PBESProceedings of Business and Economic Studies2209-26412209-265XBio-Byword Scientific Publishing Pty. Ltd.10.26689/pbes.v8i5.12118ArticleSurpassing the Silence of the DSM: Discussion on the Digital Trade Dispute Resolution Path for China and the Global South Countries under the Paralysis of the WTO Appellate Bodyhttps://artdesignp.com/journal/PBES/8/5/10.26689/pbes.v8i5.12118YuXuehao2025852025-10-03Since the appointment of new appellate judges by the World Trade Organization (WTO) was banned in 2019, the paralysis of the appellate body has seriously damaged the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), leaving a gap in resolving the escalating digital services trade disputes involving complex issues such as data flow and algorithm governance, and the existing WTO rules have failed to fully address these problems. Although MPIA offers a temporary alternative, its limited membership, uncertain executability, and untested applicability to new types of digital disputes make it inadequate. Meanwhile, the rising technological nationalism and fragmented regulations (such as the GDPR and the CLOUD Act) have exacerbated the global digital governance divide, marginalizing China and the countries in the Global South. This article analyzes the decline of DSM, highlighting the eroded rule predictability and legal fragmentation, and critically assesses the limitations of MPIA and the deficiencies of the traditional WTO framework in disputes such as data localization. A series of cases has revealed the trends of “pre-dispute governance” and unilateralism. In the face of this dual crisis, this article holds that China and the Global South must embark on a path of transformation from “system participants” to “system shapers,” rather than merely conforming. The strategies it explores include leveraging domestic regulations (such as data outbound security assessment), promoting regional cooperation (such as the mediation mechanism of RCEP), and advancing initiatives like the Global Data Security Initiative. This dual approach of maintaining “policy sovereignty” and establishing “compliance sovereignty” aims to ensure institutional autonomy, enhance rule-making capabilities, and establish a fairer, rule-based digital trade order in the context of DSM paralysis and regulatory fragmentation.

Zheng X, Zhou G, Zeng DD, 2023, Platform Governance in the Era of AI and the Digital Economy. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 10(1): 177.

Yu C, 2022, Towards a Three-Tiered Ombuds System for Investment Dispute Prevention: Principles and Challenges. Asia Pacific Law Review, 30(2): 401.

Sacerdoti G, 2023, Evolution of WTO Dispute Settlement System and its Current Crisis. IUP Journal of International Relations, 17(2): 7–24.

Старшинова OC, 2021, Is the MPIA a Solution to the WTO Appellate Body Crisis? Journal of World Trade, 55(5): 787, 803.

European External Action Service, 2020, China, the EU and other WTO Members decided to establish a Multi-party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, viewed August 13, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/china-eu-and-other-wto-members-decided-establish-multi-party-interim-appeal-arbitration-arrangement_en?s=166

Pauwelyn J, 2023, The WTO’s Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA): What’s New? World Trade Review. Cambridge University Press, 22(5): 693, 701.

Ragosta J, Joneja N, Zeldovich M, 2003, WTO Dispute Settlement: The System Is Flawed and Must Be Fixed. International Lawyer (ABA), 37(3): 697, 752.

Lin C, Peng S, Streinz T, (eds), 2021, International Economic Law Limits to Artificial Intelligence Regulation, Artificial Intelligence and International Economic Law: Disruption, Regulation, and Reconfiguration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rojszczak M, 2020, CLOUD Act Agreements from an EU Perspective. Computer Law & Security Review, 38: 105442.

Weigl L, Barbereau T, Sedlmeir J, et al., 2023, Mediating the Tension Between Data Sharing and Privacy: The Case of DMA and GDPR, 31st European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2023), Kristiansand, Norway.

The Act Texts, 2024, EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Act 4 (a).

Xu W, Wang S, Zuo X, 2024, Global Data Governance at a Turning Point? Rethinking China-U.S. Cross-Border Data Flow Regulatory Models. CLSR, 55: 106061.

Mitchell AD, Ayres G, 2012, General and Security Exceptions under the GATT and the GATS, International Trade Law and WTO, Indira Carr, Jahid Bhuiyan and Shawkat Alam, eds., Federation Press.

