Most all nations recognize the need to protect intellectual property in some form due to its potential value. In 1994, the signatory nations of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade signed the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), an ambitious international convention that set forth an international baseline for patent, copyright, and trademark protection. In addition to providing procedures for the settlement of property disputes, one practical effect of TRIPs has been the harmonization of the world's patent laws. In 1994, the United States passed the Uruguay Round Agreement Act, legislation that implemented several changes to domestic patent law required by TRIPs. Although opinions, especially those of developing nations, debate the fairness of TRIPs, the Agreement represents an effective balance among competing interests and a m~or step towards world patent law harmonization.
Title in full text: Hong Kong's International Legal Obligations toward Refugees and Asylum Seekers ; For Consideration at the Joint Meeting of the Legislative Council Panels on Welfare Services and Security on the situation of asylum seekers, refugees and claimants against torture in Hong Kong on 18 July 2006 ; Hong Kong needs a comprehensive, systematic policy toward asylum seekers and refugees based on international standards, including provisions currently applicable to Hong Kong by virtue of the SAR"s obligations under domestic and international human rights law and customary international law. This policy should include implementation of a legal framework that provides for a refugee status determination mechanism and basic protections for refugees. Extension of the Refugee Convention and Protocol to Hong Kong would highlight that refugee protection is a matter of basic international human rights, as distinct from a mere immigration control issue that may be subject to periodic shifts in policy. Extension of the Convention and the resulting obligations would also ensure the full range of refugee rights and be preferable to relying on current international and domestic legal requirements. ; published_or_final_version
Why do states feel obliged to obey the rules of international law? The political elites who act in the name of states, their counterparts in international organisations and non-governmental organisations, and their ever more internationally-attuned populations all speak and act as though international law incurs real obligations. Yet existing accounts of international legal obligation suffer from the problem of 'interiority', in that they first ground obligation in some internal feature of the international legal system—such as sanction, consent, or discourse—but when these turn out to be insufficient they fall back on arguments about the legitimacy of the system as a whole, for which they cannot account. The roots of this problem lie in the underlying conceptions of politics that inform these accounts, and to overcome this problem I advance an alternative, 'interstitial' understanding politics which integrates 'idiographic', 'purposive', 'moral', and 'instrumental' forms of reason and action. This in turn allows the development of an 'holistic' conception of institutional rationality and an 'anterior' theory of international legal obligation. These innovations enable us to explain the relationship between historically grounded modes of politics and the legitimacy of particular institutional forms, including the modern system of international law. I illustrate this argument with an explanation of the logic of obligation that undergirded the international legal system of Absolutist Europe, where the legitimacy of the divine ordained political order was the primary source of obligation and fealty to God, not consent, was the salient signifier of such duty.
The author draws on international treaties to argue that the provision of immigrant and refugee settlement services are human rights obligations. Therefore, services such as primary health care, food, education and housing are minimum core obligations that should be available to newcomers without discrimination. The implications of this position for advocacy initiatives are substantial. Instead of pleading for services from governments, activists, supported by international committees, would hold governments accountable for implementing international human rights treaties. ; L'auteur s'appuie sur les traités internationaux pour étayer l'argumentation selon laquelle la mise en place de services favorisant l'intégration des immigrant et des réfugiées sur un territoire est une obligation relevant des Droits de l'Homme. Conséquemment des services comme les soins élémentaires de santé, la distribution de nourriture, l'instruction et le logement sont des obligations minimales fondamentales dues à tout nouvel arrivant sans discrimination. Plutôt que de quémander des services aux gouvernements, les activistes, appuyés par les comité internationaux, se doivent de tenir les gouvernements légalement responsables de l'application concrète des traités internationaux sur les Droits de l'Homme.
