Search

The paper surveys the intellectual property (IP) laws of seven Southern African Development Community countries to better understand the nature, scope, and depth of their patent laws with particular focus on their utilisation of TRIPS flexibilities to facilitate pharmaceutical access. The selected countries – Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe – represent a mix of both major and modest economies. While the current literature contains widespread assertions on the impact and effect of TRIPS on access to medicines in these countries and less-developed countries in general, this paper finds that the countries lack explicit and workable provisions implementing key TRIPS flexibilities. Hence, available TRIPS flexibilities have not been well utilised and it is often the complicated and unworkable domestic framework – rather than TRIPS – which becomes the stumbling block to pharmaceutical access. Another major finding is that patents may not be a major impediment in the region given that few patents and even fewer pharmaceutical patents are filed. The paper argues that since the surveyed countries are mainly net IP importers with similar developmental contexts and aspirations, the best approach would be to fully take advantage of existing flexibilities and more aggressively leverage policy space to engender access to cheaper medicines.

There is a growing view among both governments and commentators, especially in the West, that China engages in acts of trade coercion which violate the law and spirit of the multilateral trading system. And while there is a developing literature discussing this issue, the debate currently lacks clarity about how China’s approach differs from other types of coercion which do not inspire the same backlash. This article advances the literature by suggesting that Chinese trade coercion is particularly threatening to the rules-based system (RBS) as it uses methods that had largely been eradicated under the GATT/WTO system. Chinese trade coercion therefore represents a “new” and important phenomenon in international trade as it uses coercion for strategic purposes, usually as retaliation for perceived affronts in matters unrelated to trade. We label this approach “passive-aggressive legalism” because, rather than relying on open dialogue to resolve diplomatic frictions, China implements informal and “plausibly deniable” retaliatory measures to indirectly make its displeasure known and felt. The article concludes by making broader claims about why China’s approach represents a threat to the WTO system and may even undermine the effectiveness of rules-based constraints in other domains of global regulation.

Focusing on capital controls, this study provides rigorous legal analysis to establish whether the mandate of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) extends to the capital account; that is, whether the IMF has the authority to control and/or regulate the use of capital controls by its member states. The book then analyses whether a country's use of capital controls is consistent with the obligations and commitments undertaken in various multilateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements. Finally, it analyses the tension within international economic law, as the IMF now encourages the use of capital controls under certain circumstances, while most trade/investment agreements prohibit or limit their use. Proposing a way forward to alleviate the tension and construct a more harmonious relationship between the norms and standards of finance, trade and investment, this study will be essential reading for policymakers.

This article critically examines the proposed waiver of intellectual property (IP) rights for COVID-19 vaccines under the World Trade Organization Agreement's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was initiated in October 2020 when the pandemic raged and vaccines were unavailable. However, the landscape has now changed and the waiver may no longer be necessary. The Outcome Document, introduced in the TRIPS Council in May 2022, along with Ministerial Decision of June 2022 recognizes this by focusing on easing the requirements to use TRIPS-flexibilities to accomplish wider and cheaper access. In so doing, the Ministerial Decision reinforces the notion that TRIPS flexibilities can be a useful part of the policy toolkit, even in times of crisis. After providing an overview of the context and outlining justifications for the waiver proposal, the article analyses and identifies key implications and possible effects of the Ministerial Decision. The article concludes that while the Document may not be a perfect solution to the issue of access to vaccines, flexible application of TRIPS-flexibilities is a better resolution in the current environment, especially given the need for further innovation to combat COVID-19 and future pandemics.

The ongoing impact of COVID-19 on global economic growth is likely to result in a retreat from financial globalization, including restrictions on capital movements. This concern arises from the experience of short-term capital control policies being implemented by countries in past financial crisis. This trend, together with China's long history of using capital controls, has further sparked fears in Hong Kong regarding the extent to which the capital control restrictions from Beijing could impact Hong Kong's open financial policy on capital transfers. With this context, this article evaluates situations where concerns have been raised and seeks to ascertain whether Hong Kong could be legally liable for the implementation of capital controls in Beijing. © 2021 The Author(s) (2021). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

This article assesses the arguments and challenges that are likely to arise should investors file an investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) claim over measures taken in response to a waiver of obligations relating to intellectual property rights (IPRs) under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). After providing an overview of the proposed waiver of IPRs for COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments, it examines the jurisprudence relating to IP and investor–State arbitration and the grounds upon which investors would rely to make a case in ISDS and possible State defences. The analysis, which focuses on fair and equitable treatment and expropriation, concludes that it will be difficult for investors to succeed in claiming that measures taken in response to a TRIPS waiver of IPRs breach any substantive protection provision contained in an international investment agreement. States should, however, seek additional security by revisiting existing treaties and adding additional layers of safeguards to ensure legitimate and non-discriminatory measures taken in response to a TRIPS waiver do not lead to investor claims.

