center dot This article analyses the growing datafication of Frontex and the complex legal framework that surrounds it. center dot When Frontex was first established in 2004, one could not have imagined that it would play a strategic role and be able to collect, process, and exchange personal data for numerous purposes. center dot This article sheds light on this shift in the agency's function and shows that this expansion has not been matched by a clear and coherent legal framework. center dot Instead, the agency operates within a fragmented framework composed of a mix of hard and soft law-sometimes contradictory-which generates legal uncertainty and further enhances fundamental rights violations and the existing accountability gap. center dot This article thus calls for more clarity in the rules, and for a more systemic use of joint controllership to ultimately enhance joint and several liability.
This article examines Vietnam's Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) as a case of filtered legal transplantation and asks how received data protection techniques acquire their institutional location, procedural sequence, and legal consequences within the receiving legal order. It develops experimental hybridism as a mechanism of internal conversion within filtered legal transplantation, distinguishing reception, similarity in legal vocabulary, and legal sequence from the changes produced by institutional allocation and subordinate differentiation. Analysis of institutional design, data subject rights, cross-border transfers, and capacity-based relief shows that statutory rights and familiar compliance techniques are embedded in executive-centred supervision and dispersed remedial routes, while Decree 356 differentiates procedures, timing, and selected obligations through subordinate rules. This combination does not reproduce the European Union, Chinese, or Singaporean arrangements examined in the article and supplies the doctrinal basis for the account of experimental hybridism. The Vietnamese case contributes a criterion for Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) functional interoperability by showing that shared vocabulary supports interaction across distinct regimes where domestic law supplies identifiable actors, procedures, timeframes, and legal consequences. The article treats the consistency and effectiveness of rights handling, remedies, supervision, and transfer administration in practice as a further question for enforcement records and later empirical study.
Abstract This article examines: • What are the human rights limitations relevant to personal data sharing across borders and their application taking the UK as a case study? • To what extent do the European legal frameworks authorize personal data sharing among states themselves, with specific reference to practice in the UK? • How does the UK practice regarding personal data sharing on non-citizens apply from the perspective of the European and international legal frameworks? • Does the value of personal data as a form of exchange across borders reflect political and legal concern for governments?
