Book contents
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I New and Old Challenges
- Part II Trade Policy and Trade-Related Concerns
- Part III Development Angles
- 11 The Trade-Migration Nexus from a Multilevel Perspective
- 12 TRIPS Implementation in Developing Countries
- 13 Investment Promotion and Facilitation for LDCs
- Part IV Diffusion across Economic Treaties
- Index
- References
12 - TRIPS Implementation in Developing Countries
Likely Scenarios to 2025
from Part III - Development Angles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2019
Book contents
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I New and Old Challenges
- Part II Trade Policy and Trade-Related Concerns
- Part III Development Angles
- 11 The Trade-Migration Nexus from a Multilevel Perspective
- 12 TRIPS Implementation in Developing Countries
- 13 Investment Promotion and Facilitation for LDCs
- Part IV Diffusion across Economic Treaties
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter sketches future scenarios of TRIPS implementation in developing countries by looking at past experience and current trends, and by comparing historical and cross-country patterns. The chapter focuses on the three largest emerging economies - Brazil, India, and China (BICs) - because they have the highest potential to shape the intellectual property regime. The chapter finally draws some lessons from these previous experiences to suggest what the likely positions of the BICs will be on TRIPS implementation up to 2025.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Shifting Landscape of Global Trade GovernanceWorld Trade Forum, pp. 275 - 294Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Beall, R. and Kuhn, R.. 2012. “Trends in Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals Since the Doha Declaration: A Database Analysis,” PLoS Med 9, (1): e1001154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, R. and Cahoy, D.. 2007. “The Emerging BRIC Economies: Lessons from Intellectual Property Negotiation and Enforcement,” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 5(3):400–21.Google Scholar
Carranza, M. E. 2004. “Mercosur and the End Game of the FTAA Negotiations: Challenges and Prospects after the Argentine Crisis,” Third World Quarterly 25(2):319–37.Google Scholar
Chan, L. H. 2010. China Engages Global Health Governance: Responsible Stakeholder or System-Transformer? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cheung, G. 2009. Intellectual Property Rights in China: Politics of Piracy, Trade and Protection. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christopher, May. 2006. World Intellectual Property Organization: Resurgence and the Development Agenda. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Correa, C. M. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights, the WTO and Developing Countries. New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Deere Birkbeck, C. 2008. The Implementation Game: The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Devonshire, C. et al. 2011. Intellectual Property Rights in China (China Briefing). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, M. 2009. Piracy and the State: The Politics of Intellectual Property Rights in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drahos, P. (2010). The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and Their Clients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ganesan, A. V. 2015. “Negotiating for India,” In: Watal, J. and Taubman, A. (Eds.), The Making of the TRIPS Agreement. Geneva: World Trade Organization, pp. 211–38.Google Scholar
Haunss, S. and Shadlen, K. C.. 2009. Politics of Intellectual Property: Contestation Over the Ownership, Use, and Control of Knowledge and Information. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kapczynski, A. 2008. “The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property,” Yale Law Journal 117:804–85.Google Scholar
Kapczynski, A. 2009. “Harmonization and Its Discontents: A Case Study of TRIPS Implementation in India’s Pharmaceutical Sector,” California Law Review 97:1571–649.Google Scholar
Kapoor, A. and Sharma, S.. 2015. “Intellectual Property Rights in India: Innovation and Competitiveness in the Indian Context,” India’s Innovation and IP Policies Working Paper.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S. 2005. The Business of Lobbying in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kher, R. 2013. “India in the World Patent Order,” In: Abbott, F. M., Correa, C. M. and Drahos, P. (Eds.), Emerging Markets and the World Patent Order. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 183–224.Google Scholar