Capital controls—measures taken to regulate the outflow or inflow of capital—are employed by governments to maintain financial stability and prevent or mitigate the effects of economic crises. For many decades capital controls were out of favour among economists and policymakers. Of late, however, they have become acceptable, if somewhat controversial, tools of financial policy, with the International Monetary Fund stating that ‘in certain circumstances, [capital controls] can be useful to support macroeconomic adjustment and safeguard financial stability’. Yet, little is known about the legality of capital controls under the various international treaties and rules of international organisations. This article introduces capital controls, traces their evolution over time, considers the success of short-term and long-term controls implemented in Chile, Malaysia, Iceland and China, and examines the consistency of selected controls with international rules and obligations. We suggest treaty language will be the critical factor in determining the legality of a particular capital control under a trade or investment agreement.

Data flows are becoming ever more important to smart cities. Owing to the plethora of interconnections, an action in one area can result in unintended consequences elsewhere–and while a holistic approach to managing data and data flows sounds desirable, it remains to be seen whether such an approach is achievable. This chapter will explore the conflicting legal and other issues smart cities face, including how to provide access to tools and data to enable creation of apps, content, or products and adapt products for local and global needs; how to encourage use and deployment of data-dependent systems such as artificial intelligence (AI); and how to allow companies to fulfil obligations to provide customer support, enable commercial transactions or the flow of digital currencies. Using Hong Kong as a case study, the chapter overviews Hong Kong’s quest to be a smart city, measures its progress against an objective, then evaluates the potential downsides of Hong Kong’s laissez-faire approach to regulation before advocating for the establishment of a coordinated framework and policy for managing cross-border data flows.

This opinion argues that jurisdictions should adopt a more holistic approach to pharmaceutical patents in order to increase coordination between the law and the broader objectives and priorities that should guide health and pharmaceutical policy. The opinion uses Hong Kong as an illustrative case study to demonstrate that a system which fails to set out clear policies, aims and objectives for its patent laws often ends up agreeing to TRIPS-plus standards in free trade agreements without any evidence as to the effect of the measures on wider societal interest. The opinion is therefore a call for jurisdictions to take a holistic approach to pharmaceutical patent law instead of simply looking at it from the lens of patent law and to push back against the system of “coerced conformity” which simply transplants IP maximalist measures into local law without even attempting to tailor the measures to suit the local priorities or framework. Such an approach would better place jurisdictions to effectively balance obligations, efficiency, costs and access to medicines for the populace.

Aiming to improve connectivity by building ‘roads’ that will channel economic development and achieve certain geopolitical and strategic objectives, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a critical element in China’s more comprehensive strategic play for a new and enhanced role in global economic governance. While often hyped by some as a modern form of the Marshall Plan, the BRI has been built on a weak foundation which threatens the economic and geopolitical objectives of the Initiative. This article focuses on the security of the Chinese international investment regime for private and state-owned investors confronting political and legal risks in BRI projects in various countries. Perhaps the greatest legal risk to Chinese investors is that China’s network of international investment treaties is insufficient to deal with the risks that Chinese investors face. After reviewing specific provisions and jurisprudence stemming from China’s treaties, the article provides possible mitigation strategies and solutions which China and investors can use to mitigate such risks

Aiming to improve connectivity by building ‘roads’ that will channel economic development and achieve certain geopolitical and strategic objectives, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a critical element in China’s more comprehensive strategic play for a new and enhanced role in global economic governance. While often hyped by some as a modern form of the Marshall Plan, the BRI has been built on a weak foundation which threatens the economic and geopolitical objectives of the Initiative. This article focuses on the security of the Chinese international investment regime for private and state-owned investors confronting political and legal risks in BRI projects in various countries. Perhaps the greatest legal risk to Chinese investors is that China’s network of international investment treaties is insufficient to deal with the risks that Chinese investors face. After reviewing specific provisions and jurisprudence stemming from China’s treaties, the article provides possible mitigation strategies and solutions which China and investors can use to mitigate such risks.

