Hi Zeljana,

Please ask this very question on Googl, just as did now and you will find abundant results that can guild you through your project.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would implementing Cyber security structures can facilitate trade within APEC member economies borders?

Dear Zeljana,

Thank you for starting this important discussion.

As a researcher in cybersecurity policy and AI-based defense systems, I agree that strengthening cross-border trust and security is essential for APEC 2025’s goals.

I’d be happy to share ideas or explore collaboration. Feel free to contact me at [email protected] or via LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joosung-kim-8a6789346

Best regards,

Joosung Kim

Cybersecurity & AI Systems Specialist

This is an essential question in the context of APEC 2025, where digital innovation and interoperability are at the core of economic development. Cross-border cybersecurity cooperation should not remain a political intention, but must evolve into a structured and operational framework. I offer the following key pillars for consideration:

1. Harmonization of Cybersecurity Standards Rather than imposing a unified standard, APEC should aim for a “standards interoperability layer”—a baseline alignment between ISO/IEC 27001, NIST CSF, and local regulations. A mapped compliance matrix can support mutual recognition and reduce trade friction. Japan–Singapore bilateral alignment could serve as a pilot.

2. Trust-Building Mechanisms for Digital Trade Trust is not built solely through regulation, but through transparency and verifiability. APEC could introduce cross-certified cybersecurity labels for digital service providers, based on independent audits, real-time vulnerability reporting, and public threat-sharing commitments. These would strengthen supply chain security and user confidence.

3. Institutional & Policy Coordination A dedicated APEC Cybersecurity Policy Coordination Unit could serve as a central node for incident response protocols, crisis simulations, and regulatory dialogue. Similar to the EU’s ENISA or ASEAN’s Cyber Capacity Building Centre, this body would ensure continuity beyond rotating political cycles.

4. Best Practices from Other Regions The Nordic Council’s cross-border cyber exercises and EU’s NIS2 Directive provide models for coordinated incident handling, shared risk assessments, and binding enforcement. APEC could adopt a lighter, adaptable model with regional flexibility but shared response baselines.

At the intersection of diplomacy and digital architecture, trust must be both engineered and governed. I would welcome the opportunity to contribute further to a policy brief or working group on this topic.

Best regards, Drd.Ing. Edi Marian Timofte Cybersecurity Researcher Ștefan cel Mare University of Suceava Cyber-Physical Systems & Digital Trust Group

Thank you so much for your comments