Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 29 Download : 16

Main Article Content

Abstract

This article investigates the institutionalization of “trusted cross-border data flows” and “interoperability” within the UN Global Digital Compact. Employing a Coxian framework of ideas, material capabilities, and institutions, it argues this outcome was not passive diffusion. Instead, it was the product of a historic bloc that aligned U.S. policy with the interests of major technology firms. Through a directed content analysis of key diplomatic texts from the G20, OECD, and UN, the study traces the genealogical journey of this conceptual pairing. The analysis reveals how this highly portable formula was progressively embedded and proceduralized in the GDC's final text. The article also demonstrates that the success of this ideational project is underwritten by material power: the concentrated structure of global cloud infrastructure, which makes this governance settlement the most feasible option. The research illuminates how hegemonic consensus in digital governance is achieved through a mutually reinforcing alignment of adaptable ideas, strategic institutionalization, and the realities of material capabilities.

Keywords

DFFT Global Digital Compact Cox Regime Complex

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Dasnita, M. N. R., Sudirman, A., & Wibawa, S. (2026). The Portability of Ideas in Global Data Governance: A Coxian Reading of ‘Data Free Flow with Trust’ Journey to the UN Global Digital Compact. Ilomata International Journal of Social Science, 7(1), 100-116. https://doi.org/10.61194/ijss.v7i1.1922

