Suchergebnisse

This Article draws upon the international relations theory of regimes to analyze the growing chorus of challenges to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), and to the expansion of intellectual property rights more generally. The few years since TRIPs entered into force have seen nothing less than an explosion of interest in intellectual property issues in international fora not previously concerned with the products of human creativity or innovation. Intellectual property is now at or near the top of the agenda in intergovernmental organizations such as the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, in international negotiating fora such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's Conference of the Parties and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and in expert and political bodies such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights. In some of these venues, intellectual property lawmaking has led to the negotiation of new treaties; in others, challenges to TRIPs are framed through reinterpretation of existing agreements and the creation of nonbinding declarations, recommendations, and other forms of soft law. The theoretical and practical consequences of these new developments have yet to be fully explored. I argue in this Article that the expansion of intellectual property lawmaking into these diverse international fora is the result of a strategy of "regime shifting" by developing countries and NGOs that are dissatisfied with many of the provisions in TRIPs and are actively seeking ways to recalibrate, revise, or supplement them. State and non-state actors shift lawmaking initiatives from one international regime to another for many reasons. In the case of intellectual property rights, developing countries and their allies have shifted negotiations and hard and soft lawmaking initiatives to four international regimes - those governing biodiversity, plant genetic resources, public health and human rights - whose institutions, actors, and subject matter mandates are more closely aligned with these countries' interests. Within these four regimes, developing countries are questioning established legal prescriptions and generating new principles, norms, and rules of intellectual property protection for states and private parties to follow. Intellectual property regime shifting thus heralds the rise of a more complex international environment in which seemingly settled treaty bargains are contested and new dynamics of lawmaking and dispute settlement must be considered.

The last few years have been a particularly heady period for governments, private parties, and NGOs seeking to develop new rules to regulate intellectual property ("IP") protection standards. During that time, a slew of lawmaking initiatives, studies, and reports have been launched in a strikingly large number of international venues. Work on intellectual property rights is now underway in intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), and Food and Agriculture Organization ("FAO"); in negotiating fora such as the Convention on Biological Diversity ("CBD") and its Conference of the Parties and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; and in United Nations expert and political bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In some of these venues, IP lawmaking has involved the negotiation of new international agreements. In others, IP norms are being generated through the reinterpretation of existing treaties or the creation of nonbinding guidelines, resolutions, and other forms of soft law. This essay views these myriad developments through the lens of the international relations theory of regimes. It uses the insights of regime theory to make three basic points. First, it explains why IP lawmaking has broken out of the confined institutional spaces of established international IP fora, such as WIPO and the WTO, and has moved into a broad and growing array of other international venues in environmental law, human rights, and public health. Second, it shows how this recent expansion helps to enrich regime theory itself by illustrating how regimes evolve over time and how they interact with institutions and actors in other issue areas. And third, it describes a working typology of the different modes of interaction that are developing among the many international venues in which IP lawmaking is now occurring.

This Article explores issues at the frontier of international law and constitutional law. It considers five key structural and systemic challenges that the international legal system now faces: (1) decentralization and disaggregation; (2) normative and institutional hierarchies; (3) compliance and enforcement; (4) exit and escape; and (5) democracy and legitimacy. Each of these issues raises questions of governance, institutional design, and allocation of authority paralleling the questions that domestic legal systems have answered in constitutional terms. For each of these issues, I survey the international legal landscape and consider the salience of potential analogies to domestic constitutions, drawing upon and extending the writings of international legal scholars and international relations theorists. I also offer some preliminary thoughts about why some treaties and institutions, but not others, more readily lend themselves to analysis in constitutional terms. And I distinguish those legal and political issues that may generate useful insights for scholars studying the growing intersections of international and constitutional law from other areas that may be more resistant to constitutional analogies.

Human rights and intellectual property, two bodies of law that were once strangers, are becoming increasingly intimate bedfellows. Over the past three years, human rights bodies within the United Nations have devoted unprecedented attention to intellectual property issues, including patented medicines, digital copyrights, technology transfers, economic, social and cultural rights, plant variety protection, and economic development. Unlike the approaches adopted in established intellectual property lawmaking organizations such as the WTO and WIPO, the new human rights approach to intellectual property is often critical of existing standards of protection and it seeks to address legal and policy issues that intellectual property treaty makers and legislators often ignore. In this essay, I analyze two competing frameworks that governments, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations are using to conceptualize the intersection of human rights and intellectual property. The first approach views the two areas of law as in fundamental conflict, with strong intellectual property protection standards - in particular those of the TRIPs Agreement - undermining a broad spectrum of human rights. The second approach sees both areas of law as concerned with the same basic question: defining the appropriate scope of private monopoly power to give authors and inventors a sufficient incentive to create and innovate, while ensuring that the consuming public adequate access to the fruits of their efforts. The essay traces the evolution of these two competing approaches and explores their consequences for future international lawmaking.

A recent article in the California Law Review by Professors Eric Posner and John Yoo, Judicial Independence in International Tribunals, argues that the only effective international tribunals are dependent tribunals, by which the authors mean ad hoc tribunals staffed by judges closely controlled by governments through the power of reappointment or threats of retaliation. Independent tribunals, by contrast, meaning tribunals staffed by judges appointed on similar terms as those in domestic courts, pose a danger to international cooperation. According to Posner and Yoo, independent tribunals are suspect because they are more likely to allow moral ideals, ideological imperatives or the interests of other states to influence their judgments. In this response, we identify the many shortcomings in the theory, methodology, and empirics in Judicial Independence in International Tribunals. We do so to challenge the authors' core conjecture: that formally dependent international tribunals are correlated with effective judicial outcomes. We then offer our own counter-theory; a theory of constrained independence in which states establish independent international tribunals to enhance the credibility of their commitments and then use more fine grained structural, political, and discursive mechanisms to limit the potential for judicial excesses.