WTO

Your Purchase, Their Rules: Who

Controls Digital Commerce?

USIL
School 2025

XI Edición
INDEX
1. Letter from the Secretary General​ 2
2. Letter from the Directors​ 3
3. Introduction to the Topic​ 5
a. Definition of “digital commerce” (e-commerce, digital goods/services)​ 5
b. Relevance in today’s global economy​ 5
c. Overview of the debate on control and regulation​ 5
4. History of the Committee (WTO)​ 6
5. Historical Background of the Topic​ 7
6. Current Situation​ 8
7. Past International Actions & Bloc Positions​ 10
a. Past International Actions​ 10
b. Bloc Positions​ 10
8. Case Studies​ 13
a. WTO disputes involving digital services or trade barriers​ 13
b. Regional trade agreements with digital chapters​ 13
c. National regulations with global impact​ 14
9. QARMAs (Questions a Resolution Must Answer)​ 15
10. Preparation for the Conference​ 15
11. Position paper guidelines​ 17
12. Guide for Drafting the Position Paper​ 17
a. Format​ 17
b. Form​ 18
13. References​ 20
 1.​ Letter from the Secretary General

Nice to meet you all, my name is Andrea Valentin and this year I have the honor of serving as
Secretary General of the 11th edition of USILMUN School, a challenge that I take on with
enormous gratitude and responsibility alongside my great team Geraldine Romaní, Camila
Rojas, Alessandra Marín, and a great friend: Ana Cecilia Ccamsaya.

It has been four years since I was introduced to the world of Model United Nations, and I
couldn't be more grateful for the opportunities and friendships it has given me. Every
experience, both the most beautiful and the most difficult, has taught me something and
accompanied me on this journey. It is these experiences, with their ups and downs, that
remind me that growing up also means learning from every step and every person who
crosses our path.

I know that the road is not easy: the days of debate, the intense sessions, and the negotiations
sometimes test our nerves and our confidence. I too have asked myself on more than one
occasion what MUN meant to me, what was the true meaning of competing, of winning, of
giving my best. And after years of experience, I have come to understand that MUN is much
more than resolutions or awards: it is an opportunity to defend values. Because promising a
vote is easy, but exercising it with honesty, respect, and commitment is a real challenge.

As St. Ignatius of Loyola rightly said: “Love should be put more into deeds than into words.”
And I believe that is also the essence of MUN: that our words in debate are always backed up
by our actions, our values, and the way we impact others. Each conference, whether it is the
first or the last, gives us the opportunity to reflect on what we are capable of achieving. The
true purpose of all this is not just to debate, but to bring about change, however small, in
ourselves and those around us.

Welcome to the 11th edition of USILMUN School. I am convinced that this experience will
be unforgettable, and that together, with effort and commitment, we will write a new page in
the history of this model.

With gratitude and enthusiasm,

Andrea Lucila Valentin Timoteo

Secretary General
 2.​ Letter from the Directors

Dear Delegates,

My name is Gabriela Alcántara, and I have the honor of serving as your Director for the
World Trade Organization (WTO) in the eleventh edition of USILMUN Schools. Along with
Maia Stucchi (Co-Director), Angela Ruidíaz Salazar (Assistant Director), and Fátima
(Moderator), we are excited to guide you through what promises to be an engaging and
dynamic debate as we work towards meaningful solutions in our sessions.

Allow me to share a little about myself: I am 21 years old, a Law student at the Pontifical
Catholic University of Peru (PUCP), currently in my sixth semester. My MUN journey began
back in 2018 when I was still a high school student, just like many of you. Since then, these
conferences have held a very special place in my heart.

The topic before us, “Your Purchase, Their Rules: Who Controls Digital Commerce?”, is one
of the most relevant and complex challenges of our time. As digital commerce continues to
grow across borders, questions arise about who truly sets the rules: sovereign states,
international organizations, or powerful private corporations. This committee will be tasked
with analyzing these dynamics, addressing issues such as consumer protection, market
regulation, fair competition, and the role of the WTO in shaping the global digital trade
framework.

The success of this committee will not only be measured by the agreements reached, but also
by the quality of the debate, the depth of the ideas presented, and above all the mutual respect
among delegates. Diplomacy is not only about defending a position, but also about listening,
understanding, and finding common ground. I encourage you to express your ideas with
conviction, while remaining open to learning from one another.

You can count on the full support of Maia, Angela, Fátima, and myself throughout this
process. We are certain this will be a valuable and enriching experience for all of us.

See you on September 19th, 20th, and 21st.

