Date: 6 October 2026 Publication Type: Research Project: MaMeeFarm™
Abstract
Global trade depends increasingly on digital infrastructure.
Ships still move physically.
Containers still pass through ports.
Goods still cross customs boundaries.
But the ability to move those goods efficiently now depends heavily on digital records that identify cargo, vessels, traders, regulatory status, locations, timings, permissions, and transactions.
These records are not held in one place.
They are generated across:
- customs systems;
- ports;
- terminals;
- shipping lines;
- freight forwarders;
- National Single Windows;
- Maritime Single Windows;
- Port Community Systems;
- logistics platforms; and
- private information systems.
This creates a fundamental research question.
Who controls the infrastructure through which global trade data is created, standardized, exchanged, accessed, and reused?
The answer is not one institution.
Control is distributed across organizations performing different functions.
Some organizations can require data submission.
Some operate platforms.
Some define standards.
Some determine access permissions.
Some control technical interfaces.
Others gain visibility by combining data from multiple sources.
Current trade digitalization reinforces this structure. UNECE’s Single Window framework promotes standardized trade information through a single entry point. Maritime Single Windows have been mandatory under the IMO framework since 1 January 2024. The World Customs Organization maintains a Data Model intended to support harmonized definitions and electronic messages for cross-border interoperability.
The contemporary case of China’s LOGINK platform demonstrates another dimension. A logistics-data platform can create operational value while simultaneously generating strategic concern. Yet connectivity does not establish complete visibility, and the scale of information available through a platform should not be inferred merely from the number of systems with which it has relationships.
The central finding of this research is that control over global trade data is not simply ownership of data.
It can emerge through several distinct capabilities:
- submission authority;
- platform operation;
- standards;
- access rights;
- technical interfaces;
- interoperability; and
- cross-system visibility.
1. Research Question
Who controls the digital infrastructure through which global trade data is created, standardized, exchanged, accessed, and reused, and how does control over different functions shape both trade efficiency and strategic visibility?
2. Trade Has Become a Data System as Well as a Physical System
International trade is physical.
Goods move through:
- factories;
- warehouses;
- roads;
- railways;
- ports;
- ships;
- airports; and
- border crossings.
But each movement also produces information.
A shipment can generate:
- commercial documents;
- customs declarations;
- cargo manifests;
- port-call records;
- terminal events;
- vessel positions;
- inspection records;
- payment records; and
- delivery confirmations.
Physical movement and information movement increasingly depend on one another.
A container may be physically present at a port but unable to proceed because digital clearance remains incomplete.
Trade infrastructure therefore includes both:
physical infrastructure
and
data infrastructure.
3. Data Infrastructure Is More Than a Database
A trade database stores information.
Trade data infrastructure can perform broader functions.
It can influence:
- what information must be submitted;
- how information is structured;
- who can submit it;
- who can access it;
- how systems communicate;
- which data fields are recognized;
- how records are linked; and
- how information can be reused.
Control over trade information can therefore arise without ownership of the physical goods.
4. Data Begins With Events
Trade data begins with observable or reportable events.
A ship arrives.
A container is loaded.
A declaration is filed.
Cargo enters a terminal.
Customs releases a shipment.
A truck leaves a gate.
These events create information.
Different organizations may become authoritative sources for different events.
Examples include:
- shipping lines;
- ports;
- terminals;
- customs authorities;
- logistics companies; and
- traders.
An important distinction is therefore not simply who possesses a record, but which actor is recognized as the authoritative source for the event being described.
5. Operational Data and Regulatory Data Are Different
Some records exist because companies need them to operate.
Others exist because governments require them.
A shipping line may need cargo information for transportation.
A terminal may need container information for handling.
Customs may require declarations for regulatory control.
A port authority may require arrival and departure information.
These datasets can overlap.
But their legal and operational purposes differ.
Researchers should therefore distinguish:
operational data
from
regulatory data.
6. Regulatory Authority Creates Submission Power
One of the strongest forms of data control is the authority to require information.
Customs authorities can require traders to submit specified information before goods are released.
Port and maritime authorities can require information connected with vessel operations.
Other regulatory agencies may require health, safety, agricultural, security, or licensing information.
This creates a form of control that a private platform does not automatically possess.
The authority is institutional and legal, not merely technical.
7. Single Windows Concentrate Submission
UNECE Recommendation No. 33 describes a Single Window as a facility allowing parties involved in trade and transport to submit standardized information and documents through a single entry point to fulfil import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements.
