scholarly journals Free Trade Agreements With The United States: 8 Lessons For Prospective Parties From Australia’s Experience

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Tully
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States

Abstract This article identifies 8 key lessons for those States contemplating a free trade agreement with the United States (U.S.) arising from Australia’s experience. The standards of intellectual property protection under the Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and their impact on pharmaceutical prices in Australia are a particular focus. Prospective parties must first conduct a national interest self-assessment which reviews the desired strength of intellectual property protection under national law and their preference for using flexibilities available to them under the existing international intellectual property rights framework. The United States negotiates free trade agreements in light of previous ones, negotiating outcomes obtained in other fora and the decisions of international trade tribunals. Negotiations typically occur behind closed doors, which is a process having adverse implications for transparent decision-making, public consultation periods and contributions from interested non-governmental actors. A concluded agreement will build on prior treaties and influence the course of future international arrangements. But the impact of a United States free trade agreement is not always clear, including because of a lack of reliable data, and the extent of national legal change is a contested issue given existing reform agendas and external influences. The United States seek to redesign national health care systems in its own image and had little success in Australia’s case. National legal systems need not be harmonised: although there can be some convergence in intellectual property rights regimes, significant differences may also remain. Negotiators must reconcile competing cultures, philosophies and perspectives between States for a free trade agreement to be worthwhile.

scholarly journals Influence of the Regulatory Framework for Pharmaceuticals in Public Health. Analysis from Colombia's ratification of the Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Trade-Related (TRIPS) and the Free Trade Agreements with the United States and the European Union

Aquichan ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-127
Author(s):  
Fernando Augusto Jiménez-Valderrama ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union

Este artículo tiene por objetivo estudiar la relación entre la disponibilidad, los precios de los medicamentos y los intereses de salud pública. Para ello hemos utilizado una metodología de análisis de los intereses económicos implicados y también un método sistemático de tratamiento de la legislación nacional, comunitaria andina e internacional vigente. Igualmente hemos acudido a metodologías de derecho comparado entre nuestro ordenamiento jurídico nacional con los de otros países de mundo occidental. Existe un estrecho vínculo entre la disponibilidad y los precios de los medicamentos y los intereses de salud pública. Nuestro actual sistema legal reconoce a los inventores de nuevos medicamentos como un “monopolio” para negociar en el mercado farmacéutico. Para proteger los intereses públicos nuestra regulación establece algunos límites a los derechos de los inventores. Los derechos de propiedad se limitan en el tiempo y bajo algunas circunstancias es obligatorio autorizar a otros a usar la patente bajo un contrato de licenciamiento. La Organización Mundial del Comercio ha establecido (Decisión del Consejo de la OMC, Ronda Doha 2003) otros límites a estos derechos en caso de condiciones excepcionales. Nuestra Constitución Nacional otorga prevalencia a los intereses públicos sobre los privados. Es un deber de los gobiernos establecer un sistema justo en el cual los inventores puedan obtener una recompensa económica por sus creaciones y la sociedad pueda satisfacer sus necesidades de salud.

Stocktaking and Glimpsing at Trade Law's Next Generation

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 92-95
Author(s):  
Kathleen Claussen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Law

These remarks are derived from a forthcoming work considering the future of international trade law. Compared with most features of the international legal system, the regional and bilateral trade law system is in the early stages of its evolution. For example, the United States is a party to fourteen free trade agreements currently in force, all but two of which have entered into force since 2000. The recent proliferation of agreements, particularly bilateral and regional agreements, is not unique to the United States. The European Union recently concluded trade agreement negotiations with Canada, Singapore, and Vietnam to add to its twenty-seven agreements in force and is negotiating approximately ten additional bilateral or multilateral agreements. In the Asia-Pacific Region, the number of regional and bilateral free trade agreements has grown exponentially since the conclusion of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area of 1992. At that time, the region counted five such agreements in force. Today, the number totals 140 with another seventy-nine under negotiation or awaiting entry into force. The People's Republic of China is negotiating half a dozen bilateral trade agreements at present to top off the sixteen already in effect. India likewise is engaged in at least ten trade agreement negotiations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) reports 267 agreements of this sort in force among its members as of July 1, 2016.

Bilateral Free Trade Agreements: Boon or Bane for Regionalism in East Asia and the Asia-pacific?