Sincerely,

Gabriela Alcántara
Dear Delegates,

It is a privilege to welcome you to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the eleventh
edition of USILMUN Schools. As your Co-Director, I want to be clear from the start: this
committee is not about empty speeches, nor about who dominates the room. My expectation
is that every delegate comes prepared to think critically, argue with depth, and truly listen.
Debate, in its essence, is not performance, it is the confrontation of ideas that pushes us all to
grow.

I am a Law student, and my academic passion lies in Commercial Law. For me, commerce is
not an abstract notion of markets and numbers, it is the web that connects enterprises,
governments, and families. It shapes opportunities, but also reveals inequalities. It determines
whether a consumer is protected, whether a household can afford security and dignity,
whether trade rules foster fairness or entrench dominance. That is why this topic ,“Your
Purchase, Their Rules: Who Controls Digital Commerce?”, is not just technical; it is
profoundly human.

In addition to my studies in Commercial Law, I also work in the field of Compliance. That
perspective has taught me that law is not only about drafting norms, but about ensuring they
are truly enforced, that standards are clear, and that institution and companies are held
accountable. In the context of digital commerce, this means asking difficult questions: How
do we prevent abuse by powerful actors? How do we protect consumers across borders? How
do we balance innovation with fairness? These are precisely the types of reflections I expect
to see in this committee.

I want you to understand this clearly: I will value the courage to bring precise, well-reasoned,
and interconnected arguments far more than I will value rhetorical flourishes. This is your
chance to move beyond the surface and engage with the complexity of our time.

Alongside Gabriela, Angela, and Fátima, I am committed to making this space demanding,
but also rewarding. The WTO is not a place for complacency, and neither is this committee.

See you on September 19th, 20th, and 21st.

Sincerely,

Maia Stucchi
wtousilmunschools@[Link]
 3.​ Introduction to the Topic

a.​ Definition of “digital commerce” (e-commerce, digital goods/services)

Also known as e-commerce, digital or electronic commerce is not only understood as sales
and services through digital platforms, but also includes physical products such as purely
digital goods such as electronic software and music on their respective platforms. In addition
to focusing on goods, it also includes digital services such as online payment, cross-border
data flow, and data storage.

With this, we seek to understand this concept from a multidimensional perspective of digital
commerce so that we can understand it much more broadly and include interactions between
companies (B2B), between consumers (C2C), and between companies and consumers (B2C).

b.​ Relevance in today’s global economy

Currently, a very important part of the world's GDP is represented by this movement. In
addition, expanding access to different markets allows for impressive agility that enables
economic growth of other magnitudes, reduces transaction costs, and is especially favorable
for small and medium-sized companies. In addition, and of great importance, digital
commerce has transformed the dynamics of economic flow in the world, especially with
regard to international trade, because it integrates supply chains by facilitating new
opportunities for innovation, entrepreneurship, and, above all, cross-border services.

However, this is not a field immune to inequality. We can also see how the digital divide
manifests itself in aspects such as technological infrastructure and the level of digital
illiteracy or literacy in different countries, thus creating vulnerable groups and raising serious
concerns about how and whether to protect them and from what perspective.

c.​ Overview of the debate on control and regulation

To this end, the debate on how to regulate digital commerce within international parameters
is intensifying. There are various positions, with some global economies promoting a ban on
tariffs, taking advantage of the importance of free trade agreements by applying them to
electronic transactions alongside the opening up of digital markets. On the other hand, other
countries prioritize sovereignty in both data protection and the right to regulate all
information flows for reasons of security and development.

The attention that this divergence has generated has fragmented positions and predisposed the
presentation of bilateral or regional agreements in the face of a limited manifestation of
multilateral agreements. For this very reason, the debate has undoubtedly focused on finding
a balance between innovation, economic benefits, consumer protection, national sovereignty
in the digital age, and, above all, fair competition.
 4.​ History of the Committee (WTO)

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing
with the rules of trade between nations. It was established with a clear mandate and has
evolved to address new challenges, including the rise of digital trade.

The WTO was founded in 1995, but its origins trace back to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), created in 1948. The GATT was a provisional agreement that
focused on reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade in goods. After years of negotiation, the
Uruguay Round concluded, leading to the creation of the WTO. The WTO's mandate is much
broader than the GATT's. Its core functions are to:

●​ Administer trade agreements: Oversee and implement existing trade agreements.

●​ Act as a forum for trade negotiations: Provide a platform for member countries to
negotiate new agreements.
●​ Settle trade disputes: Offer a mechanism for resolving disagreements between
members.

The WTO's structure is a pyramid, with the Ministerial Conference as the highest
decision-making body. This conference, which brings together representatives from all
member countries, meets at least every two years to make key policy decisions. Below it is
the General Council, which handles the organization's day-to-day work and serves as both the
Dispute Settlement Body and the Trade Policy Review Body.