For electronic information, individual data elements should generally need to be submitted only once.
Participating authorities can then coordinate their controls through the Single Window.
UNECE also notes that the system is generally managed by a lead agency, usually Customs.
This structure can reduce repetitive submission.
It also changes the organization of information flow.
8. Submission Once Creates Reuse
If traders submit information once and several authorized government agencies can reuse relevant elements, administrative duplication can decline.
But a governance question immediately follows:
Who is authorized to reuse which information, and for what purpose?
Relevant issues can include:
- access;
- purpose;
- sharing;
- retention; and
- authorization.
Trade facilitation and data governance therefore become connected.
9. Maritime Single Windows Extend This Logic to Ports
The International Maritime Organization requires the use of Maritime Single Windows for electronic exchange of information associated with the arrival, stay, and departure of ships in ports.
The requirement became mandatory on 1 January 2024 through amendments to the FAL Convention.
The significance is structural.
Electronic exchange through a single-window approach has become part of formal maritime clearance infrastructure rather than merely an optional efficiency tool.
10. Ports Are Becoming Digital Control Points
Ports historically exercise physical control over important stages of trade.
Ships enter.
Cargo is loaded and unloaded.
Trucks enter terminals.
Customs clearance occurs.
Digital systems now operate alongside these physical controls.
A port ecosystem may therefore contain several simultaneous information and operational control points, including:
- physical gate systems;
- customs clearance;
- terminal operating systems;
- Maritime Single Windows;
- Port Community Systems; and
- carrier platforms.
No single system necessarily controls all of them.
11. Platform Control Is a Separate Form of Control
A platform operator controls a technical environment through which information may pass.
This can include:
- user authentication;
- system operation;
- interfaces;
- data routing;
- permissions;
- storage; and
- logging.
But operating a platform does not automatically mean owning every dataset handled by that platform.
This distinction is important.
Platform control
is not necessarily the same as
data ownership.
12. Custody and Ownership Should Not Be Confused
An organization may store data without legally owning it.
Another organization may originate or possess rights over data while a third party provides the technical environment.
Researchers should therefore distinguish:
data ownership
from
data custody.
Ownership concerns relevant legal or contractual rights.
Custody concerns who stores, maintains, or operates the environment containing the information.
The same organization may perform both roles.
But this should not be assumed.
13. Access Is Another Form of Control
An organization does not necessarily need to own a dataset to gain value from it.
Permission to access the information may be sufficient.
Different users may receive different views.
Customs may see regulatory details.
A carrier may see shipment status.
A port may see vessel and terminal information.
A shipper may see its own cargo.
A regulator may access specified compliance information.
The relevant question becomes:
Who is permitted to see which information?
14. Access Can Be Granular
Access is rarely simply open or closed.
Permissions can differ by function.
A user may be allowed to:
- view;
- submit;
- modify;
- download;
- query;
- share; or
- analyze information.
Another user may receive only aggregated information.
A third may access event metadata but not commercial content.
Data access therefore exists along a spectrum.
15. Standards Are Infrastructure
Trade systems cannot communicate efficiently merely because all parties possess computers.
They must also agree on:
- data definitions;
- codes;
- message structures;
- formats; and
- semantics.
A field describing a port must be interpreted consistently.
A customs code must carry an understood meaning.
A date must follow an interpretable structure.
Standards make interoperability possible.
16. The WCO Data Model Provides a Common Language
The World Customs Organization describes its Data Model as a foundation for interoperability in cross-border regulatory processes.
It provides harmonized and reusable definitions and electronic messages for Customs and other cross-border regulatory agencies.
The Data Model also draws on and maps to other international standards.
Its role is not to operate every customs platform.
It provides a common semantic and messaging foundation that systems can use when exchanging information.
17. Standard Governance Is Not Operational Data Access
This distinction is fundamental.
An organization can influence how information is structured without seeing the transactions themselves.
A standards organization may define:
- field definitions;
- message structures;
- reference codes; or
- exchange formats.
That does not automatically provide access to operational trade records.
Researchers should therefore distinguish:
standard governance
from
operational data access.
18. Interoperability Creates Another Form of Influence
Two systems can contain valuable data while remaining isolated.
Interoperability allows information to move between them.
This can reduce friction.
It can also increase the range of information available across connected environments.
Organizations responsible for interfaces or interoperability can therefore influence:
- technical connection;
- compatibility; and
- permitted information flow.
