全球法律實踐下數據域外管轄邊界的成案研究：擴張與限縮中的利益平衡

Case Study of Data Extraterritorial Jurisdictional Boundaries in Global Legal Practice: Balance of Interests Between Expansion and Limitation

從全球數據域外管轄的立法、司法與執法實踐中來看，一方面數字監管的“逐頂競爭”已經形成國際共識，域外效力條款趨同下立法管轄權單邊擴張，目的解釋下域外司法管轄權間接延伸等現象頻發。另一方面，主權國家並非一味地延伸其管轄邊界，相反，出於各國對數據糾紛所涉法益差異性保護的尊重，以及主權平等原則的外在約束，域外執法管轄始終保持著克制與謹慎。這種擴張與限縮並存的實踐現狀，是因為數據域外管轄權邊界的設定，本質上取決於三組利益訴求與價值取向的博弈結果。因此，對於我國域外數據管轄邊界的設定，既要保障規則設定的正當性，以平衡數據主權的擴張與國際法原則的約束；又要保障規則適用的必要性，以平衡個案複雜法益的價值衝突；還要保障規制結果的適當性，以平衡司法預期效益與實際執行效果。

From the legislative, judicial and law enforcement practices of global data extraterritorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, the ''competition to the top'' of digital supervision has formed an international consensus, the unilateral expansion of legislative jurisdiction under the convergence of extraterritorial effect clauses, the purpose of explaining the phenomenon of indirect extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction frequently. On the other hand, sovereign states do not blindly extend their jurisdictional boundaries, on the contrary, out of respect for the protection of the difference of legal interests involved in data disputes and the external constraints of the principle of sovereign equality, extraterritorial law enforcement jurisdictions have always maintained restraint and prudence. This kind of expansion and limitation coexist in practice, because the setting of extra-territorial jurisdiction boundaries of data essentially depends on the game results of three groups of interest demands and value orientation. Therefore, the establishment of the extraterritorial data jurisdictional boundary of our country should not only safeguard the legitimacy of the establishment of rules, but also balance the expansion of data sovereignty and the constraint of international law principles. It is also necessary to ensure the necessity of the application of rules to balance the value conflicts of complex legal interests of individual cases. It is also necessary to ensure the appropriateness of the regulatory results in order to balance the expected judicial benefits and the actual execution effects.