A Study on Global Legislative Cases of National Technology Security


Summary

The inseparable relationship between science, technology, economy, and politics has become a crucial security issue, driving nations to compete for industrial and technological supremacy. This study examines the emergence of technology security policies and ongoing legislative discussions worldwide, focusing on the cases of major economies such as the United States, China, and Japan. Traditionally, technology security has been managed at the corporate and industrial levels for economic reasons. However, advanced technology is now recognized as a national security asset, necessitating strategic planning at the governmental level. This study underscores the importance of establishing national strategies for technology security, strengthening the functions of relevant government organizations, and expanding technological diplomacy as part of institutional and policy measures.

Introduction

Nations have long developed and refined systems for analyzing and utilizing information assets to protect national interests. For instance, the U.S. enacted the National Security Act of 1947 to integrate interdepartmental policies and regulate intelligence collection and counterintelligence activities. Over time, national intelligence and counterintelligence efforts have evolved in response to social changes.

During the Cold War, intelligence and counterintelligence were primarily focused on military security. However, following the post-Cold War period and significant global events such as the 9/11 attacks, security concerns have expanded beyond bilateral relations to multilateral and global dimensions. This shift has also led to an expanded scope of intelligence and counterintelligence, extending beyond physical security to economic and societal concerns, thereby addressing emerging security challenges.

The COVID-19 pandemic further emphasized technology as a critical security asset. The U.S. policy stance toward China under both the Trump and Biden administrations has increasingly classified advanced industrial technologies as strategic assets. Consequently, technology security has transcended corporate responsibility and emerged as a national security concern, warranting discussions within the domains of national intelligence and counterintelligence.

Recognizing this, South Korea amended the "Act on Prevention and Protection of Industrial Technology Leakage" in 2019 and enacted the "Special Act on Strengthening and Protecting National Strategic Industries" in 2022. These legislative efforts, particularly the designation of semiconductors, batteries, and vaccines as national strategic technologies, highlight the growing intersection between economic security and national security.

Theoretical Discussion: Technology Security and Counterintelligence

Technology security is increasingly perceived not as a mere corporate asset but as a crucial national security resource. This trend underscores the need for counterintelligence frameworks that address the protection of advanced industrial technologies. The study defines technology security within the realm of economic security, focusing on counterintelligence measures, protection of national strategic technologies, global supply chain management, international standards cooperation, multilateral trade policies, and cybersecurity.

The study analyzes four key elements of counterintelligence related to technology security:

  1. Counterintelligence measures to prevent industrial espionage and technology leaks.

  2. Legal and institutional protections for industrial technology.

  3. Strategic materials and technology management.

  4. Research security and safeguarding critical knowledge assets.

Key Features of Technology Security Legislation in Major Countries

1) The United States

The U.S. approach to technology security legislation can be categorized into three main areas:

  • Industrial Espionage Prevention: The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 provide legal mechanisms to counter foreign government-backed industrial espionage.

  • Export and Investment Restrictions: Laws such as the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 regulate foreign investments and strategic exports, particularly targeting China.

  • Allied Cooperation and Supply Chain Resilience: Initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and the Chip 4 Alliance aim to strengthen U.S.-led economic security structures while excluding China from key technological ecosystems.

2) China

China has implemented legal frameworks to strengthen its technological security, particularly through:

  • Trade and Investment Regulations: The 2020 Export Control Law regulates strategic material exports, exemplified by recent gallium and germanium export restrictions.

  • Counterintelligence and National Security Laws: The 2023 amendment to China’s Counter-Espionage Law expands state surveillance capabilities, enabling the government to monitor foreign entities and control access to corporate data under national security justifications.

3) Japan

Japan has pursued legislative measures to enhance technology security, including:

  • Revisions to the Science and Technology Basic Law: Recognizing innovation as a national economic asset, Japan has established industrial information analysis systems.

  • Legislative Safeguards: Laws such as the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act regulate the management of strategic technologies and supply chains.

  • Counterintelligence Concerns: Following incidents of industrial espionage involving Chinese researchers, Japan is considering additional measures to restrict access to sensitive technology and enhance counterintelligence oversight.

U.S.-China Technology Rivalry and Counterintelligence Strategies

The ongoing technological rivalry between the U.S. and China has led to increasing counterintelligence competition. Three notable events illustrate this trend:

  1. The Huawei Ban: The U.S. and its allies imposed restrictions on Huawei’s telecommunications equipment, citing security risks associated with potential Chinese government backdoors.

  2. The Thousand Talents Plan Controversy: A Harvard professor was prosecuted for undisclosed participation in China's Thousand Talents Program, highlighting concerns over foreign talent recruitment for technology transfer.