That influence should still be distinguished from ownership or unrestricted access to the underlying records.
19. Machine-Readable Trade Systems Are Expanding
In July 2026, the World Customs Organization announced Data Model Version 4.3.0.
The update introduced JSON tags for web-based implementations and support for additional digital document types.
The WCO also identified future work involving machine-readable formats, linked data, and verifiable credentials.
This indicates continued movement from digitized trade documents toward increasingly structured and interoperable data environments.
20. Machine Readability Changes the Value of Data
A scanned document is digital.
But it may remain difficult to process automatically.
Structured information can be:
- searched;
- validated;
- linked;
- compared;
- aggregated; and
- analyzed
more efficiently.
The transition from electronic documents to structured interoperable data therefore changes what can potentially be done with trade information.
21. Connectivity Does Not Equal Complete Visibility
This is one of the most important evidence boundaries.
A system may connect with many organizations.
That does not establish that it receives every dataset held by those organizations.
A connection may expose only selected information.
For example:
- arrival time;
- departure time;
- container status; or
- clearance status.
Another connected system may contain commercially sensitive information without sharing it through that connection.
Researchers should therefore avoid inferring data scope from network size alone.
22. LOGINK Demonstrates This Boundary
China’s LOGINK platform provides a contemporary example of both the potential and uncertainty surrounding cross-border logistics platforms.
Reuters reported on 5 October 2026 that LOGINK was originally developed to facilitate cargo-data sharing among customs, ports, and transport providers and later pursued international expansion.
The platform attracted U.S. concern over possible strategic implications.
Its international reach subsequently declined sharply amid political pressure, legal problems, financial difficulties, and other institutional challenges.
The case demonstrates that international connectivity can create strategic concern even when the complete scope of information available through the system is not publicly established.
23. LOGINK Should Not Be Described as Controlling Global Trade Data
The available evidence does not support such a broad conclusion.
Reuters reported uncertainty around the nature and scale of data available through LOGINK, while some international collaborators described narrower forms of information exchange than political warnings sometimes suggested.
Claims such as:
LOGINK saw all global cargo
or
LOGINK controlled global trade data
would therefore exceed the evidence.
Strategic concern should not be converted into a factual claim about technical capability without supporting evidence.
24. Limited Data Can Still Have Analytical Value
The opposite assumption should also be avoided.
A dataset does not need complete commercial cargo information to be analytically useful.
Information such as:
- port calls;
- arrival times;
- departure times;
- loading activity;
- routing; and
- operational frequency
can potentially support analysis when observed at sufficient scale.
But this should remain potential analytical value unless evidence establishes a specific capability or use.
25. Data Visibility Can Be Assembled
No single dataset needs to contain the entire trade system.
Broader visibility can emerge from combining several datasets.
For example:
- vessel information;
- port activity;
- customs status;
- container events;
- shipping schedules; and
- trade statistics
may collectively reveal relationships that are not visible within any one source.
This creates another important capability:
cross-system analytical visibility.
26. Analytical Capability Is Different From Platform Control
A platform operator can control access without performing sophisticated analysis.
An analytical organization can potentially derive insight without operating the underlying infrastructure.
These are different capabilities.
Researchers should therefore distinguish:
platform control
from
analytical capability.
One concerns operation or governance of infrastructure.
The other concerns what can be learned from available information.
27. Data Aggregation Can Create Informational Advantage
An organization observing one port understands one location.
An organization able to examine information across many ports may observe broader network patterns.
Combining customs, shipping, terminal, and logistics information can potentially reveal relationships invisible inside individual systems.
Aggregation can therefore change informational capability.
This does not automatically imply improper use.
It means that the informational value of connected datasets can exceed the value of each dataset in isolation.
28. Global Trade Data Has No Single Controller
The structure of global trade makes complete central control unlikely.
Information is distributed among:
- states;
- ports;
- carriers;
- traders;
- terminals;
- technology companies; and
- other organizations.
Different jurisdictions also impose different legal requirements.
The system therefore resembles a network of overlapping authorities, platforms, custodians, and data holders rather than one global database.
29. Control Is Functional Rather Than Absolute
The word control can describe several different capabilities.
Data Creation
Who creates or records the authoritative information about an event?
Submission Authority
Who can require information to be provided?
Platform Operation
Who operates the technical environment?
Standards Governance
Who defines the semantics and structures that make exchange possible?