Unlike many international organizations, the WTO operates on a consensus-based system.

This means that a decision can only be adopted if no member formally objects. While this
principle ensures every country, regardless of its economic size, has a voice, it can also make
the process incredibly slow and difficult, as a single objection can effectively block an entire
agreement.

The WTO's role in digital trade is a relatively new and constantly evolving topic. The
organization’s founding agreements were written before the internet's widespread use, so they
don't explicitly address the unique challenges of digital commerce. Since 1998, WTO
members have agreed to a moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions. This
has been a crucial point of debate, as it has prevented countries from imposing taxes on
things like software, music, or movie downloads.

However, this moratorium is not permanent and must be renewed, with some members now
pushing to end it to allow for new revenue streams. The WTO faces significant challenges in
creating new rules for digital trade, including issues related to data flows, data localization,
and consumer protection. A group of countries has been leading the Joint Statement Initiative
on E-commerce (JSI) to try and create a more modern set of rules for the digital era. But
because not all members are part of the JSI, this effort highlights the deep divisions and
complexities in how to regulate this rapidly expanding sector.
 5.​ Historical Background of the Topic

The evolution of digital commerce has been shaped by two powerful forces: i) technological
innovation, and, ii) international trade governance. The earliest steps occurred in the late
1990s when the World Trade Organization (WTO), recognizing the growing importance of
the internet for trade, adopted the Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce during its
Second Ministerial Conference in 1998. This decision introduced a landmark moratorium on
customs duties for electronic transmissions and established the Work Programme on
Electronic Commerce (WPEC).

The moratorium, which continues to be renewed, played a critical role in enabling digital
goods such as software, music, and e-books to move across borders without tariff barriers,
effectively stimulating the growth of global e-commerce.

Multilateral rule-making for digital trade thus far has been scant. A new round of negotiations
was initiated by the WTO members in 2017, technically formalized under the 2019 Joint
Statement Initiative with 77 members, but no comprehensive multilateral framework has yet
emerged. For the better part of two decades, discussions regarding electronic commerce were
predominantly exploratory and non-binding even as digital economic transformations rewrote
global trade patterns. Thus, the lack of comprehensive rules pushed countries to bilateral and
regional trade agreements which started including provisions on digital trade. By the early
2020s, over one hundred regional agreements already have commitments on electronic
commerce clarifying what could be the extent of such duties and reaffirming the principle of
duty-free digital trade even without any global framework.

This regulatory gap inspired a surge of bilateral and regional trade agreements (PTAs) among
countries, and more recently, Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs) which are new treaties
concerning digital trade, data flows, and technological cooperation. (Jialin, 2024) Examples
include:

●​ US - Japan Digital Trade Agreement (2019)

●​ Singapore - Australia Digital Economy Agreement (2020)
●​ Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) (Chile, New Zealand, Singapore,
2020)
●​ UK - Singapore Digital Economy Agreement (2022)

But such standalone DEAs fall outside the accepted WTO path because most often they do
not conform to GATT Article XXIV or GATS Article V, precipitating fears of legal
fragmentation and questions regarding their compliance under the rubric of multilateral trade
law. (Burri, Vásquez, Kugler, 2023).

Alongside these legal changes, the digital economy has truly changed the face of global trade.
Supply chains have become more tightly linked due to digitalization. Patterns of international
trade have taken on new forms and new engines of growth have emerged; e-commerce
platforms, digital services, and cross-border data flows. Nevertheless, digital fragmentation
has been introduced alongside digitalization, where the differences in technological capacity
between rich and poor countries seriously threaten to double the existing global inequalities.

Key historical drivers include:

●​ Technological leaps: The spread of the internet, mobile technology, and the provision
of secure online payments paved the way for digital transactions to be scaled up
worldwide.
●​ Globalization and regionalization: Although the multilateral system was finding it
hard to adjust, regional economic integration through agreements like RCEP was
promoting digital trade liberalization.
●​ Policy and regulation issues: While the multilateral trading system is being
transformed, trade protectionism, anti-globalization stances, and the open digital
market drive are becoming more prevalent due to policy and regulation issues.

6.​ Current Situation

The regulation of digital trade through the World Trade Organization (WTO) has recently
seen significant developments. The Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce, launched
in 2017 at the WTO's 11th Ministerial Conference, brought together a subset of WTO
members initially 71 into exploratory work, with the participation later expanding to 91
members by mid 2024. These accounts for over 90% of global trade value (IISD, 2024).