The objectives of the Workshop were: to review the regional countries' state of research and breeding activities, biotechnology research capacity, trade in agricultural biological products, formal and informal seed sectors and national IPR relevant for agriculture and PGR; to assess implications for the implementation of TRIPS, particularly Art 27.2(b), for the SADC region; to review the draft sui generis legislative frameworks developed by IPGRI on PGR, and that in Zimbabwe; to get feedback on their possible usefulness as a basis for further developments of similar national legislation; to stimulate discussion among regional stakeholders in the implementing of Art. 27.3(b) of TRIPS, WTO and related IPR regimes; and to identify common regional interests and possible synergies for implementation
This issue of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law is devoted to the Symposium on Biological Diversity that was convened by the Journal at the Vanderbilt University School of Law on January 20-21, 1995. The focus of the Symposium was the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Biological diversity is a relatively new term in international law and relations. The Biological Diversity Convention was one of the products of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) that was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June of 1992. Since the Convention was a product of UNCED, its substance was influenced by the trends surrounding the entire UNCED process. The Biological Diversity Convention entered into force on December 29, 1993, after 30 states ratified it. By the time the first conference of the parties was held a year later, there were 106 parties and 30 observer states. Initially, the United States did not sign the Convention and has not yet become a party. The Bush Administration opposed the Convention, but the Clinton Administration signed the Convention and submitted it to the United States Senate for its advice and consent subject to certain understandings. For some in the United States, the Convention is controversial. The Symposium examined the Convention and issues raised by it from a global perspective and from a domestic United States perspective. Although this is a law school journal, the Symposium organizers wisely included on the program not only lawyers (from academia and government) but also persons from other disciplines, including economics, statistics, and business. Participants in the audience contributed views from other disciplines.
"Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations." ; "January 2001." ; Shipping list no.: 2001-0174-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; At head of title: 106th Congress, 2d session. Committee print. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Microform. ; Mode of access: Internet.
Today, one of the biggest obstacles facing inventors is the problem of patent harmonization. Inventors, who spend their time, money, and resources to develop new technology, are faced with the problem of ensuring that their new development receives patent protection not only in their home countries, but also worldwide. This problem is complicated by the fact that the United States maintains a different patent filing process than most other developed nations. Efforts of the international community to harmonize these different approaches, however, have been only partially successful. In this Article, Professor Wegner examines the latest attempt by the international community to harmonize patent law minimum standards. First, Professor Wegner traces the historical path of harmonization, examining previous efforts at patent harmonization by the European Union and the United Nations Committee of Experts. He then examines the reluctance of the United States to move to a "first-to-file" patent system. In addition, Professor Wegner examines the requirements of the new Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS). In support of the TRIPS Agreement, he urges the United States to honor the treaty commitments in this area so that the world can more quickly develop a fair system to deal with the global patent problem.
After the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad on August 19, UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan told press that the United Nations had been aware of the dangerous situation in Iraq. At the same time the UN also had hoped that the occupying powers, the United States and the United Kingdom, would take the necessary precautions to enable the UN staff in Iraq to exercise their mandate in a safe environment. This comment raises the fundamental question of the nature and extent of the protection duties of an occupying power under international law.(SWP Comments / SWP)
This thesis investigates from a rhetorical perspective a theory of an arguer's dialectical obligations to deal with objections and alternative positions. Ralph H. Johnson argues that, besides offering a good reason to support the thesis advanced, an arguer is obliged to offer a dialectical tier, an added level in which the arguer responds to objections or alternative positions. In developing a theory of an arguer's dialectical obligations, argumentation scholars from an informal logical perspective do not seem to have a guiding theory that helps to specify which objections and alternative positions the arguer is obliged to address. This thesis examines whether the classical rhetorical theory of stasis can help an arguer anticipate possible objections and alternative positions in a systematic way. Classical stasis theory consists of potential stases, or the types of "points at issue," to be argued in court. They are the stases of conjecture (fact), definition, quality (value), and legal procedure. Since these often become actual issues, the arguer must address them. However, the implications of classical stasis theory for an arguer's dialectical obligations and argumentation in general seem to be limited, because of its strong tie with substance of legal matters. In order to overcome the shortcomings of classical stasis theory, this thesis generalizes each of the constituent stases. By removing elements specific to legal argumentation from constituent stases and generalizing them, this thesis claims that a generalized stasis theory will cover more types of issues, and accordingly more types of objections and alternative positions. Since the issues specified in a generalized stasis theory are likely to be focus of controversy, the arguer has obligations to reply to them.Dept. of History, Philosophy, and Political Science. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2000 .K66. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-03, page: 0574. Adviser: John Anthony Blair. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2000.