Access Governance
Who determines which users may see or use particular information?
Interface Control
Who determines how systems connect and what exchanges are technically permitted?
Analytical Capability
Who can combine or interpret information across systems?
No single organization necessarily possesses all of these capabilities.
Treating them as one category can obscure important differences in the trade-data system.
30. Customs Has a Distinct Form of Power
Customs authorities are unusual because they can combine several functions.
Depending on jurisdiction and system design, they may:
- require submission;
- define regulatory requirements;
- operate or lead Single Windows;
- authorize clearance; and
- access detailed shipment information.
This gives customs a different form of information control from a private logistics platform.
The distinction comes partly from legal authority rather than technology alone.
31. Ports Control Important Operational Events
Ports and terminals observe events such as:
- vessel arrivals;
- berthing;
- cargo handling;
- container movement;
- gate activity; and
- storage.
These events generate valuable operational information.
But port data may not contain every commercial or regulatory detail associated with a shipment.
Physical control and information visibility overlap only partially.
32. Carriers Hold Another Data Domain
Shipping lines hold important information concerning:
- bookings;
- routes;
- equipment;
- vessels;
- schedules; and
- cargo movement.
Freight forwarders may possess additional commercial and logistics information.
Shippers hold information about goods and commercial transactions.
Each actor therefore observes a different part of the system.
Global trade data is fragmented by operational role.
33. Platform Integration Can Reduce Fragmentation
Digital logistics platforms attempt to connect some of these fragments.
This can produce genuine operational value.
Users may receive:
- faster status information;
- simplified submission;
- better coordination; and
- less duplicated data entry.
The value of interoperability can therefore be substantial.
But greater integration also increases the importance of governance.
34. Efficiency and Strategic Visibility Can Arise Together
The same platform feature can produce more than one effect.
Connecting systems can reduce friction.
Connecting systems can also create a broader information environment.
These outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
A platform can simultaneously:
improve trade efficiency
and
increase the range of information accessible from a connected environment.
This does not make integration inherently harmful.
It means that governance becomes increasingly important as integration expands.
35. Trust Becomes Infrastructure
Technical interoperability alone is insufficient for cross-border adoption.
Participants must also have sufficient confidence in:
- access rules;
- governance;
- security;
- legal protections; and
- institutional intentions.
The LOGINK case illustrates the importance of this dimension.
Even where interoperability can provide operational value, political concern and institutional trust can affect whether countries or organizations remain connected.
Digital infrastructure therefore depends on institutional legitimacy as well as engineering.
36. Political Acceptance Can Determine Technical Reach
A platform can be technically capable of international connection.
But adoption can remain voluntary, contractual, or jurisdictionally constrained.
Governments can:
- restrict use;
- block participation;
- prohibit certain systems; or
- require alternative infrastructure.
Political acceptance can therefore limit technical scale.
37. Infrastructure Dependence Creates Strategic Questions
Once trade actors depend on digital platforms, resilience questions become important.
What happens if the platform fails?
What happens if access is revoked?
Can data be migrated?
Are alternative systems available?
Who controls software updates?
Who controls identity credentials?
Can the system operate during geopolitical disruption?
These are not merely questions about data.
They are infrastructure-resilience questions.
38. Interoperability Can Reduce Lock-In
Common standards can reduce dependence on a single proprietary system.
If multiple platforms use compatible definitions and formats, users may have greater ability to exchange information across different environments.
Standards can therefore improve efficiency and potentially reduce platform lock-in.
This is another reason standardization should not automatically be interpreted as centralization.
39. Standards Can Spread Without Centralizing Data
The WCO Data Model illustrates this distinction.
Different customs systems can use common definitions without sending all operational records into one global repository.
Common semantics can therefore coexist with distributed data custody.
This leads to an important principle:
interoperability does not require centralized ownership.
40. Data Centralization and Semantic Coordination Are Different
A trade system can become highly coordinated while its records remain distributed.
Organizations may agree on:
- definitions;
- message formats;
- codes; and
- exchange protocols.
Underlying records can still remain within separate national or commercial systems.
Researchers should therefore distinguish:
centralization of data
from
coordination of data.
They are not equivalent structures.
41. The Connection Layer Can Become Strategically Important
A system does not necessarily need to store every record permanently to become important.
Its importance may come from sitting between systems.
Connections can influence:
- which systems communicate;
- how messages are translated;
- what identities are recognized;
- which data fields are exchanged; and
- what access pathways exist.
