Search Results

An overview is provided of the economic rationales for protection of IPRs (intellectual property rights) and the reasons behind moves to adopt multilateral rules in this area. Some of the major conflicts of interest that shaped the TRIPs (Trade‐Related Intellectual Property Rights) agreement on this are summarized, as are the basic elements of the substantive disciplines imposed. The agreement is unique in the WTO (World Trade Organization) context in that it imposes obligations upon governments to adopt a set of substantive rules in an area that traditionally has been regarded as the purview of domestic regulation. It is an example of what Tinbergen (1954) has called ‘positive integration’; this is in contrast with the ‘negative’ integration found in the GATT, which involves agreements not to use certain policies that directly affect (distort) trade flows––such as export subsidies or quotas––or if used, imposes constraints on when and how trade policies may be applied. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of implementation‐related questions, focusing in particular on the options that exist to reduce the potential negative aspects of stronger IPRs on national welfare. The different sections are as follows: Intellectual property and international trade; International conventions and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) history; The Uruguay Round negotiations; WTO rules on intellectual property rights; Implementation concerns and challenges; and Conclusion.

This chapter explores the global trade regime, which viewed substantive equality as the first step towards true equality. It defines the terms substantive equality and barriers-to-trade, and then studies the WTO as a tool to discourage protectionist policies of member states to achieve the goal of reducing barriers to international trade. It looks at IP rights and protection, which is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and even summarizes the Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. This chapter concludes with a discussion on the Doha Declaration and its consequences for poorer nations.

An account is given of the organizational structure of the WTO (World Trade Organization), which was established as a multilateral trade organization on 1 January 1995 to encompass a modified GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), its sister bodies on services (GATS) and intellectual property (TRIPS), as well as all other agreements and arrangements concluded under the auspices of the Uruguay Round. The sections of the chapter are as follows: Scope, functions and structure of the WTO; Decision‐making; Transparency: notification and surveillance; Accession; The WTO and other international organizations; Nongovernmental actors and the WTO; and Conclusion.

This chapter argues that access to information about clinical trials and the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices should be recognized as a fundamental component of the right to health. An international registry can be developed without violating existing international trade or intellectual property agreements. It describes the existence of confidentiality obligations under international trade agreements. With the adoption of the FDA Amendment Act (FDAA), one can presume that the United States considers that limited mandatory trial registration and results reporting are compatible with its trade secrecy obligations under Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) plus agreements. The fundamental human right to health cannot be instrumental to the TRIPS obligations. It is noted that the civil society assists the development of further tools to promote the transparency and the reliability of medical research.

This chapter critically analyses the Trade and Sustainable Development (T&SD) chapter of the EU-Korea FTA. It undertakes a detailed consideration of the substantive and institutional provisions of the T&SD chapter, highlighting differences and similarities in regulatory approaches, vis-à-vis EU practice under other FTAs. The author also draws some comparisons with the environment and labour chapters of the Korea-United States FTA, concluded in 2007. The chapter also identifies and reflects on some critical legal and policy questions that are likely to arise in relation to bilateral cooperation under the T&SD chapter in the years to come. In the final section, the T&SD chapter is assessed in terms of its potential to act as an alternative model for regulating trade-environment and trade-labour linkages in the framework of regional trade agreements, as well as its broader implications for multilateral processes on these issues. It is suggested that the T&SD chapter in the EU-Korea FTA could set the standard for other FTAs subsequently negotiated by the EU. Moreover, institutionalised dialogue under the T&SD chapter may be used by the EU and Korea as a platform to forge common positions in international fora responsible for social, environmental and trade matters, notably the International Labour Organization, multilateral environmental bodies and the World Trade Organization.

This chapter explores the international politics of intellectual property protection within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It looks at power dynamics and the distributive issues of winners and losers to argue that the current emphasis on strict and expansive intellectual property rules has been initiated by the industrialized countries and their industries and does not cater to the needs of non-dominant actors, particularly developing countries. After providing an overview of intellectual property rights, capacity building, and “informational development” in developing countries, the chapter turns to the global governance of intellectual property and the rise of internationalism in intellectual property governance. It also discusses the globalization of intellectual property’s governance and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement before concluding by outlining ways in which non-dominant actors can exploit the flexibilities provided by the relevant mechanisms to promote developmental and public interest objectives.

This chapter draws some conclusions from the case studies presented in this book regarding the local impact of fair trade networks and certification. These case studies highlight the anthropology of fair trade as well as various types of fair trade commodities such as Darjeeling tea, coffee, crafts, and cut flowers. Fair trade proponents often argue that the initiative integrates geographically and culturally distant producers, consumers, and distributors into a single global partnership based on shared values and goals, but research among fair trade coffee producers in Mexico and the buyers of their coffee in the United States casts doubts about such unity. Based on these observations, the chapter outlines a broader path toward a more economically equitable and socially just exchange system at both the global and local levels. In particular, it urges those who sympathize with the goals of alternative trade to articulate a set of universal trading rights, analogous and perhaps related to those of human rights as expressed in the charters of various multinational organizations.

