Adjudicating Intellectual Property Disputes At The GATT/WTO: Are There General Lessons For The Investor-state Dispute Settlement System?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Cook ◽  
Hannu Wager
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

scholarly journals Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform: Reconsidering the Multilateral Investment Court in the Context of Disputes Involving Intellectual Property Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

On January 18, 2019, the European Commission submitted a proposal to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to establish a multilateral investment court for investor-state disputes. The European Commission’s proposal reflects growing discussions about the potential reform of the investor-state dispute settlement system. While the present work on reform options focuses on issues relating to the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement system, the effects of the reform options on investor-state disputes that specifically involve intellectual property law remain to be examined. This Article argues that although the proposed multilateral court structure offers a comprehensive approach to addressing the concerns with the investor-state dispute settlement system, it does not address a number of issues that are specific to disputes involving intellectual property law. This Article analyzes issues that arise from the arbitral tribunal’s role in investor-state disputes that involve laws governing intellectual property at the international and domestic levels. In doing so, this Article shows that these issues are distinct from the ones that broadly relate to the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement system. In light of these issues, this Article proposes additional considerations for the multilateral investment court structure. Specifically, this Article proposes including expertise in the relevant international agreements as a selection criteria for adjudicators and giving deference to the host state’s courts in disputes that involve issues of domestic intellectual property law.

Cross-agreement retaliation in the WTO dispute settlement system: an important enforcement mechanism for developing countries?

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
LUCAS EDUARDO F. A. SPADANO
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Promising Area ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

AbstractThis article aims at analysing the merits and limits of ‘cross-retaliation’ as a mechanism to induce compliance in WTO dispute settlement, specifically from the perspective of developing countries. The focus is on cross-agreement retaliation, in particular with respect to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as this seems to be the most ‘promising’ area for developing countries. Although there are several legal, economic, and administrative difficulties related to the implementation of a suspension of TRIPS obligations and there is so far no practical experience, this seems to remain an interesting option for developing countries – or at least for the largest ones among them – wishing to obtain greater leverage in the system.

Three Salient Issues of the New Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Griller
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
System P ◽  
Critical Account ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
The Relationship

The author argues that the mega-regionals are incorporating WTO standards on the removal of technical barriers to trade (TBT), but do not go much further. Consequently, domestic policies on consumer or environmental protection are inevitably affected. However, in this regard, the mega-regionals would not result in a substantive change. By contrast, the relationship between the removal of TBT and investment protection standards is qualified as poorly balanced, unclear, and creating fresh problems. This includes the possibility that damages might be awarded even in cases where the party to the agreement has correctly used its ‘right to regulate’. Moreover, a critical account of the investor-state dispute settlement system foreseen is offered. It is presented as unnecessarily complex, and creating unbalanced advantages for investors. The better alternative would be integrating national courts into the system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document