Interfaces therefore have governance implications even when data custody remains distributed.
42. APIs Are Governance Mechanisms as Well as Technical Mechanisms
An API defines more than how computers communicate.
Depending on its implementation, it can determine:
- what data can be requested;
- who can request it;
- how frequently requests can occur;
- which credentials are required; and
- what format is returned.
Technical interface design therefore affects practical data access.
Interface control is one component of infrastructure governance.
43. Identity Infrastructure Matters
Trade systems need to know who is interacting with them.
Digital identities may represent:
- companies;
- ships;
- ports;
- customs brokers;
- regulators; and
- authorized users.
Authentication affects who can submit or access information.
Identity systems therefore support access control.
Without trusted identity, secure interoperability becomes more difficult.
44. Data Provenance Matters
When information moves across several systems, users may need to understand:
- where a record originated;
- whether it has changed;
- when it was created; and
- which source remains authoritative.
Interoperability without adequate provenance can create uncertainty.
A trade-data ecosystem therefore requires not only exchange but confidence in the origin and meaning of information.
45. Visibility Is Not the Same as Authority
An analytical platform may observe broad patterns without possessing authority to stop or approve shipments.
Customs may possess legal authority over a shipment while having limited global visibility.
A standards body may influence information structure while having no operational authority.
A carrier may possess detailed movement information while having no authority to define national customs law.
These are distinct forms of capability and power.
They should not be collapsed into the single word control.
46. Functional Domains of Global Trade Data Infrastructure
Global trade data infrastructure can be understood through several interacting functional domains.
Trade Actors
Shippers, carriers, freight forwarders, terminals, brokers, and logistics companies generate substantial amounts of operational and commercial information.
Operational Platforms
Carrier systems, terminal systems, Port Community Systems, and logistics platforms support coordination of physical movement.
Regulatory Platforms
Customs systems, National Single Windows, and Maritime Single Windows support regulatory submission, exchange, and clearance.
Interoperability Infrastructure
Data models, standards, identifiers, APIs, message structures, and common semantics allow separate systems to understand and communicate with one another.
Cross-System Analytics
Aggregation, tracking, risk analysis, forecasting, and network analysis can transform distributed observations into wider informational visibility.
These domains are descriptive rather than hierarchical.
They can overlap.
Organizations can participate in more than one domain.
Control, authority, custody, and visibility can also be distributed differently across them.
47. Research Considerations for Trade Data Control
Several distinctions are important when interpreting control over trade-data infrastructure.
The data itself should be identified before broad claims about control are made.
Cargo manifests, customs declarations, vessel events, terminal records, commercial documents, and aggregated trade statistics are different forms of information.
Origin and custody are not necessarily the same.
The organization creating an authoritative record may differ from the organization storing or transmitting it.
Submission authority differs from platform operation.
A government authority may legally require information even when another organization supplies or operates part of the technical environment.
Standards influence structure without necessarily creating access.
An organization defining a data model does not automatically receive operational records using that model.
Access is granular.
Connectivity between two systems does not establish unrestricted access to all information contained in either system.
Interfaces matter.
APIs, credentials, permissions, message formats, and exchange rules influence what information can practically move between systems.
Cross-border connectivity does not establish data scope.
A platform with international relationships may exchange only limited categories of information with each participant.
Aggregation changes analytical capability.
Several limited datasets can collectively provide greater visibility than any one dataset alone.
Governance affects technical reach.
Legal authority, contractual arrangements, cybersecurity, institutional trust, and political acceptance can expand or constrain platform participation.
Claims about control require different levels of evidence.
Evidence that a platform exists does not establish that particular systems are connected.
Evidence of connection does not establish that all underlying information is exchanged.
Evidence that specific information is exchanged does not establish unrestricted access.
Access does not automatically establish aggregation.
Aggregation does not automatically establish strategic control.
These distinctions do not constitute a universal procedure for investigating trade-data systems.
They identify common evidence boundaries needed when interpreting claims about who controls global trade information.
48. What Current Evidence Can Establish
Current evidence supports several findings.
Single Window systems are designed to reduce repetitive regulatory submission and coordinate information flows between trade and government.
Maritime Single Windows have been mandatory under the IMO framework since 1 January 2024 for specified port-clearance information.
The World Customs Organization maintains a standardized Data Model intended to support cross-border interoperability and Single Window implementation.