This chapter examines whether the competition rules in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) are adequate or not. The competition rules in the TRIPS Agreement leave each WTO Member substantial discretion in the development and application of competition law to intellectual property rights (IPRs), including the right to forestall anti-competitive abuses of IPRs. The chapter concludes that there are no compelling grounds for changing these TRIPS rules. Both IPRs and competition rules aim at promoting innovation and general consumer welfare and should be applied in a mutually compatible manner. As a ‘down-payment’ in the Doha Development Agenda, developed WTO Members should agree to reform their competition laws such that anti-competitive conduct undertaken by their enterprises in foreign markets is no longer exempted, tolerated, or encouraged.

This chapter examines the approach of the UK’s top court to the right to freedom of belief (Article 9 of the European Convention), the right to freedom of association (Article 11) and the right to marry (Article 12). By and large English law adequately protects these rights in line with the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights, but there are some exceptions. New challenges are constantly confronting the courts in areas such as education, employment, and immigration. Amongst the particular topics considered are the right to believe in assisted suicide, the right of trade unions to choose their own members, the right to demonstrate, and the right of transsexuals to marry. The emphasis is mostly on what restrictions on these rights are acceptable.

This chapter, which provides a preliminary blueprint for future information and communication technology (ICT) governance policies, uses theory of how global governance changes to connect shifts in United States policy to global policy decisions. It explains the principles for governance at the inflection point, which are high-level theories about cause and effect that organize problem solving through governance. The chapter then emphasizes ten norms that implement the principles and advance “trading rights” as an approach to problem solving through specific policies and delegations of authority. It suggests that there are strong political and economic motives to act, and so governments will affect the ICT infrastructure in some important ways.

The Patents Act, 1970 and its virtual abolition of a pharmaceutical patent regime did not go unchallenged by the innovator pharmaceutical industry of the developed world. Starting in the mid-1980s, the United States (US) spearheaded an effort to link trade in goods with trade in intellectual property under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Although India initially resisted even discussing the issue, it capitulated in Geneva in April 1989 in what came to be known as the famous ‘Geneva Surrender’. Once negotiations began, the USt cajoled India to agree to Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and a pharmaceutical patent regime. Joining the WTO and becoming a signatory to TRIPS required India to reinstate a pharmaceutical patent regime in exchange for greater trading benefits in other sectors, like textiles. This chapter recounts the diplomatic negotiations and national politics that led to India agreeing to TRIPS.

The Court of Justice has considered within a relatively short period of time a large number of trade mark cases from two perspectives: as an interpretive court for the purposes of both the Directive and the Regulation and as a supreme court of appeal under the Regulation and its implementing rules. In both contexts it has interpreted and applied provisions that were essentially identical. However, under the Regulation the Court also had to be supportive of the new Union-wide trade mark right and the bodies administering it. For example, by strengthening the role of the Boards of Appeal and streamlining their decision-making trends, the Court could achieve a number of things: make the registration process more efficient, raise the level of dependency on the decision-making instances of OHIM, make the appeal route to the courts in Luxembourg more difficult, and lessen the burden imposed on the General Court (previously the Court of First Instance) and the Court of Justice.

This chapter details developments in the harmonization of patent laws. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement has made significant strides in harmonizing levels of patent protection. TRIPs requires practically all countries of the world to have patent systems in which compounds, including pharmaceuticals, can be patented per se for a term of at least twenty years, with no local working requirements and no routine granting of compulsory licences; with importation of a product and sale of the product or a process being clearly defined as infringement; and with clear standards for the enforcement of patent rights. Other harmonization initiatives include the Patent Law Treaty, the Substantive Patent Law Treaty, the Trilateral Cooperation, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Nagoya Protocol.

In 1532 Guillaume Farel began Reforming preaching in Geneva. Fribourg’s Catholicism estranged it from Geneva (and Lausanne, where there was evangelically tinged hostility towards the bishop), but still asserted its claims on the Vaud. Bern, always more reluctant to force a breach with Savoy, now was willing to abandon claims to the entire Vaud in return for the pledge of four strategically important communes. Unrest in Geneva led to the (temporary) expulsion of Farel, while Fribourg felt compelled by its Catholicism to renounce its Burgrecht, but was still insisting on payment of war expenses (as was Bern). By 1535 Bern was willing to recognize Savoy’s rights over Geneva if the duke were willing to tolerate evangelical preaching.