Krizic, I. and Serrano, O.. 2017. “Exporting Intellectual Property Rights to Emerging Countries: EU and US Approaches Compared,” European Foreign Affairs Review 22(2):57–75.Google Scholar
Matthews, D. 2011. Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Development: The Role of NGOs and Social Movements. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercurio, B. and Tyagi, M.. 2010. “Treaty Interpretation in WTO Dispute Settlement: The Outstanding Question of the Legality of Local Working Requirements,” Minnesota Journal of International Law 19:275–326.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F. et al. 2018. “Rising Economies in the International Patent Regime: From Rule-breakers to Rule-changers and Rule-makers,” New Political Economy 23(3):255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J. M. 2007. “The Tiger Awakens: The Tumultuous Transformation of India’s Patent System and the Rise of Indian Pharmaceutical Innovation,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 68: 491–641.Google Scholar
Muzaka, V. and Serrano, O.. 2019. “Teaming-Up? China, India and Brazil and the Issue of Benefit-Sharing from Genetic Resource Use.” New Political Economy, doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1584169.Google Scholar
Netanel, N. W. (Ed.) 2009. The WIPO Development Agenda: Global Intellectual Property and Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oke, E. K. 2015. “Exploring the Flexibilities in TRIPS: Lessons from India’s Pharmaceutical Patent Law,” Commonwealth Law Bulletin 41(1):82–106.Google Scholar
Okediji, R. 2004. “Rules of Power in an Age of Law: Process Opportunism and TRIPS Dispute Settlement,” In: Kwan, C. and Hardigan, J. (Eds.), Handbook of International Trade. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 42–72.Google Scholar
Reichman, J. H. 2009. “Comment: Compulsory Licensing of Patented Pharmaceutical Inventions: Evaluating the Options,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37(2):247–63.Google Scholar
Reynolds, B. and Sell, S.. 2012. “China’s Role in Global Governance – Foreign Exchange and Intellectual Property: A Comparison,” Indiana University Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business Working Paper No. 31.Google Scholar
Sell, S. 1995. “Intellectual Property Protection and Antitrust in the Developing World: Crisis, Coercion, and Choice,” International Organization 49(2):315–49.Google Scholar
Sell, S. and Prakash, A.. 2004. “Using Ideas Strategically: The Contest between Business and NGO Networks in Intellectual Property Rights,” International Studies Quarterly 48:143–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, O. 2016. “China and India’s Insertion in the Intellectual Property Rights Regime: Sustaining or Disrupting the Rules?” New Political Economy 21(3):343–64.Google Scholar
Serrano, O. and Burri, M.. 2017. “Usufruindo das flexibilidades do TRIPS: implementação e difusão dos regimes de licenciamento compulsório no Brasil e na Índia” In: Menezes, H. (Ed.), Propriedade Intelectual Inovação Tecnológica e Saúde. Joao Pessoa: Editora UFPB.Google Scholar
Shadlen, K. C. 2005. “Policy Space for Development in the WTO and Beyond: The Case of Intellectual Property Rights,” Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper No. 6.Google Scholar
Shadlen, K. C. and Sampat, B. N.. 2018. “Indian Pharmaceutical Patent Prosecution: The Changing Role of Section 3(d),” PLoS One. ISSN 1932-6203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194714.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. et al. 2015. “State Transformation and the Role of Lawyers: The WTO, India, and Transnational Legal Ordering,” Law and Society Review 49:595–628.Google Scholar
Souza, A. de M. e. 2007. “Defying Globalization: Effective Self-Reliance in Brazil.” In: Hariss, P. G. and Simlon, P. D. (Eds.). The Global Politics of Aids. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 37–62.Google Scholar
Unni, V. K. 2012. “Indian Patent Law and TRIPS: Redrawing the Flexibility Framework in the Context of Public Policy and Health,” Pacific McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal 25:323–42.Google Scholar
Wade, R. H. 2003. “What Strategies Are Viable for Developing Countries Today? The World Trade Organization and the Shrinking of “Development Space”, Review of International Political Economy 10(4): 621–644.Google Scholar
Watal, J. and Taubman, A.. (Eds.) 2015. The Making of the TRIPS Agreement: Personal Insights form the Uruguay Round Negotiations: Geneva: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. 2011. “From Words to Deeds: Explaining China’s (Non) Compliance with the Global Intellectual Property Rights Regime since the Country’s WTO Entry,” PhD Dissertation submitted to the University of Minnesota, August 2011.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by