PurposeThis paper aims to reflect on the outcomes of the Nairobi Ministerial Conference of 2015, which, for all intents and purposes, put the Doha Round to rest and analyses the policy implications and lessons for policymaking at the World Trade Organization (WTO), most importantly the abandonment of the “single undertaking” and return to plurilateral agreements.Design/methodology/approachThe paper approaches the issue of WTO policymaking by analysing the various outputs produced both before and because of the Ministerial Conference.FindingsThe paper suggests that the Nairobi Ministerial has finally put an end to the Doha Round and comes to the conclusion that policymaking at the multilateral level (i.e. through the single undertaking) will change significantly in the future because the WTO Members are incapable of reaching a comprehensive agreement at this time. Instead, the current trend towards trade policymaking via FTA is likely to continue while the WTO focuses on plurilateral negotiations on narrow and discreet issues.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the literature on the analysis of global regulatory fragmentation and on trade policymaking. It draws attention, in particular, to the consequences of the last Ministerial Conference and highlights prospects for the future of global trade regulation.

The impasse of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round has spurred the proliferation of trade and investment agreements, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The fast-growing Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been attracting the attention of governments and enterprises, increasing its importance to global value chains and the world economy. This book explores the theoretical concept of ASEAN law within the broadly defined discipline of international economic law. More specifically, it sheds light on the roadmap to the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint 2025 by evaluating the impact of regional agreements on the business and commercial aspect of laws.

This article began as mere curiosity over what appeared to be a paradox – Singapore and Hong Kong share countless economic and geopolitical similarities and compete vigorously for foreign direct investment (FDI), yet only the former has become a pharmaceutical hub while the latter struggles to attract any FDI in the sector. To find the reason for the “drastic” difference in pharmaceutical FDI, we compare the economic, legal, policy, and regulatory frameworks of the two jurisdictions focusing on the factors that have been identified in the economic literature as having the most relevance for FDI decision-making. The analysis discounts economic and legal factors before finding variances in policy and regulatory frameworks as the critical difference accounting for the disparity in the pharmaceutical FDI. Given that Hong Kong occasionally considers transforming itself into the “pharmaceutical centre for the Asia-Pacific”, this article calls for a change in policy approach and strategy before this aspiration is considered more realistically.

Despite being included within the scope of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) for many decades, several recent high-profile cases have revealed the extent to which intellectual property rights (IPRs) can be deemed investments under an IIA. With substantive standards and textual language differing between and among the more than 3000 IIAs the situation is highly fragmented. Health advocates are concerned that non-discriminatory measures taken to promote health and safeguard public welfare may be deemed to violate an obligation under an investment treaty. Certain governments have been responsive to this concern and have begun to refine and improve the textual language of treaties. This chapter evaluates the most recent treaty language used in relation to IPRs and public health, with a particular focus on treaties negotiated by the United States and the European Union. The chapter finds that governments which are making efforts to safeguard public health and welfare are indeed providing enhanced protection for public welfare measures in key parts of IIAs, namely clauses on expropriation, fair and equitable treatment and through the use of stand-alone provisions. That being said, the article does identify potentially problematic textual language which warrants further consideration from treaty drafters in the future.

Considered as a secondary subject matter and largely ignored by international trade negotiators and the multilateral trade regime for some time, the importance of financial services in the wider sphere of international economic law has been steadily rising since the 2008 global financial crisis. First regulated internationally in the WTO’s GATS and the accompanying Annex on Financial Services, there remains much work to be done to further open and craft standards and rules for the sector. The text of the TPP had the capacity to play an important role in terms of liberalizing market access to financial services and in establishing a new set of standards and rules for their development at the global level. Financial services are both a trade and investment issue, yet negotiations have traditionally placed the issue within the trade ‘silo’ without recognising its important place as an investment issue. Negotiators of the TPP, in contrast, have followed the modern trend and added coherence to the issue by dealing with it both as a trade and investment issue, and rightfully placing financial services markets as a major investment playground. The TPP appeared to be a significant new player in the field of international economic law and this chapter therefore considers the TPP’s potential contribution to the liberalization of financial services by focusing on the idea that financial services may be promoted as a form of investment.