This paper provides a detailed overview of the rights and duties of both seller and buyer under the Vienna Sales Convention. It does so in the light not only of the text of the Convention but also of the emerging case law of various countries, which is reviewed and taken into account. The overview also attempts to contrast the rules of the Convention with the rules applicable in Belgian contract law. ; Peer reviewed
This Article will first discuss the legal importance of challenging sodomy laws, even though those laws are rarely enforced. It will then discuss the importance of incorporating international and comparative law in formulating these challenges. In Section II, Professor Charlene Smith will discuss past and future strategies, focusing on the topics of equal protection, morality, and the difference (or lack thereof) between acts and status. In Section III, Professor Jim Wilets will explore incorporating international and comparative law into domestic challenges to U.S. sodomy laws. This Article will demonstrate that there is binding Supreme Court authority requiring all U.S. courts to respect, whenever possible, the international obligations of the United States federal government when interpreting federal and state law. This Article will also demonstrate that there is a clearly articulated federal policy, by both the Executive Branch and United States Senate, to respect and implement those international obligations that require the United States to decriminalize same-sex consensual sexual relations.
A range of international human rights instruments, declarations and resolutions affirm that good health is a precondition for the enjoyment of all other human rights and for participation in socio-economic and political life. However, many people across the globe (especially in Africa and Asia) lack access to essential medicine. This article argues that access to medication, treatment and care is an essential element of effective responses to pandemics and other diseases. In particular, it is argued that international law imposes a minimum core (and non-derogable) obligation on states to provide essential medicine. In recognition of the increasing role that private actors are playing in ensuring access to essential medicine, their human rights obligations relating to access to essential medicine are also explored.
While there are multiple obligations to rescue individuals lost at sea, mostly expressed in multilateral treaties, there are limited mechanisms for enforcing those laws. Enforcement needs to be accomplished through criminal law, as the civil lawsuit is a poor mechanism. The United States and Australia provide adequate examples of the implementation, or lack thereof, of international treaties into criminal law. However, even where the various treaties have been incorporated into the law of the nation by implementing legislation, the enforcement remains ineffective. This is partially because the onus of enforcement falls primarily on the flag state of the ship in question, and many such states are unable or unwilling to use their criminal law to prosecute those who violate the obligation to assist at sea. Although there are ways for other countries to enforce the law of the sea upon a ship flying a foreign flag, such mechanisms are limited in application, unlikely to be utilized, and can be less effective than those of the flag state. Weighing against enforcement are strong commercial disincentives to rescue those lost at sea. In addition to the out-of-pocket costs incurred by ship's owners, the operator can also lose significant profit for the hours or days the ship is in port or indisposed as a result of the rescue. It is likely that the latter costs will not be covered by insurance. As a consequence of these competing interests, it is probable that even if ports of call were to allow immediate offloading of refugees, it would fail to solve the problem, as the commercial disincentives still outweigh nonexistent criminal sanctions.
On his first day in office, U.S. President George W. Bush reinstated a policy that restricts United States Agency for International Development funding of foreign non-governmental organizations. A year and a half later, President Bush attracted media attention by rejecting funding commitments to the United Nations Population Fund ("UNFPA") based on its alleged involvement with the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). The PRC, in an effort to curb rampant population growth, has adopted a one child per couple policy. This policy has, in some cases, led to the use of coercive family planning practices such as forced abortion and sterilization. Though the UINFPA does not contribute to such coercive measures, the Bush Administration felt the only way to be sure that U.S. dollars were not funding such activities was to discontinue funding completely. Despite national practices, international law binds both the PRC and the United States to protect an individual's reproductive rights. Such rights include the right to determine the size and spacing of one's family without government control, the right to reproductive health, and the right of access to family planning information and contraceptives. These rights are recognized and protected by both international treaty law and international reproductive rights policy. The coercive policies of the PRC and the funding policies of the United States, thus violate international treaty obligations and are poor international policy. To meet its international obligations and policies, the United States should ratify the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights so that funding is no longer discretionary and dependent on executive prerogative. Although these treaties and policies already bind the PRC, the PRC will only be able to move in the direction of protecting human rights and reproductive rights with international financial support, including support from the United States.