After more than five years of negotiations, WTO members reached a “stabilised text” in July
2024. This agreement represents the first set of global rules on e-commerce, covering
consumer protection, data privacy, electronic authentication, paperless trade, customs
procedures, and support for least-developed countries (MTI, 2024). However, the text is
primarily cooperative and does not impose full harmonization, raising concerns about its
effectiveness in governing the complex dynamics of digital trade (CIGI, 2024).

A parallel issue is the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, which has
been in place since 1998. In March 2024, WTO members extended the moratorium until
March 2026, after contentious debates in which India and South Africa initially opposed the
measure (Reuters, 2024). The future of this moratorium remains uncertain, as its continuation
depends on unanimous consensus, creating unpredictability for states concerned about fiscal
revenues and market fairness (Financial Times, 2024).

Taxation of digital trade remains one of the most pressing challenges. Traditional tax
frameworks, based on physical presence, are ill-suited to cross-border digital transactions.
Countries such as India, Indonesia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have introduced Digital
Services Taxes (DSTs) as interim measures to capture revenue from foreign digital platforms
(ResearchGate, 2024). Scholars highlight that without coordinated international tax rules, the
risk of double taxation and trade disputes increases significantly (Johnson, 2022).
Intellectual property (IP) enforcement in the digital environment is also problematic. Online
piracy, counterfeit goods, and the theft of trade secrets undermine the protection frameworks
established under WTO’s TRIPS Agreement. These enforcement gaps are particularly
concerning for developing economies that depend on IP protection to attract investment and
innovation (Atlantic Council, 2024).

Data privacy has become a global policy battleground. The EU’s General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) has set a high regulatory standard, but it also produced unintended
consequences. Studies show that GDPR enforcement led to a 4.9% short-term and 10%
long-term decline in online visits, translating into average losses of USD 7 million for
e-commerce sites and USD 2.5 million for advertising-based sites. The regulation also
widened the gap between large and small firms, contributing to market concentration (Miller,
Schmitt, & Skiera, 2021).

Finally, digital monopolies pose a structural challenge. Network effects, economies of scale,
and high entry barriers allow a handful of technology firms such as Amazon, Alibaba, and
Meta to dominate global e-commerce. Their market power raises concerns over competition,
consumer choice, and potential political influence (Haddara, 2023).

Several global actors shape the governance of e-commerce. The co-convenors of the JSI:
Australia, Japan, and Singapore, played a central role in steering negotiations to the 2024
stabilised text (MTI, 2024).

The European Union has built the most comprehensive regulatory model, combining the
E-Commerce Directive, GDPR, Digital Services Act (DSA), and Digital Markets Act
(DMA). These instruments collectively address privacy, transparency, platform liability, and
competition, establishing the EU as a regulatory leader in digital governance (Haddara,
2023).

The United States has generally favored free data flows and opposed unilateral digital taxes,
aiming to protect the interests of its technology sector. Its reluctance to fully endorse the JSI
outcome stems partly from concerns about limiting national security exceptions (Reuters,
2024).

By contrast, China pursues a strategy of cyber sovereignty, emphasizing state control and
data localization. Meanwhile, emerging economies such as India, Indonesia, and South Africa
have criticized the moratorium on customs duties, arguing that it reduces their ability to raise
fiscal revenue and shields large foreign platforms from contributing to their domestic
economies (Financial Times, 2024).
7.​ Past International Actions & Bloc Positions

a.​ Past International Actions

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been at the center of multilateral efforts to
regulate digital trade. From the 1998 Moratorium on E-Commerce Tariffs to the most
recent discussions under the Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce, WTO
members have sought to balance the competing interests of free trade and digital
sovereignty (WTO, 2024).

The moratorium on e-commerce tariffs, established at the WTO Ministerial

Conference in 1998, was extended several times due to the growing importance of
digital trade in the global economy. The moratorium prevents countries from
imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, which includes products like
software and music files. As of 2024, this moratorium has been extended until March
2026 after extended negotiations (Reuters, 2024). However, its future beyond 2026
remains uncertain, particularly as certain member states, such as India and South
Africa, continue to voice concerns over the fiscal implications of a prolonged
exemption for digital goods (Financial Times, 2024).

