Suchergebnisse

To deal with the climate crisis we need a new paradigm of technological and social development aimed at the restoration of ecological systems - the bio-digital energy paradigm. How do we get to this paradigm? The book draws on more than 250 interviews across 17 key countries to present a practical answer this question. We need a strong state to lead. There are four possible leaders - the EU, US, China and India. China is best placed to lead. It is building experimental cities like eco-cities and sponge cities out of which could grow the climate survival governance that the world badly needs.

Section 1 : Social-psychological foundations and methodological issues -- Section 2 : Theories and concepts of regulation -- Section 3 : The state and regulatory transformations -- Section 4 : Rights-based regulation -- Section 5 : Crime and regulation -- Section 6 : Regulating for health -- Section 7 : The regulation of commerce -- Section 8 : Regulatory futures.

This volume introduces readers to regulatory theory. Aimed at practitioners, postgraduate students and those interested in regulation as a cross-cutting theme in the social sciences, Regulatory Theory includes chapters on the social-psychological foundations of regulation as well as theories of regulation such as responsive regulation, smart regulation and nodal governance. It explores the key themes of compliance, legal pluralism, meta-regulation, the rule of law, risk, accountability, globalisation and regulatory capitalism. The environment, crime, health, human rights, investment, migration and tax are among the fields of regulation considered in this ground-breaking book. Each chapter introduces the reader to key concepts and ideas and contains suggestions for further reading. The contributors, who either are or have been connected to the Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet) at The Australian National University, include John Braithwaite, Valerie Braithwaite, Peter Grabosky, Neil Gunningham, Fiona Haines, Terry Halliday, David Levi-Faur, Christine Parker, Colin Scott and Clifford Shearing.

"After colonization, indigenous people faced an extractive property rights regime for both their land and knowledge. This book outlines that regime, and how the symbolic function of international intellectual property continues today to assist states to enclose indigenous peoples' knowledge. Drawing on more than 200 interviews, Peter Drahos examines the response of indigenous people to the colonizer's non-developmental property rights. The case studies reveal how they have adapted to the state's extractive order through a process of regulatory bricolage. In order to create a new developmental future for themselves, indigenous developmental networks have been forged - high trust networks that include partnerships with science. Intellectual Property, Indigenous People and their Knowledge argues for a developmental intellectual property order for indigenous people based on a combination of simple rules, principles and a process of regulatory convening"--

The paper draws on an argument from Hanns Ullrich that the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) suffers for a legitimacy gap. This gap takes the form of an external conditioning of states' sovereignty over innovation in markets. The paper argues there is a less-discussed and somewhat darker legitimacy gap of TRIPS. This gap relates to the US national security state (NSS) and its use of intellectual property to regulate globally innovation in weapons systems. The paper traces the links between the NSS, intellectual property and weapons innovation from World War II to the present day. TRIPS has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the NSS because it has failed to hold back China's innovation in defense-sensitive areas such as 5G technology. Drawing on the work of Carl Schmitt, the paper offers a phenomenological reading of the NSS' view of legitimacy. The paper finishes with an examination of the implications of Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction for the future of intellectual property and the US-China relationship.

Are intellectual property rights like other property rights? More and more of the world's knowledge and information is under the control of intellectual property owners. What are the justifications for this? What are the implications for power and for justice of allowing this property form to range across social life? Can we look to traditional property theory to supply the answers or do we need a new approach? Intellectual property rights relate to abstract objects – objects like algorithms and DNA sequences. The consequences of creating property rights in such objects are far-reaching. A Philosophy of Intellectual Property argues that lying at the heart of intellectual property are duty-bearing privileges. We should adopt an instrumentalist approach to intellectual property and reject a proprietarian approach – an approach which emphasises the connection between labour and property rights. The analysis draws on the history of intellectual property, legal materials, the work of Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, Marx and Hegel, as well as economic, sociological and legal theory. The book is designed to be accessible to specialists in a number of fields as well as students. It will interest philosophers, political scientists, economists, and legal scholars, as well as those professionals concerned with policy issues raised by modern technologies and the information society.

Does the evolution of the intellectual property regime hold any lessons for the climate change regime? The paper argues that the architecture of the intellectual property regime recognizes the complexity of free-riding behaviour and divides the problem amongst a number of treaties. The integration of intellectual property trade standards into the trade regime provides plaintiff states with a way to inflict both political and economic costs on free riders. Perhaps the most important lesson relates to the way in which a highly coordinated international business network was able to shift intellectual property into the multilateral trade regime and obtain standards most countries at the time did not really want because they were net intellectual property importers.

The article distinguishes three categories of hope: private, collective, and public. Public hope is hope that is invoked by political actors in relation to a societal goal of some kind. The article argues that public hope is the most dangerous kind of hope. The argument is developed using the recent history of trade negotiations between the United States and developing countries concerning intellectual property rights as they relate to life-saving medicines for AIDS. Public hope may allow political actors to harness emotionally collectivities to economic and social agendas that are poorly understood by those collectivities and that are ultimately destructive of the social institutions upon which actual private and collective hopes depend. Or public hope maybe secret hope that drives policies that escape public notice until it is too late. The final section of the article identifies four principles that help to make public hope a contingent force for the good.

Does the evolution of the intellectual property regime hold any lessons for the climate change regime? The paper argues that the architecture of the intellectual property regime recognizes the complexity of free-riding behaviour and divides the problem amongst a number of treaties. The integration of intellectual property trade standards into the trade regime provides plaintiff states with a way to inflict both political and economic costs on free riders. Perhaps the most important lesson relates to the way in which a highly coordinated international business network was able to shift intellectual property into the multilateral trade regime and obtain standards most countries at the time did not really want because they were net intellectual property importers.

The article distinguishes three categories of hope: private, collective, and public. Public hope is hope that is invoked by political actors in relation to a societal goal of some kind. The article argues that public hope is the most dangerous kind of hope. The argument is developed using the recent history of trade negotiations between the United States and developing countries concerning intellectual property rights as they relate to life-saving medicines for AIDS. Public hope may allow political actors to harness emotionally collectivities to economic and social agendas that are poorly understood by those collectivities and that are ultimately destructive of the social institutions upon which actual private and collective hopes depend. Or public hope maybe secret hope that drives policies that escape public notice until it is too late. The final section of the article identifies four principles that help to make public hope a contingent force for the good.