/13 · Cited by 3
3. Korea-Singapore Economic Relations After FTA: Towards a Mature Partnership
Kesavapany, K., & Sen, R. (2007) · ISEAS Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1355/9789812304940-005 · Cited by 2
Cited by
Trade, policy, and economic development in the digital economy
Herman, P. R., & Oliver, S. (2023) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103135 · Cited by 170
Digital Economy and the Upgrading of the Global Value Chain of China’s Service Industry
Kan, D., Lyu, L., Huang, W., & Yao, W. (2022) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer17040065 · Cited by 75
The effects of digital trade policies on digital trade
Suh, J., & Roh, J. (2023) · World Economy · doi:10.1111/twec.13407 · Cited by 82
Regulatory capture’s third face of power
Li, W. Y. (2023) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mwad002 · Cited by 73
Weymouth, S. J. (2023) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108974158 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Burri, M., & Polanco, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Lucerne (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Burri, Mira
- Venue
- Journal of International Economic Law
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-01-31
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 187-220
- ISSN
- 1369-3034 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3758
- OpenAlex
- W3003878649
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 62.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Journal of International Economic Law (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › World Trade Organization Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Business and International Management › E-commerce and Technology Innovations
- Keywords
- digital trade, preferential trade agreements, e-commerce, cross-border data flows
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