Past WTO rulings have also shaped the landscape of digital trade. One example is the
US Gambling case (2005), where the WTO ruled that the United States restrictions on
foreign online gambling services violated its trade commitments under the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This case set a precedent for the treatment
of online services under international trade agreements (WTO, 2005). Additionally,
the China Electronic Payment Services case (2019) addressed restrictions on foreign
e-payment providers in China, reaffirming the principle of nondiscriminatory access
for foreign digital service providers under the GATS (WTO, 2019). These rulings
underscore the ongoing debates around market access and the regulatory challenges
that digital commerce presents.

b.​ Bloc Positions

i.​ Developed economies (US, EU, Japan, etc.)​
Developed economies, particularly the United States, the European
Union, and Japan, have been at the forefront of promoting free data
flows and digital trade liberalization. The United States has historically
advocated for the moratorium on e-commerce tariffs, emphasizing
minimal regulation of digital markets to allow its tech giants like
Amazon, Google, and Facebook to thrive globally. The U.S. has
strongly resisted any efforts that impose data localization requirements
or limit the ability of companies to operate transnationally, citing
national security and economic competitiveness concerns (CIGI,
2024).
 The European Union (EU), while also supportive of open
digital markets, has adopted a more regulatory stance, focusing on
issues such as consumer protection, data privacy, and digital market
fairness. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came
into effect in 2018, is one of the most stringent privacy regulations
globally and has set a benchmark for data protection. In addition, the
EU has enacted the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services
Act (DSA), which aim to regulate big tech companies and address
monopolistic practices in digital markets. These regulations reflect the
EU's desire to ensure that digital commerce is not only open but also
fair and transparent (European Commission, 2020).

Japan, as a leading technological and economic power, has also

supported digital trade liberalization. Japan has been particularly vocal
in promoting cross-border data flows and is a significant advocate of
the Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce under the WTO.
Japan’s position is closely aligned with that of the United States,
particularly in advocating for less restrictive digital trade policies to
benefit multinational corporations.

ii.​ Emerging economies (China, India, Brazil, etc.).

India, and Brazil have more nuanced and, at times, opposing

views compared to developed economies, particularly in relation to
digital sovereignty and data localization.

China has taken a strong stance on cyber-sovereignty,

emphasizing strict regulations on data localization and data protection
to control digital commerce and protect national security. The
Cybersecurity Law (2017) and other regulations mandate that foreign
companies store Chinese users' data within the country. Additionally,
China’s push for greater control over digital platforms and the
regulation of cross-border data flows reflects its broader strategy of
maintaining digital autonomy. This approach contrasts with the U.S.
and EU positions, which favor open data exchange and minimal
government intervention (Haddara, 2023).

India, similarly, has been wary of digital trade agreements that

undermine national control over its growing digital economy. India has
consistently advocated for the inclusion of e-commerce regulation
within the WTO framework, pushing for rules that balance the benefits
of digital trade liberalization with domestic interests like fiscal
sovereignty. India’s opposition to the moratorium on e-commerce
 tariffs reflects concerns over the loss of tax revenue from large
multinational tech companies that operate within its borders (Financial
Times, 2024).

Brazil has also been cautious in adopting free trade rules for the
digital economy. As one of the largest economies in Latin America,
Brazil has emphasized the need for international cooperation in the
digital trade space while advocating for measures that protect local
industries and promote inclusive access to digital services. Brazil has
supported the idea of special and differential treatment for developing
countries within WTO frameworks, focusing on capacity-building and
addressing the digital divide (CIGI, 2024).

iii.​ Least-developed countries (LDCs) perspectives

Least-developed countries (LDCs), often marginalized in

global digital trade discussions, express concerns over the potential
exacerbation of inequalities brought on by digital trade liberalization.
These countries are more likely to view e-commerce as a double-edged
sword, offering potential benefits but also deepening the digital divide.

LDCs generally argue that digital trade liberalization could

worsen existing inequalities, particularly by disproportionately
benefiting large tech corporations based in developed countries, while
local businesses remain underdeveloped or excluded from the digital
economy. LDCs are thus advocates of special and differential treatment
(SDT), which would allow for longer transition periods and more
flexible trade rules that account for their limited technological
infrastructure and regulatory capacity (UNCTAD, 2021).

LDCs also raise concerns about data sovereignty, seeking

greater control over their digital resources and protection of local
markets from monopolistic foreign firms. Many LDCs are supportive
of initiatives that would enable technology transfer and
capacity-building to help them develop their digital economies. They
often push for more development-oriented outcomes in WTO
negotiations, aiming to close the digital divide and ensure that their
economies can participate more effectively in the global digital
economy.
 8.​ Case Studies

a.​ WTO disputes involving digital services or trade barriers

The regulation of electronic commerce has emerged as a major source of contention in the
World Trade Organization (WTO) as members grapple with how to adapt traditional trade
rules to the digital economy. A high-profile example is at stake: restrictions on data
transmission and digital services, which are at the heart of a digital economy. (Malkawi,
2019)