This article argues that the entry of Canada, Mexico and most importantly Japan has dramatically shifted the prospects and potential impact of the TPP. More specifically, the article offers four reasons why the entry of Canada, Mexico and Japan has transformed the TPP from a potentially failed agreement of limited economic significance and great geopolitical risk to a ‘game changer’ for the region and beyond. The article also recognizes that while the entry of Canada, Mexico and Japan has transformed the TPP negotiations, their entry comes with some potentially serious risks. The article discusses three specific risks the new entrants bring to the negotiations.

The high profile investment claims filed by Philip Morris challenging Uruguayan and Australian measures that restrict advertising and logos on tobacco packaging awakened the public health community to the existence and potential detrimental impact of international investment agreements (IIAs). More recently, Eli Lilly challenged Canada's invalidation of a pharmaceutical patent under an IIA. All of the cases claim that the intellectual property rights of the investor were infringed. As a result of these cases, many commentators and activists view IIAs as a threat to public health and have lobbied against their inclusion in ongoing trade negotiations. This article does not argue against IIAs. Instead, it seeks to demonstrate how more sophisticated treaty drafting can neutralize the threat to public health. In this regard, the article seeks to engage members of the public health community as campaigners not against IIAs but as advocates of better treaty drafting to ensure that IIAs do not infringe upon the right of a nation to take non-discriminatory measures for the promotion and protection of the health of their populations.Les plaintes en matière d'investissement très médiatisées, qui ont été déposées par Philip Morris contre les mesures australiennes et uruguayennes restreignant la publicité et les logos sur les emballages des produits à base de tabac, ont sensibilisé la communauté de la santé publique à l'existence et à l'impact potentiellement négatif des accords internationaux d'investissement (AII). Plus récemment, Eli Lilly a contesté l'invalidation par le Canada d'un brevet pharmaceutique en vertu d'un AII. Tous ces cas soutiennent que les droits de propriété intellectuelle de l'investisseur ont été bafoués. En raison de ces cas, de nombreux commentateurs et activistes considèrent ces AII comme des menaces pour la santé publique et ont fait pression pour qu'ils ne soient pas inclus dans les négociations commerciales en cours. Cet article ne plaide pas contre les AII. Il cherche plutôt à démontrer de quelle manière la rédaction de traités plus sophistiqués peut neutraliser la menace sur la santé publique. À cet égard, l'article vise à amener les membres de la communauté de la santé publique à faire campagne non pas contre les AII, mais en tant qu'avocats d'une meilleure rédaction des traités, afin de s’assurer que ces AII n'empiètent pas sur le droit d'une nation à prendre des mesures non discriminatoires pour la promotion et la protection de la santé de ses populations.Las demandas por inversiones de alto perfil presentadas por Philip Morris frente a las medidas uruguayas y australianas que restringen la publicidad y logotipos en el empaquetado de tabaco abrieron los ojos al sector de salud pública acerca de la existencia y el posible impacto negativo de los acuerdos internacionales de inversión (AII). Más recientemente, Eli Lilly desafió la invalidación de Canadá de una patente farmacéutica con arreglo a un AII. Todos estos casos demandan la violación de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de los inversores. Es por ello que muchos comentaristas y activistas consideran los AII una amenaza para la sanidad pública y han presionado en contra para evitar que sean incluidos en las negociaciones comerciales en curso. El presente artículo no argumenta en contra de los AII, sino que busca demostrar cómo es posible neutralizar la amenaza para la salud pública a través de una redacción de tratados más compleja. En este sentido, el artículo pretende involucrar a los miembros del sector sanitario público como activistas, no en contra de los AII, sino como defensores de una redacción de tratados mejorada que garantice que los AII no infringen el derecho de una nación a tomar medidas no discriminatorias para la promoción y protección de la salud de sus poblaciones.نبهت مطالبات الاستثمار البارزة، التي قدمتها فيليب موريس للاعتراض على تدابير أورغواي وأستراليا التي تقيد الإعلانات والشعارات على عبوات التبغ، مجتمع الصحة العمومية إلى وجود اتفاقات استثمار دولية وأثرها الضار المحتمل. وفي الآونة الأخيرة، اعترضت شركة إيلي ليلي على إبطال كندا لبراءة اختراع صيدلانية بموجب أحد اتفاقات الاستثمار الدولية. وتزعم جميع الدعاوى أنه تم انتهاك حقوق الملكية الفكرية للمستثمر. ونتيجة لهذه الدعاوى، ينظر الكثير من المعلقين والناشطين إلى اتفاقات الاستثمار الدولية باعتبارها تهديداً للصحة العمومية وشكلوا جماعات ضغط لإدراجها في المفاوضات التجارية الجارية. ولا تعارض هذه المقالة اتفاقات الاستثمار الدولية. ولكنها تسعى، بدلاً من ذلك، إلى توضيح كيفية معادلة التهديد على الصحة العمومية عن طريق صياغة معاهدة أكثر تطوراً. وفي هذا الخصوص، تسعى المقالة إلى إشراك أفراد مجتمع الصحة العمومية في الحملات ليس بصفة مناهضين لاتفاقات الاستثمار الدولية ولكن كمناصرين لصياغة معاهدة أفضل بغية ضمان عدم انتهاك اتفاقات الاستثمار الدولية حق أي دولة في اتخاذ تدابير غير تمييزية لتعزيز صحة سكانها وحمايتها.菲利普莫里斯公司（Philip Morris）提交的投资求偿备受瞩目，其向乌拉圭和澳大利亚限制烟草包装上广告和商标的措施发起挑战，这唤醒公众卫生界对国际投资协议（IIA）现有和潜在有害影响的关注。最近，礼来制药公司依据IIA对加拿大宣告药物专利无效提出抗辩。所有这些案例都宣称投资者的知识产权受到侵犯。这些案例让许多评论家和活动家将IIA视为公众健康的威胁，游说反对将其纳入正在进行的贸易谈判。本文并不反对IIA。相反，本文寻求证明更为巧妙的条约起草可以如何化解对公众健康的威胁。在此方面，本文试图让公共卫生界人士不要反对IIA，而是倡导通过更好的条约起草确保IIA不会侵犯各国采取非歧视性的措施促进和保护其人群健康的权利。Громкие инвестиционные претензии компании Philip Morris к мерам, предпринятым правительствами Уругвая и Австралии, ограничивающим рекламу и логотипы компаний-изготовителей на упаковках табачных изделий, привели к осознанию организациями общественного здравоохранения факта существования и потенциального вредного воздействия международных инвестиционных соглашений (МИС). Не так давно компания Eli Lilly оспорило решение о признании недействительным в Канаде фармацевтического патента, действующего на основе МИС. Во всех этих случаях утверждается о нарушении прав интеллектуальной собственности инвестора. В результате этих случаев многие обозреватели и активные участники процесса рассматривают МИС как угрозу для здоровья населения и активно выступают против их включения в текущие торговые переговоры. Авторы данной статьи не выступают против МИС. Напротив, в ней показывается, как более продуманная разработка договоров может нейтрализовать угрозу для здоровья населения. В этой связи, авторы статьи стремятся привлечь организации общественного здравоохранения не в качестве участников кампании против МИС, а в качестве сторонников более продуманной разработки торговых соглашений, обеспечивающих неущемление со стороны МИС прав наций на принятие недискриминационных мер с целью улучшения и охраны здоровья населения.