  3. Semiconductor Restrictions: The U.S. has imposed strict export controls on semiconductor technology to China, enlisting allies like the Netherlands to block sales of advanced lithography equipment to Chinese firms.

Implications for South Korea’s Counterintelligence Legislation

Given the increasing emphasis on technology security, South Korea should consider the following policy recommendations:

  1. Establish a National Technology Security Strategy: A high-level governmental commitment to technology security, potentially through a designated security office within the Presidential Office.

  2. Develop a Comprehensive Technology Security Database: Monitoring supply chain vulnerabilities to anticipate future disruptions.

  3. Strengthen Counterintelligence and Research Security: Enhancing coordination between intelligence agencies and industrial sectors to prevent knowledge leaks.

  4. Expand Diplomatic Engagement on Technology Security: Strengthening supply chain partnerships with countries rich in strategic resources.

  5. Balance Counterintelligence Measures with Civil Liberties: Avoiding authoritarian-style surveillance while ensuring robust technology security frameworks.

  6. Adopt a Flexible Decoupling Approach: Moving beyond rigid decoupling narratives to a more nuanced, sector-specific assessment of economic security.

  7. Legislate for Long-Term Resilience: Developing adaptive legal frameworks that consider geopolitical shifts and rapid technological advancements.

Conclusion

Advanced technology is now a critical national security asset, requiring comprehensive protection measures. While the U.S. and China take divergent approaches, South Korea must navigate the geopolitical landscape carefully, balancing national security concerns with economic growth. As technology security legislation evolves globally, South Korea should develop tailored counterintelligence policies that protect its strategic industries while maintaining a democratic and open society.

This blog post summarizes research findings from: Park, Sang-hoon; Lee, Jae-hoon; Kim, Il-gi. (2023). "Counterintelligence Legislation for Strengthening Technology Security: A Study on Global Legislative Cases." National Intelligence Studies 16(2), 37-82.

댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

About the Author: Drytree

About the Author: Drytree (Jaehoon Lee) I am a senior researcher specializing in deep tech startups, technology commercialization, and R&BD strategy at a national research institute in South Korea. With a deep curiosity about the rapid evolution of technology and its impact on society, I have been writing under the pen name Drytree since 2021, aiming to make complex technological trends more accessible and foster informed discussions on innovation and policy. My academic background is diverse, spanning Political Science (B.A.), International Politics (M.A.), and currently, a Ph.D. in Technology Management & Entrepreneurship . I have published 13 academic papers in domestic and international journals, covering topics such as patent analysis, technology security, and industrial policy . Books & Publications I have authored several books exploring technology, startups, and geopolitical implications of innovation , including: Elon Musk’s DOGE: The Dawn of a New Economic Exper...
자세한 내용 보기

Elon's DOGE will expand their influence in NASA

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is expanding its influence over U.S. federal agencies to the space sector by intervening in NASA’s budget execution. According to reports from Bloomberg and Reuters, DOGE officials are set to conduct a comprehensive review of NASA’s expenditures, signaling a new shift in the government’s budget management approach. Related Articles: 🔗 Reuters - Acting NASA Chief Says DOGE Plans to Examine Space Agency’s Spending (Feb 12, 2025) 🔗 Bloomberg - Musk’s DOGE Workers Are Headed to NASA for Spending Review (Feb 12, 2025) NASA’s acting administrator stated that DOGE intends to analyze the agency’s financial management and assess its spending structure. This process may lead to adjustments in the budget for space exploration and research and development. As the leading institution for U.S. space development, NASA is spearheading major projects such as the Artemis program and the Lunar Gateway . Given that Musk’s SpaceX collaborates with N...
자세한 내용 보기

Leading the AI Era: NVIDIA’s Journey of Innovation and Transformation

  NVIDIA’s story began in 1993 when Jensen Huang, Chris Malachowsky, and Curtis Priem founded the company in Silicon Valley with a bold vision: to revolutionize graphics processing and redefine the multimedia experience. At a time when computer games and graphic software were rapidly gaining traction, existing hardware struggled to keep pace with demand. NVIDIA set out to overcome these limitations by developing high-performance graphics hardware that would transform not only gaming but the entire computing landscape. The Birth of a Game-Changer: The Rise of the GPU In its early years, NVIDIA’s primary focus was on creating a graphics processing unit (GPU) that could deliver unprecedented performance for gaming and multimedia applications. This vision was brilliantly realized in 1999 with the launch of the GeForce 256—the world’s first GPU. The GeForce 256 was a breakthrough product, capable of real-time 3D rendering with support for 32-bit color, transformation, and lighting effec...
자세한 내용 보기