One important case concerns the interpretation and application of GATS (General Agreement
on Trade in Services) provisions to digital services. While GATS dates back to a time before
the digital age, its market access and national treatment commitments have been invoked in
disputes related to online gambling services, distribution of digital content and data
localization measures. One of the earliest of these, The United States Measures Affecting the
Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (DS285), saw the WTO’s Appellate
Body consider whether the restrictions imposed by the United States on the cross-border
supply of online gambling services were compatible with its GATS commitments. Although
it pre-dated the subsequent explosion of e-commerce, this dispute set the precedent for the
WTO to interpret its law in the context of digital service provision, and to affirm the principle
that GATS commitments should be delivered whether a service is supplied online or offline.
(Malkawi, 2019)

This principle has been tested even further still in disputes like those involving China’s
measures in place restricting audiovisual products and online content distribution. In China -
Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and
Audiovisual Entertainment Products (DS363), China’s restrictions on foreign suppliers for
the digital distribution of music and films were challenged as inconsistent with GATS. The
WTO finally found China could maintain legitimate regulatory objectives but that its
restrictions on all foreign service providers were indeed discriminatory. (Malkawi, 2019)

Traditional trade rules were not designed for the digital era, leading to interpretive challenges
and disputes over the scope of commitments. They also highlight the tension between market
liberalization and domestic regulatory autonomy, particularly in sensitive areas such as
cultural content, consumer protection, and data governance. For developing countries, these
disputes raise concerns about policy space: while WTO rules aim to prevent discriminatory
barriers, they may also constrain the ability of states to implement measures for digital
industrialization or data sovereignty.

b.​ Regional trade agreements with digital chapters

Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the United States - Mexico - Canada Agreement
(USMCA) reflect how trade rules are changing by including dedicated digital trade chapters
 ●​ Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): A
Digital Trade Leader

The CPTPP shows the way by setting ambitious digital trade disciplines in Chapter 14
(Electronic Commerce). For instance, it guarantees key obligations such as the obligation not
to prohibit the cross-border transfer of data and the prohibition of data localization
requirements, subject to the possibility of tempering it for public policy reasons. In addition,
it also prohibits the application of customs duties on digital products and requires that each
Party maintain legal frameworks for the protection of consumers and electronic transactions
that are consistent with international models such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on
Electronic Commerce. (Mishra, 2023)

These disciplines are a reference in the international trade community, and they have become
the basis of digital trade disciplines that have been included, with some variations, in other
RTAs and even in discussions in the WTO on potential plurilateral

●​ The United States - Mexico - Canada Agreement (USMCA): Updating NAFTA for
the Digital

The USMCA’s Chapter 19 on Digital Trade builds directly on CPTPP's structure, updating
NAFTA for the realities of modern digital commerce. It sets out similar core principles:
banning customs duties on electronically transmitted products, prohibiting unjustified barriers
to digital trade, affirming the validity of electronic signatures, safeguarding source code
protections, promoting consumer protection, and supporting open government data formats.
(Mishra, 2023)

These provisions have become influential templates, shaping broader discussions on global
digital governance. At the same time, they highlight the tension between liberalizing
cross-border data flows and preserving space for domestic regulation in areas like privacy
and cultural policy. Up to now, because these rules are limited to their members, they risk
creating uneven global standards, leaving developing countries outside these agreements with
little influence over the evolving architecture of digital commerce.

c.​ National regulations with global impact

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) represents a paradigm-shifting national
regulatory model whose influence spans well beyond EU borders. By introducing harmonized
rules for intermediary service providers, such as online marketplaces, social media platforms,
and app stores, the DSA establishes clear responsibilities regarding illegal content
moderation, transparency, user protections, and the accountability of platforms depending on
their size and systemic influence (Burri, 2023)
For instance, the law mandates that very large platforms with more than 45 million users
implement risk management strategies, undergo independent audits, provide data access to
researchers, and disclose information about their recommender systems

Taking effect on November 16, 2022, and fully applicable by February 17, 2024, the DSA has
rapidly become a global benchmark. Its comprehensive framework, covering content
moderation rules, platform liability shifts, and enforcement mechanisms, sets a new standard
for digital governance (Brumby & Heck, 2023)

This type of national-level regulation signals a broader shift in trade law: digitalization is
forcing both adaptation and transformation of legal instruments, prompting the emergence of
regional and national regulatory responses that have transnational implications for trade
norms. (Burri, 2023)

9.​ QARMAs (Questions a Resolution Must Answer)

●​ Which entity should have regulatory control over digital commerce?

●​ How can rules ensure fair competition across nations?
●​ What balance should be struck between innovation and consumer protection?
●​ How should data sovereignty and privacy be addressed?
●​ How can developing nations benefit equally?
●​ How should rules address the competitive advantage of tech giants?
●​ What regulatory framework is needed to ensure secure and trustworthy cross-border
payments?

