scholarly journals Harnessing Intellectual Property for Development: Some Thoughts on an Appropriate Theoretical Framework

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 368
Author(s):  
Caroline Bongiwe Ncube
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Creative Process ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Stakeholder Interests ◽  
Right To Work ◽  
Access To Knowledge ◽  
The Right

 This paper considers how an appropriate theoretical framework for Intellectual Property may be constructed. Such a framework would be the lens through which contested IP issues may be resolved and upon which national IP policy and legislation might be based. The paper begins by highlighting the inherent tensions in IP, which are caused by the various stakeholder interests that this body of law seeks to balance, and by the cross-cutting nature of IP. It contends that in order to more equitably balance the contesting rights of the creators and users, IP rights should be formulated and enforced so as to meet societal goals or serve public interest, be responsive to the economic environment, and take cognisance of the human rights claims of both creators and users. National socio-economic goals should inform such a framework in a way that ensures that IP is used as a means to achieve these goals and is not perceived as an end. This will require nuances in policy and legislation that meet the country's needs. In particular, as a developing country South Africa would do well to exploit available flexibilities in the various international IP agreements by which it is bound. Due regard also ought to be had to the users' need for affordable access to IP-protected goods in order that they may exercise the right to work and access to knowledge, as provided for by ss 22 and 16 of the Constitution respectively. Similarly, creators ought to be given due recognition, together with reasonable reward and remuneration for their efforts. This will be achieved through the creation of an IP system that provides protection that is compatible with the nature of the good being protected and the manner in which the creative process unfolds. Such protection should rely on registration systems are efficient, simplified and affordable. The accompanying enforcement system should be equally accessible, although the costs of enforcement would depend on the forum used to secure redress. Finally, the resulting IP regulatory framework should be both certain and clear.

Reductionist Intellectual Property Protection and Expansionist (and “Prodevelopment”) Competition Rules as a Human Rights Imperative? Enhancing Technology Transfer to the Global South

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-272
Author(s):  
Klaus D. Beiter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Global South ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
Dissemination Of Technology

Abstract Increasingly, the economy of industrialised countries moves away from being based on a multiplicity of independent innovators to one characterised by cross-licensing and the pooling of intellectual property (IP) rights. Competition law is accorded a more limited role. Refusals to license or restrictive licence terms are tolerated. This paradigm emphasises the innovation at the expense of the dissemination rationale of IP and competition law. The pressure on developing countries is to follow suit. However, this approach jeopardises overcoming the technology dependence of these states. Yet, the political consensus underlying the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was that, in exchange for IP rights protection, a transfer and dissemination of technology benefiting the global South would occur. This has not taken place so far. Taking this promise seriously requires according an enhanced, more social role to competition law. Articles 8(2), 31 and 40 of TRIPS – the TRIPS competition rules – could be interpreted in a way to accomplish this. This article argues in favour of a “prodevelopment” approach to IP-related competition law. This could be viewed as a demand of the rule of law at the international level. On the one hand, treaties such as TRIPS are to be interpreted in good faith. On the other, public interest and human rights considerations justify, as it were, require, such an approach. Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS can play a crucial role in this regard. They reflect such public interest considerations as “object and purpose” of TRIPS. They also provide a link to international human rights law (IHRL). IHRL protects a (group) right to development, confirming “policy space” for World Trade Organization (WTO) members and the freedom to opt for a competition law model that facilitates dissemination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further protects various economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). These rights may be said to give rise to “transfer and dissemination of technology” as a human right. Duties under the right to development and “territorial” and “extraterritorial” human rights obligations (ETOs) under the ICESCR support an understanding of competition law which is pro development, which takes account of local access and welfare needs. The article concludes with a set of 10 consolidated considerations for a “prodevelopment” IP-related competition law.