Much ink has already been spilt on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), including some quality legal and geo-political analysis and high level economic enquiry but also far too many premature predictions of textual language or economic impact. This brief article does not attempt to predict or analyse the legal text, which at the time of writing had not been finalised, but rather highlights four potential flow-on effects a finalised and in-force TPP will have on trade relations in East Asia: (1) China’s response; (2) the impact on the ongoing negotiations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) aimed at deeper regional integration; (3) unilateral trade liberalization and good governance initiatives by aspiring entrants to the TPP; and (4) Taiwan’s status as an economic entity and participation in regional trade agreements. To this author, the flow-on effects will have a considerable impact on and go some way in re-shaping trade relations between and among East Asian nation states.

This article explores the complex issues relating to the inclusion of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as an ‘investment’ in international investment agreements (IIAs). The potential impact of IPRs in IIAs on the regulatory sovereignty of a nation has for some time been underappreciated and undervalued in both practice and the academic literature. The issue became topical, and controversial, when cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris relied on IIAs to challenge IP-related tobacco regulations in Uruguay and Australia, but there persists a general lack of understanding of how IPRs are included in IIAs and the extent to which an IPR owner can rely on an IIA to enforce its rights. This article seeks to fill the gap by adding to existing knowledge of the inclusion and significance of IPRs in IIAs. More specifically, the article first reviews how IPRs qualify as a covered ‘investment’ in IIAs before introducing and analysing the relevance of some of the more significant clauses frequently appearing in IIAs. While extensive illustrative reference is made to the claims against both Uruguay and Australia the article does not purport to fully analyse either of those two ongoing disputes.