10.​Preparation for the Conference

In order to participate effectively in this committee, delegates are expected to engage in

thorough preparation using reliable and academically relevant sources. Given the complexity
of global digital commerce, the research process should combine primary sources from
international institutions, secondary academic literature, and policy reports from think tanks
and specialized organizations.

First, World Trade Organization (WTO) documents are indispensable. The WTO’s official
website contains working papers, ministerial declarations, and the latest reports on the Joint
Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce. Delegates should consult the Work Programme on
Electronic Commerce and recent ministerial decisions, especially those adopted in 2024
extending the moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions (WTO, 2024). The
WTO’s World Trade Report 2023 also provides a comprehensive overview of how
digitalization is transforming global trade (WTO, 2023).

Second, delegates should review United Nations sources, particularly the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). UNCTAD publishes the Digital
Economy Report, which offers valuable insights into cross border data flows, taxation issues,
and the digital divide between developed and developing economies (UNCTAD, 2021).
These reports are particularly relevant for understanding how digital trade affects sustainable
development and the role of developing countries in negotiations.

Third, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides
in-depth research on digital taxation and data governance. Its Tax Challenges Arising from
Digitalisation Report on Pillar One and Pillar Two explains current debates on reforming the
global tax system to capture revenues from digital platforms (OECD, 2021). Such sources are
especially useful for delegates representing states that have introduced or opposed Digital
Services Taxes (DSTs).

Fourth, academic journals and research institutions should be consulted. Journals such as the
Journal of International Economic Law and the World Trade Review regularly publish
peer-reviewed articles on digital trade, WTO reform, and e-commerce governance (Wu,
2017). Think tanks such as the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and
the Brookings Institution have also released policy briefs analyzing the strategic positions of
major economies in digital commerce negotiations (CIGI, 2024).

Finally, regional regulations and national frameworks must be studied. The European Union’s
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Digital
Markets Act (DMA) are essential case studies of how regional blocs regulate digital markets
(Haddara, 2023). Similarly, national laws such as the U.S. Cloud Act and China’s
Cybersecurity Law illustrate contrasting approaches to digital sovereignty and data flows.

For your research, it is crucial to use credible and official sources. Think like a diplomat
seeking accurate and reliable data. Here's where I recommend you look:

●​ Official Government Websites: Check the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of

Commerce website for your assigned country. You'll find official positions on digital
trade, existing agreements, and statistics.
●​ Official International Organization Websites: The WTO is your best friend here. Its
"E-commerce" section has documents, reports, and news on ongoing negotiations.
Also, check out UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development)
and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), as they
publish very detailed reports on the digital economy and regulations.
●​ Reputable Press Outlets: International newspapers like the Financial Times, The Wall
Street Journal, or Reuters have business and technology sections that cover countries'
stances in WTO negotiations. Use them to understand the current context and
conflicts.
●​ Think Tanks and Academia: Organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or
the Peterson Institute for International Economics publish in-depth analyses of trade
policies and their impact. They are ideal for understanding the arguments behind each
country's position.
 11.​Position paper guidelines

A good position paper is your introduction to the conference. It should be clear, concise, and
persuasive. Follow this structure to ensure your document is flawless:

Paragraph 1: Context, Problem, and Country's Stance: Introduce the topic of digital
commerce and explain how it impacts your country. Describe the specific problem your
country faces or perceives. Then, state your country's position clearly. For example, "Country
A supports the permanence of the moratorium on tariffs on electronic transmissions because
it promotes innovation and access to technology."

Paragraph 2: International Community Involvement: Here, connect your country's stance with
global action. Mention how your country has participated in WTO negotiations, what
alliances it has formed (Does it support the JSI? Is it part of a trade bloc?), and how its
policies align with the broader goals of the United Nations.

Paragraph 3: Proposed Solution: This is your moment to shine. Describe the solution your
country proposes. Be specific. Do you propose a new agreement? A framework for
cross-border data protection? A support fund for developing nations? Explain how your
solution would address the problem and why it is viable.

Bibliography: At the end, don't forget to include a well-organized bibliography with the
sources you used. This adds credibility and shows that your stance is based on facts, not
assumptions.

E-mail: wtousilmunschools@[Link]

Finally, you need to prepare for the actual conference floor. Public speaking and negotiation
are key. Your speeches should be clear and direct, starting with a strong statement that
summarizes your position. Avoid jargon and focus on conveying your message effectively. In
negotiations, remember that the goal is not to win every point, but to build consensus. Listen
carefully to other delegates, form alliances with those who share your views, and be prepared
to compromise on smaller issues to achieve your main goals. By knowing your topic inside
and out and by practicing your speaking and negotiation skills, you will be well-equipped to
represent your country with confidence.

