Features of legal regulation of the digital economy and digital technologies in China

Abstract

The article investigates the peculiarities of the legislative policy pursued by the Chinese authorities in respect to the legal regulation of the use of digital technologies. A special Chinese approach is noted in the development and adoption of relevant acts of lawmaking, which involves the priority use of an experimental procedure for the operation of regulatory legal acts and bylaws in regulating the digital economy and digital technologies. The People’s Republic of China is one of the world leaders in respect to introducing digital technologies that have penetrated practically all spheres of the national economy. The digital economy accounts for more than 1/3 of the country’s GDP, while Chinese giants Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu and others are among the 20 most developed technology companies in the world. In China, systems of social trust and facial recognition are actively used, which contribute to the establishment of total digital control over all members of Chinese society. Against the background of a rapid increase in the use of digital technologies in everyday life, the Chinese legislation governing them does not have time to respond to the changes taking place in this area. However, the underdevelopment of the regulatory framework acts in favour of the Chinese authorities: it contributes to the “manual” management of the digital space and the rapid response to emerging problems through the adoption of departmental acts, sometimes with the help of secret documents with restricted access. Considered all of the above, the sharp rise of Chinese technological corporations, which occurred primarily due to the ban on the activities of their foreign competitors in China, is not accidental. Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and other western corporations were driven out from the Chinese digital market due to an inconsistency of the content passing through them to Chinese legislation, the provisions of which are so vague that foreign companies had no opportunity to continue their activities in China and fully comply with the laws. The lack of a clear legislative mechanism for protecting intellectual property rights also had a positive effect on the growth of Chinese national digital technologies: the rights to many foreign developments “unexpectedly” became owned by Chinese citizens. Total digital control over citizens also does not imply the adoption of legislative acts limiting state intervention in the private life of an individual. Thus, it is important for us not only to study China’s lawmaking experience in regard to the digital economy, but also to take it into account when adopting the appropriate Russian “digital legislation” as well as in building relations of cooperation with Chinese partners to successfully defend our national and personal interests.