Protecting policy space for indigenous data sovereignty under international digital trade law

• Pages: 565-617
• Date: 01 July 2024
• Published date: 01 July 2024
• Author: Andrew D. Mitchell,Theodore Samlidis
• Subject Matter: Derecho Internacional

ARTICLES

PROTECTING POLICY SPACE FOR INDIGENOUS

DATA SOVEREIGNTY UNDER INTERNATIONAL

DIGITAL TRADE LAW

ANDREW D. MITCHELL*

Professor; Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Law, Monash University; Email: andrew

.mitchell@monash.edu; orcid.org/0000-0001-8399-8563. The authors thank Caroline Henckels,

Christopher Marsden, James Munro, Matthew Rimmer and Neha Mishra for their helpful com-

ments. Any errors or omissions are ours. Andrew Mitchell was engaged by the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and Trade, New Zealand, to act as an Expert Witness before the Waitangi Tribunal on the

interpretation of Chapter 14 (E-Commerce) of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trade Pacif‌ic

Partnership (CPTPP) in 2020. The views expressed in this Article are personal and do not neces-

sarily ref‌lect the views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or any past, present, or future

employer of the authors. V

C 2024, Andrew D. Mitchell and Theodore Samlidis.

AND THEODORE SAMLIDIS**

Researcher. LLB (Hons), BA (Monash), LLM Candidate (Melb). Email: theodoresamlidis@

gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

The impact of economic agreements on Indigenous peoples’ broader rights

and interests has been subject to ongoing scrutiny. Technological developments

and an increasing emphasis on Indigenous sovereignty within the digital do-

main have given rise to a global Indigenous data sovereignty movement, surfac-

ing concerns about how international economic law impacts Indigenous

peoples’ sovereignty over their data. This Article examines the policy space cer-

tain governments have reserved under international economic agreements to

introduce measures for protecting Indigenous data or digital sovereignty (IDS).

We argue that treaty countries have secured, under recent international digital

trade chapters and agreements, the benef‌its of a comprehensive economic treaty

and suff‌icient regulatory autonomy to protect Indigenous data sovereignty.

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566

II. INDIGENOUS DATA SOVEREIGNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

A. Conceptualizing IDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570

B. IDS Movements and Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

C. Framing Policy Space for IDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574

III. INDIGENOUS DATA SOVEREIGNTY MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575

IV. ASSESSING DIGITAL DATA SOVEREIGNTY MEASURES UNDER

INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

A. Operative Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579

*

**

565

1. Limitations on Data Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580

2. Personal Information Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582

B. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584

1. Government Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

2. Government Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586

C. Reservations & Non-Conforming Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 588

D. Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

1. Specif‌ic Exceptions: Legitimate Public Policy

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

a. Legitimate Exception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592

b. Chapeau Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594

c. “restrictions . . . greater than . . . required to achieve

the objective”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596

2. General Exceptions and Security Exceptions . . . . 600

3. Article 29.7: Disclosure of Conf‌idential

Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603

4. Treaty of Waitangi Exception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605

V. INDIGENOUS DATA SOVEREIGNTY IN NEW ZEALAND: THE WAITANGI

TRIBUNAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608

A. The Treaty, Tribunal, and Recent Claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608

B. The Tribunal’s Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609

C. Implications and Critiques of the Tribunal’s Findings . . . . . 612

VI. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616

I. INTRODUCTION

International economic treaty negotiators have traditionally sought

to strike an adequate balance between reducing trade barriers, promot-

ing investment, and maintaining suff‌icient policy space to pursue other

public policy objectives.