12.​Guide for Drafting the Position Paper

a.​ Format

i.​ Font: Times New Roman

ii.​ Size: 12
iii.​ Single spacing (1.0)
iv.​ Alignment: Justified
 v.​ Length: Maximum 1 page with an additional page exclusively for the
bibliography, if necessary.
vi.​ Bibliography in APA 7 format
1.​ Author's last name, first name initial. (Year of publication or
n/d if not available). Article title in italics. Name of source.
Link without hyperlink.
2.​ Example: Zuniga, J. (2024). Evolution and Outlook for the
Latin American Economy. PANORÁMICA.
[Link]
-de-la-economia-latinoamericana/

b.​ Form

i.​ Information
1.​ Committee (Official name and acronym in parentheses)
2.​ Topic
3.​ Delegation (Official name of the assigned country)
ii.​ Length: 3 paragraphs
1.​ First paragraph providing context
2.​ Second paragraph describing past actions (international,
regional, and national)
3.​ Third paragraph describing the project/plan/proposal
iii.​ The country's official coat of arms should be placed in the upper right
corner
iv.​ Send in PDF format to the following email address:
wtousilmunschools@[Link] with the name of the assignment and
the committee. Example: PERU_DISEC
 13.​References

Atlantic Council. (2024). Why data governance matters. Atlantic Council.

Burri, M., Vásquez Callo-Müller, M., & Kugler, K. (2024). The Evolution of Digital Trade
Law: Insights from TAPED. World Trade Review, 23(2), 190–207.
doi:10.1017/S1474745623000472

Burri, M. (2023). The Impact of Digitalization on Global Trade Law. German Law Journal,
24(3), 551–573. doi:10.1017/glj.2023.29

Centre for International Governance Innovation [CIGI]. (2024, September 12). Is the WTO’s
new e-commerce agreement really a game-changer? CIGI.

Dumancic, K. (2021). THE EU REGULATORY ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA OF DIGITAL

PLATFORMS AND SERVICES PROVISION. EU 2021 – The future of the EU in
and after the pandemic.

Electronic commerce. (n.d.). [Link]. Retrieved August 20, 2025, from

[Link]

Financial Times. (2024a, March 1). WTO agrees to extend e-commerce tariff exemption for 2
more years. Financial Times.

Financial Times. (2024b, March 27). E-commerce tariffs will kick in from 2026, says WTO
chief. Financial Times.

Haddara, M. (2023). Exploring the impact of GDPR on big data analytics operations in the
e-commerce industry. Procedia Computer Science, 219, 767–777.
[Link]

Historia del sistema multilateral de comercio. (n.d.). [Link]. Retrieved August 20, 2025,
from [Link]

International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD]. (2024). WTO Joint Initiative on
E-Commerce: State of play. IISD.

Jialin L., The Challenges and Opportunities of International Trade in the New Era. Financial
Engineering and Risk Management (2024) Vol. 7: 154-160. DOI:
[Link]

Johnson, G. (2022). Lessons from the GDPR and Beyond. National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper No. 30705. [Link]

Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore [MTI]. (2024). The Joint Statement Initiative (JSI)
on Electronic Commerce. MTI Singapore.
Miller, K. M., Schmitt, J., & Skiera, B. (2021). The impact of privacy laws on online user
behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.11366.

Mishra, N. & Palacio, A. M. (2023) Digital services and digital trade in the Asia pacific: an
alternative model for digital integration?, Asia Pacific Law Review, 31:2, 489-513,
DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2023.2216058

Malkawi, B. (2019). Digitalization of Trade in Free Trade Agreements with Reference to the
WTO and the USMCA: A Closer Look. China and WTO Review.

OMC. (n.d.-b). [Link]. Retrieved August 20, 2025, from

[Link]

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2021). Tax challenges
arising from digitalisation – Report on Pillar One and Pillar Two. OECD Publishing.

ResearchGate. (2024). Addressing the challenges of taxation: E-commerce and digital

services in the globalized economy. ResearchGate.

Reuters. (2024, March 1). Moratorium on e-commerce tariffs extended for 2 years, draft
WTO document says. Reuters.

Reuters. (2024, July 26). Eighty nations strike deal over e-commerce, but lack US backing.
Reuters.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD]. (2021). Digital Economy
Report 2021: Cross-border data flows and development. United Nations.

What is the WTO? (n.d.). [Link]. Retrieved August 20, 2025, from
[Link]

World Trade Organization (WTO). [Link]

Wu, M. (2017). Digital trade-related provisions in regional trade agreements: Existing models
and lessons for the multilateral trade system. World Trade Review, 16(3), 341–376.
[Link]