References

  1. Aaronson, S. A., & Leblond, P. (2018). Another digital divide: The rise of data realms and its implications for the WTO. Journal of International Economic Law, 21(2), 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy019
  2. Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational Ecology and Institutional Change in Global Governance. International Organization, 70(2), 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818315000338
  3. Bacchus, J., Ingo, B., Marita-Jaeger, M., & Ruiz, J. (2024). Interoperability of Data Governance Regimes: Challenges for Digital Trade Policy. https://citp.ac.uk/publications/interoperability-of-data-governance-regimes-challenges-for-digital-trade-policy
  4. Birch, K., & Bronson, K. (2022). Big Tech. Science as Culture, 31(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2036118
  5. Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford University Press.
  6. Canalys. (2025). Global Cloud Infrastructure Services Q1 2025. https://canalys.com/newsroom/global-cloud-q1-2025
  7. Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534
  8. CBRE Research. (2024). Global Data Center Trends 2024. https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/global-data-center-trends-2024
  9. Chin, Y. C., & Zhao, J. (2022). Governing Cross-Border Data Flows: International Trade Agreements and Their Limits. Laws 2022, Vol. 11, Page 63, 11(4), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/LAWS11040063
  10. CNBC. (2024). Nvidia Dominates AI Chips with Market Share Exceeding 90%. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/02/nvidia-dominates-the-ai-chip-market-but-theres-rising-competition-.html
  11. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
  12. Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations : An Essay in Method. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298830120020701/ASSET/03058298830120020701.FP.PNG_V03
  13. Cox, R. W., & Sinclair, T. J. (1996). Approaches to World Order. In Approaches to World Order. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607905
  14. D’Alisa, G., & Kallis, G. (2016). A political ecology of maladaptation: Insights from a Gramscian theory of the State. Global Environmental Change, 38, 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2016.03.006
  15. DeNardis, L. (2014). The Global War for Internet Governance. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300212525/the-global-war-for-internet-governance/
  16. Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_A_00351
  17. Ford, C. (2024, February 23). The EU-US Data Privacy Framework is a sitting duck. PETs might be the solution – CEPS. Centre For European Policy Studies. https://www.ceps.eu/the-eu-us-data-privacy-framework-is-a-sitting-duck-pets-might-be-the-solution/
  18. G20. (2019). G20 Osaka Leaders’ Declaration. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/40124/final_g20_osaka_leaders_declaration.pdf
  19. Gill, S. (1993). Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. In S. Gill (Ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558993
  20. Gill, S. R., & Law, D. (1989). Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital. International Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600523
  21. Global CBPR Forum. (2023). Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) Framework. https://globalcbpr.org/
  22. Government of the United States of America. (2024). 2nd Contribution of the United States of America for the Global Digital Compact.
  23. Heidebrecht, S. (2024). From Market Liberalism to Public Intervention: Digital Sovereignty and Changing European Union Digital Single Market Governance. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(1), 205–223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13488
  24. International Energy Agency. (2025). Energy and AI. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai
  25. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710004068
  26. Konrad, A. (2012, September 2). Theorizing Realist and Gramscian Hegemony. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/02/theorizing-realist-and-gramscian-hegemony/
  27. Kumar, S., Tiwari, P., & Zymbler, M. (2019). Internet of Things is a revolutionary approach for future technology enhancement: a review. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40537-019-0268-2/FIGURES/9
  28. Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class, 60(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172
  29. Lamont, C. (2015). Research Methods in International Relations. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  30. Mauldin, A. (2025, May 12). Submarine Cable Ownership and Bandwidth Usage. https://blog.telegeography.com/used-international-bandwidth-reaches-new-heights
  31. Mira, B. (2017). The Regulation of Data Flows Through Trade Agreements. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 48(1), 407–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575990.008
  32. Mishra, N. (2019). Building Bridges: International Trade Law, Internet Governance, Building Bridges: International Trade Law, Internet Governance, and the Regulation of Data Flows. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 52.
  33. Newell, P. (2019). Trasformismo or transformation? The global political economy of energy transitions. Review of International Political Economy, 26(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2018.1511448
  34. Nye, J. S. (2014). The Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities. In PAPER SERIES: NO (1; 1).
  35. OECD. (2022). Declaration on Government Access to Personal Data Held by Private Sector Entities.
  36. Orsini, A., Morin, J.-F., & Young, O. R. (2013). Regime Complexes: A Buzz, a Boom, or a Boost for Global Governance? Global Governance, 19(1), 27–39. https://www.chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/sites/chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/files/publications/orsini_morin_young_2013.pdf
  37. Ozcan, M. M. S., & Haq, E. (2023). Theorizing the Fall of Hegemony: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 12(2), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.33206/MJSS.1256164
  38. Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532
  39. Rahman, K. S. (2018). The New Utilities: Private Power, Social Infrastructure, and the Revival of the Public Utility Concept. Louis D. Brandeis, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.4159/HARVARD.9780674418707.C18
  40. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582036
  41. Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300018993
  42. Runde, D. F., Murphy, E. L., & Bryja, T. (2024). Safeguarding Subsea Cables: Protecting Cyber Infrastructure amid Great Power Competition. https://www.csis.org/analysis/safeguarding-subsea-cables-protecting-cyber-infrastructure-amid-great-power-competition
  43. Sadowski, J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 2053951718820549. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549
  44. Seidl, T., & Schmitz, L. (2024). Moving on to not fall behind? Technological sovereignty and the ‘geo-dirigiste’ turn in EU industrial policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(8), 2147–2174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2248204
  45. Selby, J. (2017). Data localization laws: Trade barriers or legitimate responses to cybersecurity risks, or both? International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 25(3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eax010
  46. Strange, S. (1994). States and markets (2nd ed.). Continuum. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154303270
  47. Synergy Research Group. (2025a). AI Helps Cloud Market Growth Rate Jump Back to Almost 25% in Q1. https://www.srgresearch.com/articles/ai-helps-cloud-market-growth-rate-jump-back-to-almost-25-in-q1
  48. Synergy Research Group. (2025b). European Cloud Providers’ Local Market Share Now Holds Steady at 15%. https://www.srgresearch.com/articles/european-cloud-providers-local-market-share-now-holds-steady-at-15
  49. Ultimate Guide to PIPL Compliance: Navigating China’s Personal Information Protection Law - China Guide. (2024). China Briefing. https://www.china-briefing.com/doing-business-guide/china/company-establishment/pipl-personal-information-protection-law
  50. Unay, S. (2010). Hegemony, Aid and Power: A Neo-Gramscian Analysis of the World Bank. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Hegemony%2C-Aid-and-Power%3A-A-Neo-Gramscian-Analysis-Unay/363b349466f4f04c45d2279d066898cce242427b
  51. United Nations. (2024a). Global Digital Compact.
  52. United Nations. (2024b). Global Digital Compact: Annex to the Pact for the Future. https://www.un.org/global-digital-compact/sites/default/files/2024-09/Global%20Digital%20Compact%20-%20English_0.pdf
  53. United States Government. (2024). U.S. Submissions to the UN Global Digital Compact.

Most read articles by the same author(s)