ULUSLARARASI FİKRİ MÜLKİYET REJİMİNİN ÇARPIK MİMARİSİ VE AZ GELİŞMİŞ ÜLKELER İÇİN OLASILIKLAR

Year 2011, Volume: 15 Issue: 4, 25 - 63, 01.10.2011

Şeref Gökay Coşkun

Abstract

Uluslararası fi kri mülkiyet rejimi uluslararası ekonomi hukuku alanındaki en sorunlu hukuksal rejimlerden birisidir. Bahse konu rejimin kuruluşu yüzyıldan daha uzun bir süre öncesine gitmesine rağmen, bu rejimin istikrarlı bir hukuk düzeni olduğu ve devletlerin büyük coğunluğunca kabul edildiği söylenemez. Ticarete İlişkin Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları Anlaşması’nin (TRIPS) uygulaması ve Anlaşma sonrasında imzalanan ikili, çok tarafl ı ve bölgesel ticaret anlaşmaları da az gelişmiş ülkeler ile gelişmiş ülkeler arasındaki uluslararası fi kri mülkiyet haklarının korunmasına ilişkin mevcut sorunları çözememiştir. Esasında, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTO) üyeleri arasında Doha Ticaret müzakerelerinde oluşan çıkmazın temel nedenlerinden birisi de tarafl arın bu hukuki rejime yönelik farklı tutumlarıdır. Uluslararası bir hukuksal rejim olarak fi kri mülkiyet sistemi tarafl ar arasında başlangıçta oluşan müzakere sorunlarından dolayı çarpık bir mimariye sahiptir. Bu alanda yeni bir hukuk rejiminin oluşturulması kısa ve orta vadede olası görünmese de TRIPS Anlaşmasının mevcut hükümleri kalkınma yanlısı bir şekilde yorumlanabilir ve az gelişmiş ülkeler tarafından TRIPS sonrası gelişmeleri şekillendirmek üzere yeni stratejiler benimsenebilir

Keywords

Uluslararası fi kri mülkiyet hakları, TRIPS Anlaşması, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü, Doha Ticaret Müzakereleri, anlaşma yorumu.

DISTORTED ARCHITECTURE OF INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME AND PROSPECTS FOR LESS-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Abstract

International intellectual property regime is one of the most problematic legal regimes in international economic law. Although its establishment goes back to more than one hundred years ago, it can not be argued that it is stable and accepted by the majority of the states. The implementation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the bilateral, multilateral and regional trade agreements signed in the post-TRIPS period have not been able to stabilize the ongoing problems between less-developed and developed countries on the international intellectual property protection. In fact, the discrepancies on this regime is one of the main reasons that caused the current stalemate in the Doha Round negotiations among the WTO members. As an international legal regime, intellectual property system has a distorted architecture mostly stemming from the initial bargaining problems between the parties. Although the establishment of a new regime is highly unlikely neither in the short nor medium term, existing provisions of the TRIPS can be interpreted through a more developmental way and new strategies can be adopted by less-developed countries to shape the post-TRIPS developments

Keywords

International intellectual property rights, WTO, TRIPS Agreement, Doha Round negotiations, treaty interpretation