Tourism as a Tool for the Fulfilment of the Rights to Rest and Leisure Enshrined in Article No. 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 180-188
Author(s):  
Bianca Nicla Romano
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Title V ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Real Right ◽  
Right To Work ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Italian Constitution

Art. 24 of the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights recognises and protects the right of the individual to rest and leisure. This right has to be fully exercised without negative consequences on the right to work and the remuneration. Tourism can be considered one of the best ways of rest and leisure because it allows to enrich the personality of the individual. Even after the reform of the Title V this area is no longer covered by the Italian Constitution, the Italian legal system protects and guarantees it as a real right, so as to get to recognize its existence and the consequent compensation of the so-called “ruined holiday damage”. This kind of damage has not a patrimonial nature, but a moral one, and the Tourist-Traveler can claim for it when he has not been able to fully enjoy his holiday - the essential fulcrum of tourism - intended as an opportunity for leisure and/or rest, essential rights of the individual.

scholarly journals Designing Work with People Living with Dementia: Reflecting on a Decade of Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 11742
Author(s):  
Paul A. Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Right To Work ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is widely acknowledged as a landmark document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives from all over the world, the declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard for all peoples and all nations. The declaration sets out a series of articles that articulate a number of fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Article 23 of the declaration relates to the right to work and states that people have a human right to work, or engage in productive employment, and may not be prevented from doing so. The right to work is enshrined in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where the right to work emphasizes economic, social and cultural development. This paper presents ongoing research that highlights how a disruptive co-design approach contributes to upholding UN Article 23 through the creation of a series of innovative working practices developed with people living with dementia. The research, undertaken in collaboration with several voluntary and third sector organizations in the UK, looks to break the cycle of prevailing opinions, traditional mindsets, and ways-of-doing that tend to remain uncontested in the health and social care of people living with dementia. As a result, this research has produced a series of innovative work opportunities for people living with dementia and their formal and informal carers that change the perception of dementia by showing that people living with dementia are capable of designing and making desirable products and offering much to UK society after diagnosis. In this ongoing research, the right to continue to work for people living with dementia post-diagnosis in creative and innovative ways has clearly helped to reconnect them to other people, helped build their self-esteem, identity and dignity and helped keep the person with dementia connected to their community, thus delaying the need for crisis interventions. This paper reports on a series of future work initiatives for people living with dementia where we have used design as a disruptive force for good to ensure that anyone diagnosed with dementia can exercise their right to work and engage in productive and rewarding employment.

scholarly journals Governing Knowledge: Intellectual Property Management for Development and the Public Interest

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Leonardo Burlamaqui
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
Analytical Perspective ◽  
The Right

The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of intellectual property rights and regulations, the last three decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual property, patent, public, interest, public sector, private sector, socioeconomic developmen

scholarly journals SOME COMMENTS ON WATER RIGHTS IN SOUTH AFRICA

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
N Gabru
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
South African ◽  
Fresh Water ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The South ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Basic Part ◽  
The Right

Human life, as with all animal and plant life on the planet, is dependant upon fresh water. Water is not only needed to grow food, generate power and run industries, but it is also needed as a basic part of human life. Human dependency upon water is evident through history, which illustrates that human settlements have been closely linked to the availability and supply of fresh water. Access to the limited water resources in South Africa has been historically dominated by those with access to land and economic power, as a result of which the majority of South Africans have struggled to secure the right to water. Apartheid era legislation governing water did not discriminate directly on the grounds of race, but the racial imbalance in ownership of land resulted in the disproportionate denial to black people of the right to water. Beyond racial categorisations, the rural and poor urban populations were traditionally especially vulnerable in terms of the access to the right.  The enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, brought the South African legal system into a new era, by including a bill of fundamental human rights (Bill of Rights). The Bill of Rights makes provision for limited socio-economic rights. Besides making provision for these human rights, the Constitution also makes provision for the establishment of state institutions supporting constitutional democracy.  The Constitution has been in operation since May 1996. At this stage, it is important to take stock and measure the success of the implementation of these socio-economic rights. This assessment is important in more ways than one, especially in the light of the fact that many lawyers argued strongly against 1/2the inclusion of the second and third generation of human rights in a Bill of Rights. The argument was that these rights are not enforceable in a court of law and that they would create unnecessary expectations of food, shelter, health, water and the like; and that a clear distinction should be made between first generation and other rights, as well as the relationship of these rights to one another. It should be noted that there are many lawyers and non-lawyers who maintained that in order to confront poverty, brought about by the legacy of apartheid, the socio-economic rights should be included in a Bill of Rights. The inclusion of section 27 of the 1996 Constitution has granted each South African the right to have access to sufficient food and water and has resulted in the rare opportunity for South Africa to reform its water laws completely. It has resulted in the enactment of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997 and the National Water Act 36 of 1998.In this paper the difference between first and second generation rights will be discussed. The justiciability of socio-economic rights also warrants an explanation before the constitutional implications related to water are briefly examined. Then the right to water in international and comparative law will be discussed, followed by a consideration of the South African approach to water and finally, a few concluding remarks will be made.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the dismissed forensic medicine specialists and other forensic professionals in Turkey