Ridi N, 2024, Precedent and Procedure in International Adjudication, in Mercurio B, Polanco R, (eds), Research Handbook on International Procedural Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 73.

Bo S, 2025, Envisioning the Future of Online Dispute Resolution from the Case of China, in De Filippi P, Mannan M, (eds), Web3 Governance, Routledge, 166.

Constantinescu C, 2020, Normative Trade Power Europe under Threat: Takeaways from a WTO Emergency. Values First, 38.

Munir Y, 2024, An In-Depth Analysis of the Evolution of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Trends, Challenges, and Prospects. Al-Qamar, 175.

Zhen N, 2019, Distinguish Jurisprudence from Precedent Regarding Appellate Body’s Treaty Interpretation: On Reform of the WTO. Journal of WTO and China, 9: 9.

Odilovna KG, 2024, Resolving Trade Disputes in a Globalized World: The Efficacy and Challenges of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. International Journal of Law and Criminology, 4(11): 47.

Galbraith J, 2019, United States Continues to Block New Appellate Body Members for the World Trade Organization, Risking the Collapse of the Appellate Process. Am J Int Law, 113: 822, 831.

Yue Y, Shyu JZ, 2024, A Paradigm Shift in Crisis Management: The Nexus of AGI‐Driven Intelligence Fusion Networks and Blockchain Trustworthiness. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32(1): e12541.

Pahis S, 2025, Can Plurilaterals Solve the WTO’s National Security Crisis? The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 26(1–2): 189

Zhong J, 2023, Methods of Adjudication and Principles for Handling New Types of Cases in the Digital Economy. Studies in Law and Justice, 2(4): 80.

Johnston AM, Trebilcock MJ, 2013, Fragmentation in International Trade Law: Insights from the Global Investment Regime. World Trade Review, 12(4): 621.

Nyaga GN, Lynch DF, Marshall D, et al., 2013, Power Asymmetry, Adaptation and Collaboration in Dyadic Relationships Involving a Powerful Partner. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(3): 42.

Popoola S, 2023, The Digital Gateway: Examining the Influence of CPTPP and DEPA on E-Commerce Ecosystems in Latin America.

Khan U, 2024, The World Trade Organization and International Law: Balancing Trade, Sovereignty, and Global Governance. Journal of Law, Society and Policy Review, 1(2): 1.

Strange M, 2013, Writing Global Trade Governance: Discourse and the WTO, Routledge.

Wang X, 2024, The Impact and Response of Trade Sanctions. Asia Pacific Journal of Society and Law, 1(1).

Colino SM, 2022, The Case Against Alibaba in China and Its Wider Policy Repercussions. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 10(1): 217.

Rao W, 2025, Signaling through National Security Lawmaking.

Janow ME, Mavroidis PC, 2019, Digital Trade, E-Commerce, the WTO and Regional Frameworks. World Trade Review, 18(S1): S1.

Ekman A, 2023, China’s Global Security Initiative. European Union Institute for Security Studies, 1: 4.

Simons G, 2022, West vs Non-West: A New Cold War? Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ), viewed August 8, 2025, https://www.academia.edu/download/99601318/West_vs_NonWest_New_Cold_war.pdf.

Williams RD, Paul Tsai, China Center, 2020, Beyond Huawei and TikTok: Untangling US Concerns over Chinese Tech Companies and Digital Security, University of Pennsylvania.

Wang C, 2019, Invocation of National Security Exceptions under GATT Article XXI: Jurisdiction to Review and Standard of Review. Chinese Journal of International Law, 18(3): 695

Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2012, “Digital Silk Road” International Science Program, Chinese Academy of Sciences, viewed August 13, 2025, http://www.cbas.ac.cn/jlhz/gjxspt/202108/t20210813_487044.html

Zhao M, 2024, The Belt & Road Initiative and US-China Competition over the Global South. China Economic Journal, 17(2): 166.

Payal A, 2019, General Data Protection Regulation—A Global Standard? Privacy Futures, Digital Activism, and Surveillance Cultures in the Global South. Surveillance & Society, 17(5): 717–725.