Rules as Power: The Contest for Rule-Making Authority in Digital Public Diplomacy among the US, China, and the EU
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63313/LLCS.9133Keywords:
Digital Public Diplomacy, Technical Standards, Normative Power, Global Digital GovernanceAbstract
The core of international competition in the digital age has shifted to the struggle for rule-making power. As the principal actors, the United States, China, and the European Union are reshaping the global digital order through digital public diplomacy. From a political economy perspective, this paper constructs a three-dimensional analytical framework—"Strategic Positioning-Rule Tools-Efficacy Analysis"—to examine the divergent strategies of these three actors in the realms of technical standards, data governance, and digital trade. The study finds that the United States leverages value-based alliances to promote exclusive rule hegemony, China achieves breakthroughs through development-oriented alternative rules, and the EU constructs standard barriers by capitalizing on its normative power. The contest for rule-making authority is, in essence, a process of reconstructing power structures in the digital age, the outcomes of which will profoundly shape the landscape of global digital governance. Developing countries must seek strategic autonomy amid great power rule competition, enhancing their rule-making influence through technological localization and multilateral cooperation.
References
[1] African Union (2020) The Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa (2020-2030). African Union Commission, Addis Ababa. https://au.int/en/documents/20200518/digital-transformation-strategy-africa-2020-2030
[2] Asian Development Bank (2023) Asian Economic Integration Report 2023: Trade, Investment, and Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank, Manila. http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS230032-2.
[3] Congressional Research Service (2023) China’s “Digital Silk Road”: Strategic Implications. U.S. Congress, Washington DC.
[4] Center for Strategic and International Studies (2024) Strategic Competition in the Global Cloud Ecosystem. CSIS Reports, Washington DC.
[5] European Commission (2021) 2030 Digital Compass: The European Way for the Digital Decade. COM(2021) 118 final, Brussels.
[6] European Parliament and Council (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data. Official Journal of the European Union, L119, 1-88.
[7] European Parliament and Council (2022) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector. Official Journal of the European Union, L265, 1-66.
[8] H Office of the United States Trade Representative (2020) Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA). Executive Office of the President, Washington DC.
[9] RCEP Secretariat (2020) Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement. RCEP Secretariat, Jakarta.
[10] UNCTAD (2024) Digital Economy Report 2024. United Nations, Geneva.
[11] U.S. Department of Defense (2023) 2023 Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. U.S. Department of Defense, Washington DC.
[12] U.S. Department of State (2020) The Clean Network. http://2017-2021.state.gov/the-clean-network/index.html
[13] World Intellectual Property Organization (2024) World Intellectual Property Report 2024: Making Innovation Policy Work for Development. WIPO, Geneva.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 by author(s) and Erytis Publishing Limited.

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