Machine-readable and interoperable trade infrastructure continues to develop.
The LOGINK case demonstrates that international logistics-data connectivity can become strategically contested and that political and institutional trust can affect platform adoption.
These findings establish that trade-data infrastructure has both operational and governance significance.
49. What Current Evidence Does Not Establish
The available evidence does not establish that:
- one organization controls all global trade data;
- common standards create centralized data ownership;
- every connected platform sees every underlying dataset;
- LOGINK possessed complete visibility into global cargo;
- all interoperability creates strategic dependence; or
- centralized trade-data infrastructure is inherently harmful.
These would be stronger claims than the evidence supports.
50. Research Implications
Global trade is becoming more digitally coordinated.
This coordination can reduce cost and duplication.
It can improve regulatory efficiency.
It can accelerate port and border processes.
It can make information more reusable.
But increasing connectivity also increases the importance of understanding governance.
The relevant question is no longer simply:
Who has the document?
Several different questions now matter:
Who can require the information?
Who defines its structure and meaning?
Who operates the relevant platform?
Who can access the record?
Who controls the technical connection?
Who can combine the information with other records?
These questions describe different capabilities.
51. Research Limitations
Trade-data infrastructure is difficult to study completely.
Many operational systems are proprietary.
Access agreements are not always public.
Commercial datasets may not disclose their complete contents.
Government platforms may publish technical descriptions without publishing operational data.
International connectivity does not reveal the precise content of every exchange.
Political claims can also exaggerate both capability and risk.
The LOGINK case demonstrates this problem directly.
Strategic concerns surrounding the platform were substantial, but the publicly available evidence does not establish complete visibility into global cargo or unrestricted access to every dataset associated with connected organizations.
Researchers should therefore avoid substituting political characterization for documented system capability.
52. Research Conclusion
Global trade increasingly depends on digital infrastructure.
But that infrastructure does not have one controller.
Trade information is generated across companies, ports, terminals, carriers, and government agencies.
Regulators can require submission.
Platforms can organize information.
Standards bodies can define common semantics.
System operators can govern technical access.
Interfaces can influence what information moves between systems.
Analytical organizations can combine available datasets into broader visibility.
These are different forms of control and capability.
They can coexist without belonging to the same organization.
This leads to the central research principle:
Control over global trade data is distributed, but strategic influence can emerge where regulatory authority, platform infrastructure, standards, access rights, interoperability, and analytical visibility overlap.
Single Windows demonstrate the operational value of coordination.
Information can be submitted through a common entry point rather than repeatedly to separate authorities.
Relevant government agencies can reuse standardized information within the applicable framework.
Maritime clearance can become more digitally coordinated.
The WCO Data Model demonstrates another important distinction.
Systems can share common semantics without placing all trade information into one centralized global database.
Standardization and centralization are not the same.
The LOGINK case exposes a different dimension.
A platform seeking to connect logistics information across borders can create operational value while simultaneously raising questions about data scope, access, institutional trust, and strategic visibility.
But connectivity alone does not prove complete access.
Political concern does not establish technical capability beyond the available evidence.
The larger question therefore extends beyond LOGINK.
As ports, customs systems, shipping companies, Single Windows, and logistics platforms become increasingly interoperable, strategic influence may arise from different positions in the information environment.
It may arise from legal authority to require information.
It may arise from operating infrastructure through which information moves.
It may arise from standards that allow systems to understand one another.
It may arise from permissions controlling access.
It may arise from interfaces connecting previously separate systems.
Or it may arise from the ability to combine distributed records into a wider view of trade.
None of these capabilities alone should automatically be described as control over global trade data.
Together, however, they show why information infrastructure has become an increasingly important part of trade infrastructure itself.
Understanding global trade therefore increasingly requires studying not only where goods move.
It also requires understanding where information moves, who is authorized to see it, which systems allow it to travel, and how separate pieces of the global trade system become digitally connected.
References
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Recommendation No. 33: Recommendation and Guidelines on Establishing a Single Window.
United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business. Trade Facilitation Recommendations: Single Window.
International Maritime Organization. Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL).
International Maritime Organization. Maritime Single Window.
World Customs Organization. WCO Data Model.
World Customs Organization. (2026, July 15). The WCO Data Model at 30: WCO Celebrates Three Decades of Data Interoperability and Unveils Version 4.3.0.
Reuters. (2026, October 5). The US said China was priming a trade superweapon. Then it vanished.