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-80
Author(s):  
Alper Keten
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Forensic Medicine ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
Medical Doctors ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Right To Work ◽  
Turkish Government ◽  
Forensic Professionals ◽  
The Right

The right to work, one of the fundamental human rights, expresses the right of all individuals to maintain a dignified life by having an income, earned through work (UDHR, 1948). Following the coup attempt on 15 July 2016, the Turkish government declared a state of emergency on 20 July 2016. This lasted 730 days until 20 July 2018. During this period, 32 decrees were issued by the Turkish government. With these decrees, 150,348 public officials including judges, pros- ecutors, civil servants, teachers, bureaucrats, medical doctors and academics were dismissed without any investigation (Turkey Purge, 2019). With regard to the group of forensic professional experts, many have been dismissed following decrees issued by the Turkish government.

scholarly journals The right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the security measure of the forfeiture of cash in the jurisprudence of the Serbian Constitutional Court: Certain uncertainty

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.

Part VI Refugee Rights and Realities, Ch.53 The Right to Work

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Costello Cathryn ◽  
O’Cinnéide Colm
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Right To Work ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Forced Labour ◽  
The Right ◽  
European Regional

This chapter analyses the application of the right to work to asylum seekers and refugees, examining the right under international human rights law of global scope, in particular under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. While that instrument is often perceived as being normatively weak, due in part to a misunderstanding about the ‘progressive realization’ standard, the chapter highlights States’ immediate ‘minimum core’ obligations under the right to work. It also assesses the right under African, Inter-American, and European regional human rights mechanisms. Some deprivations of the right to work may entail breaches of regional treaties, directly or indirectly. Restrictions on the right to work may also contribute to violations of absolute rights, such as the prohibitions on inhuman and degrading treatment, or forced labour. The chapter then looks at two possible means of securing the right to work, namely domestic litigation and transnational political processes.

Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, A The Right to Reparation, Principle 32 Reparation Procedures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
d’Argent Pierre ◽  
de Ghellinck Isabelle
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Right ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Aspect

Principle 32 deals with the procedural aspect of the right to reparation, that is, the right for victims of human right violations to access remedial procedures. It addresses three issues: the right to access remedial procedures, procedural requirements of national reparation programmes, and regional and international procedures. While the obligation of states to provide effective remedies is enshrined in most of, if not all, the key international human rights treaties, Principle 32 provides for a right to all victims to access remedies. ‘Reparation’ and ‘remedies’ are both envisioned as victims’ rights, but the distinction between them is vague. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 32, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the reparation procedure, judicial or administrative, dealing with gross violations of human rights at national or international level has been implemented.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 29 Restrictions on the Jurisdiction of Military Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aoláin Fionnuala Ní
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Military Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

Principle 29 deals with restrictions on the jurisdiction of military courts. Under this Principle, the adjudication of human rights violations by military courts is explicitly excluded, and ordinary domestic courts are mandated as the only appropriate venue of judicial oversight. Nevertheless, military courts remain functionally important for the routine and uncontroversial deployment of military law consistent with international law. The chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 29 before discussing its theoretical framework and how military courts are used in various countries such as Ireland and Turkey. Issues arising when civilians find themselves within the jurisdiction of military courts are also examined, along with the difficulties of ensuring fair trials in military courts. This chapter shows that military courts, while certainly serving important functions within the military forces of states, remain subject to human rights and humanitarian law compliance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document