1

Indigenous peoples stand to benef‌it immensely

from expanding trade and investment,

2

but the impact of economic

agreements on their broader rights and interests has been subject to

1. See Markus Wagner, Regulatory Space in International Trade Law and International Investment

Law, 36 U. PA. J. INT’L L. 1,4 (2014); ANDREW MITCHELL, ELIZABETH SHEARGOLD & TANIA VOON,

REGULATORY AUTONOMY IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW: THE EVOLUTION OF AUSTRALIAN

POLICY ON TRADE AND INVESTMENT 4 (2017) (describing “policy space” and “regulatory

autonomy” as “the ability of a State to determine its regulatory goals . . . and to adopt and

implement policies to pursue those goals”). See also Tomer Broude, Alexander Thompson &

Yoram Z Haftel, Who Cares About Regulatory Space in BITs? A Comparative International Approach, in

COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL LAW 527, 536 (Anthea Roberts et al. eds., 2018).

2. See WAITANGI TRIBUNAL, REPORT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE AND PROGRESSIVE AGREEMENT FOR

TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP 86–87 (2021) [hereinafter CPTPP Report]. See also id. at 58–67.

GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

566 [Vol. 55

ongoing scrutiny.

3

Criticism has focused mainly on their marginalization

in the treaty-making process and the subordination of their rights and

interests to trade and investment liberalization goals.

4

Recent debate has

centered around “Indigenous sovereignty”—a concept or collective of

ideals and aspirations relating to the self-determination, autonomy, and

recognition of Indigenous peoples and their land, cultures, and lan-

guages within Western legal systems.

5

Indigenous sovereignty can also

describe a corresponding bundle of legal, political, and human rights,

6

global and domestic social and political movements, or regulatory

regimes that seek to fulf‌ill these objectives.

7

Although aspects of Indigenous sovereignty have been realized in

domestic legal jurisdictions to varying degrees,

8

its more systemic

realization has been much slower and piecemeal, leading to the de-

velopment of Indigenous sovereignty movements worldwide.

9

Julian Brave NoiseCat, Indigenous Sovereignty Is on the Rise. Can It Shape the Course of History?,

THE GUARDIAN (May 30, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/30/

indigenous-sovereignty-growth-history-australia.

In light

of technological developments, advocates for Indigenous sovereignty

and members of Indigenous sovereignty networks now place greater

emphasis on Indigenous sovereignty within the digital domain. Thus,

a global “Indigenous data sovereignty” (IDS) movement, led by mem-

bers of Indigenous communities and Indigenous rights advocates,

has emerged in parallel in multiple countries,

10

surfacing concerns

about how international economic law impacts Indigenous peoples’

sovereignty over their data.

This Article examines the policy space that certain governments

have reserved under international economic agreements for protecting

Indigenous data or digital sovereignty. We focus on countries with

3. See generally JOHN BORROWS & RISA SCHWARTZ, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INTERNATIONAL

TRADE: BUILDING EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS

1, 31, 248, 250 (John Borrows & Risa Schwartz eds., 2020).

4. Amokura Ka

¯wharu, Process, Politics and the Politics of Process: The Trans-Pacif‌ic Partnership in

New Zealand, 17 MELBOURNE J. OF INT’L L. 1, 286 (2016).

5. LARISSA BEHRENDT, ACHIEVING SOCIAL JUSTICE: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE

87, 101–02 (2003).

6. WAITANGI TRIBUNAL, HE WHAKAPUTANGA ME TE TIRITI: THE DECLARATION AND THE TREATY:

THE REPORT ON STAGE 1 OF THE TE PAPRAHI O TE RAKI INQUIRY xxii (Legislation Direct 2014).

7. CPTPP Report, supra note 2, at 39–40.

8. Harry Hobbs, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Australian Governance, in

INDIGENOUS ASPIRATIONS AND STRUCTURAL REFORM IN AUSTRALIA 17, 49–50 (2020). Cf. Dianne

Otto, A Question of Law or Politics? Indigenous Claims to Sovereignty in Australia, 21 SYRACUSE J. OF

INT’L L. 65, 102 (1995).

9.

10. See infra Section II.

INDIGENOUS DATA SOVEREIGNTY & DIGITAL TRADE LAW

2024] 567