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Dent
Keyword(s):  
Structural Foundation ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Distant Future

AbstractSince the late 1990s there has been a rapid proliferation of bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) projects in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific, regions previously largely devoid of FTA activity by comparison to others. As this trend has intensified, so have discussions on whether it will help advance regional co-operation and integration. This paper examines the nature of FTAs themselves and the main causes of East Asia and Asia-Pacific FTAs. The 'lattice regionalism' hypothesis is considered: whether dense economic bilateralism provides a sub-structural foundation on which economic regionalism (i.e. co-operation and integration) can build. Closely related is the issue of competing FTA models and modalities in the Asia-Pacific, and special attention is afforded to the 'asymmetric neoliberal' FTA model of the United States and the 'developmental–industrial' FTA model championed by Japan. It is argued that the contrasts between these make the emergence of an Asia-Pacific FTA unlikely in even the distant future. Japan's FTA model is also considered relative to perhaps East Asia's most important FTA project, the ASEAN–China FTA (ACFTA), and we discuss how bilateral FTA developments in the region more generally may or may not lead to enhanced regional economic co-operation and integration in East Asia.

The Effects of Trade Agreements on Imports of Biologics: Evidence from Chile

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Trachtenberg ◽  
Warren A. Kaplan ◽  
Veronika J. Wirtz ◽  
Kevin P. Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Unit Value ◽  
Volume Unit

AbstractThis paper develops new indicators that measure the strength of intellectual property rights (IPR) provisions in Chile’s free trade agreements (FTAs). We use these new indicators to examine the extent to which FTAs with strong IPR provisions impact the volume, unit value and overall value of imported biologic medicines into Chile. We find that FTAs with more stringent IPR provisions increase both the volume and the unit value of imported biologics, suggesting greater availability of imported biologics at a higher price. Further research, however, is necessary to determine whether the increases in volume and unit prices of imports lead to greater universal access to biologics or greater inequity in access to these medicines.

Understanding the Economic Implications & Constraints of U.S. Multilateral & Bilateral Free Trade Agreements by Analyzing NAFTA and the U.S.-Colombian FTA

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabiani A Duarte ◽  
Fabiani A Duarte
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The U.S

By providing over $24 billion in foreign assistance to 154 countries, the United States was the largest economic and humanitarian aid donor in the world in 2008 (Schaefer, 2006; Tarnoff & Lawson, 2009). By viewing the U.S. government through this lens, U.S. free trade agreements (FTA), like U.S. foreign aid, assist economically-weaker countries to develop while advancing specific U.S. foreign policy initiatives. By analyzing NAFTA’s effects on Mexico’s economic growth and the provisions of the signed U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement, this paper demonstrates the inefficiencies and unintended consequences of multilateral and bilateral FTAs. The analysis concludes by suggesting an alternative approach to proactive and productive economic development: regional economic FTAs. Keywords: free trade agreement (FTA), tariff, economic development program, foreign direct investment (FDI), internally displaced persons (IDPs), bilateral FTA, multilateral FTA, regional FTA

scholarly journals The Development of the Free Trade Area of the Americas: A Guide For Legal Research

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle S. Viegas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
The World

At the 1994 Summit of the Americas, leaders of democratic nations in the Western Hemisphere committed to establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by January 2005. The Declaration of Principles resulting from that Summit called for building on “existing sub-regional and bilateral arrangements in order to broaden and deepen hemispheric economic integration and to bring the agreements together.” Although ambitious, this endeavor was undertaken during a decade marked by an unprecedented proliferation of trade agreements. In 1991, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay agreed to initiate the formation of a common market now known as the MERCOSUR. Then in 1994, Canada, Mexico and the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement which replaced the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Later that year, nations around the world formalized the existing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, creating the World Trade Organization. In 1997, the Andean Community of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela formalized its plans to establish a common market. Members of the Caribbean Community and Common Market also agreed in several protocols to further their economic and social integration. During the 1990's, numerous other trade agreements were negotiated, and their development continues at the same rapid pace today.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s patent linkage: Unfriending or befriending the right to biologics?

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-68
Author(s):  
Zeleke Temesgen Boru
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right ◽  
Patent Linkage

The World Trade Organization brought Intellectual Property Rights into the multilateral trading system. The adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which formed part of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, established a minimum level of protection with respect to various forms of Intellectual Property Rights. However, in the aftermath of its adoption, several Free Trade Agreements, which include Intellectual Property Rights provisions of different potency, have come into existence. These Free Trade Agreements have given rise to what is commonly known as TRIPS-plus IP provisions. The provisions may renege on States’ obligation to promote access to biologics, medicines which are derived from proteins through biotechnological process. In this light, one recent Free Trade Agreement is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which requires its Parties to implement a number of TRIPS-plus obligations, including data exclusivity and patent linkage. Against the aforementioned backdrop, this article focuses on patent linkage and explores whether the provision allows the Trans-Pacific Partnership Parties to utilize TRIPS flexibilities to promote the right to biologics. In doing so, the article provides potential responses to the question, does patent linkage deter the realization of the right to biologic? With the purpose to do so, while the first section provides a concise introduction into the agreement, the second section discusses the TRIPS standard on patent. While the third part demonstrates the nature of obligations enshrined in the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s rule on patent linkage, the fourth section investigates the obligations’ implication on the right to biologics. The last section provides the conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document