References

• ANSARI, Javed A, The Political Economy of International Economic Organization, Brighton, 1986.
• BEESON, Mark, Comment: Trading places? China, the United States and the Evolution of the International Political Economy, Review of International Political Economy, 16: 4, (2009): p. 729 – 741.
• BENVENISTI Eyal and DOWNS, George W., The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law, Stanford Law Review, Vol.60. (2007): p. 595-633.
• BRAITHWAITE John and DRAHOS, Peter, Global Business Regulation, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• BRAITHWAITE John and DRAHOS, Peter, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy, London, 2002.
• Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Follow-up to the day of general discussion on article 15.1 (c), Monday, 26 November 2001, Twenty Seventh Session, Agenda Item 3, (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/cescr/docs/statements/E.C.12.2001.15HRIntel-property.pdf, viewed on April 29, 2011).
• DRAHOS, Peter, BITS and BIPS: Bilateralism in Intellectual Property, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol.4-6, (2001): p. 791-808.
• DRAHOS, Peter, Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard-Setting, Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 5, (2002): p. 765-789.
• DREZNER, Daniel W., The End of Power, (http://drezner.foreignpolicy .com/ posts/2011/02/08/the_end_of_power, viewed on 9 February 2011).
• GELLER, Paul Edward, From Patchwork to Network: Strategies for International Intellectual Property in Flux, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 9, (1998): p. 69-91.
• HELFER, Laurence R., Regime Shifting: The TRIPS Agreement and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Law Making, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol.29-2. (2004): p. 1-85.
• HELLEINER, Gerald K. and OYEJIDE, Ademola, Global Economic Governance, Global Negotiations and the Developing Countries, Background Papers Human Development Report 1999, UNDP, New York, Vol. 1, (1999): p. 109-122.
• HOEKMAN, Bernard M. and KOSTECKI, Michel M., The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
• India-Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/R, Report of the Panel, September 5, 1997. (http:// docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/WT/DS/50R.WPF, viewed on April 27, 2011).
• India-Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, Report of the Appellate Body, 19 December 1997 (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/WT/DS/50ABR. WPF, viewed on April 27, 2011).
• Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/ DS8-10-11/AB/R, 4 October 1996. (http://docsonline.wto.org/imrd/ directdoc .asp?DDFDocuments/t/WT/DS/8ABR.WPF, viewed on April 27, 2011).
• JACKSON, John H., Dispute Settlement and the WTO: Emerging Problems, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1-3, 1998: p. 329-351.
• LEEBRON, David W., Linkages, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96-5, (2002): p. 5-28.
• MALHOTRA, Kamal (ed.), Making Global Trade Work for People, UNDP Publication, 2003 (http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/stream/ asset/?asset_id= 1948200, viewed on March 04, 2011).
• MAY, Christopher, The Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights, Routledge, New York, 2010.
• OKEDIJI, Ruth, The International Relations of Intellectual Property: Narratives of Developing Country Participation in the Global Intellectual Property System, Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol.7, 2003: p. 315-385.
• PETERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich, Constitutionalism and International Organizations, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 17, (1997): p. 398-470.
• RICHARDS, Donald G., Intellectual Property Rights and Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of the TRIPS Agreement, New York, M.E. Sharpe Inc., 2004.
• RODRIK, Dani, Comments on Maskus and Eby-Konan, in Analytical and Negotiating Issues in the Global Trading System, A.Deardorff and R Stern (eds.), Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1994.
• SELL, Susan K., MAY, Christopher, Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History, London, Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2006.
• SHAFFER, Gregory, Recognizing Public Goods in WTO Dispute Settlement: Who Participates? Who Decides? The Case of TRIPS and Pharmaceutical Patent Protection, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 7-2, (2004): p. 459-482.
• STEINBERG, Richard H, In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus- Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO, International Organizations, Vol. 56-2, (2002): p. 339-374.
• The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2000), Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/7 (http:// www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/ c462b62cf8a07b1 3c12569700046704e?Opendocument, viewed on April 29, 2011).
• TRIPS Council, Joint Communication from the European Communities, United States, Japan and Switzerland, Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, IP/C/W/485 (November 2, 2006).
• UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 April 1996, p.23 (http:// docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/WT/DS/2ABR.WPF, viewed on April 27, 2011).
• USTR (2010), Press Release, Participants Finalize Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Text, (November 15, 2010). (http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/ press-office/press-releases/2010/november/us-participants-finalize- anti-counterfeiting-trad, Viewed on April 17, 2011).
• World Trade Organization, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 (20 November 2001). (http://www.wto. org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm, viewed on April 27, 2011).
• YU, Peter K., Currents and Crosscurrents in the International Intellectual Property Regime, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 38, (2004): p.323-443.
• YU, Peter K., Trips and Its Discontents, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 10:2, (2006): p. 369-410.
• YU, Peter K., The Global Intellectual Property Order and Its Undetermined Future, The WIPO Journal, Vol. 1, (2009): p.1-15.
• YU, Peter K., TRIPS and Its Achilles’ Heel, Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 18. 2011 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1765808).
• YU, Peter K., Intellectual Property Rulemaking in the Global Capitalist Economy, in The Intellectual Property Right Domain in Contemporary Capitalism, ANDERSEN, Birgitte (ed.), Routledge, 2011. Also Available at http://www.peteryu.com/andersen.pdf (Viewed on 03/12/2011).