Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:41:01.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cosmopolitan Legalism Meets ‘Thin Community’: Problems in the Global Governance of Intellectual Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Christopher May
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The making of knowledge and information into property, through intellectual property rights (IPRs) has commonly been justified using a set of cosmopolitan norms. These norms of justification have been extensively deployed within the structures of global governance for IPRs. However, the political community that underpins such norms in national jurisdictions is lacking at the global level. Many of the political problems now recognized with the globalized protection of IPRs stem from this tension between cosmopolitan legalism and the contemporary ‘thin’ global community.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , 2004 , pp. 393 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This paper was originally prepared for the panel on the Governance of Global Issues: Effectiveness, Accountability and Constitutionalisation, at the European Consortium for Political Research, joint sessions of workshops, University of Edinburgh, 2003. I thank the participants there for their comments that helped improve the focus of the argument presented here. Two referees for Government and Opposition also provided excellent advice regarding the clarification of key points and I acknowledge their help, while noting that all remaining shortcomings are my own.

2 J. Braithwaite and P. Drahos, Global Business Regulation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 61–4.

3 C. May, A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures?, London, Routledge, 2000, pp. 82–4; S. Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ch. 5.

4 Space precludes a full typology of IPRs to be set out here, but see May, A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights, op. cit., pp. 6–11, for a fuller treatment. Where aspects of specific forms of intellectual property are important for the argument below they are covered in the discussion.

5 Sell, S. and May, C., ‘Moments in Law: Contestation and Settlement in the History of Intellectual Property’, Review of International Political Economy, 8: 3 (autumn 2001), pp. 467–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 C. Murphy, International Organisation and Industrial Change: Global Governance since 1850, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1994.

7 Machlup, F. and Penrose, E. T., ‘The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Economic History, 10: 1 (May 1950), pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Janis, M. D., ‘Patent Abolitionism’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17 (2002), pp. 899–952; 947.Google Scholar

9 J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 7th edn, 2 vols, London, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1871, vol. II, p. 552.

10 D. Matthews, Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: The TRIPs Agreement, London, Routledge, 2002, p. 11.

11 World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO], WIPO: General Information, Geneva, WIPO, 1993, pp. 55–7.

12 Matthews, Globalising Intellectual Property Rights, op. cit., p. 31.

13 May, A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights, op. cit., p. 88.

14 Gakunu, P., ‘Intellectual Property: Perspective of the Developing World’, Georgia Journal of International and Competition Law, 19: 2 (special trade conference issue, 1989), pp. 358–65.Google Scholar

15 Extended discussions of the negotiations that led to TRIPs can be found in Matthews, Globalising Intellectual Property Rights, op. cit., ch. 2, and T. P. Stewart, The GATT Uruguay Round. A Negotiating History (1986–1992), Deventer, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1993, pp. 2245–333. Ironically, it now seems likely that further attempts at the global harmonization of patents (and a levelling up of protection) will be carried forward through the WIPO Patent Agenda, just as the developing countries have organized significant resistance to the hard-line TRIPs approach at the WTO, see C. Correa and S. F. Musungu, The WIPO Patent Agenda: The Risks for Developing Countries, Trade-Related Agenda, Development and Equity, Working Papers, 12, Geneva, South Centre, 2002.

16 Shanker, D., ‘Legitimacy and the TRIPs Agreement’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 6: 1 (2003), pp. 155–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Geneva, GATT Publication Services, 1994, section A1C, p. 19.

18 See F. M. Abbott, Compulsory Licensing for Public Health Needs: The TRIPs Agenda at the WTO after the Doha Declaration on Public Health, Occasional Paper, 9, Geneva, Quaker United Nations Office, 2002, for discussion of the constrained circumstances in which compulsory licences can actually be used under TRIPs.

19 For a discussion of IPRs, AIDS and the pharmaceutical industry, see May, C., ‘Unacceptable Costs: The Consequences of Making Knowledge Property in a Global Society’, Global Society, 16: 2 (April 2002), pp. 123–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 B. M. Hoeckman and M. M. Kostecki, The Political Economy of the World Trading System. From GATT to WTO, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 156.

21 Oddi, A. S., ‘TRIPs – Natural Rights and a “Polite Form of Economic Imperialism”’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 29 (1996), pp. 415–70, 440.Google Scholar

22 Space precludes a detailed account of TRIPs numerous sections; K. Maskus, Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy, Washington, DC, Institute for International Economics, 2000, ch. 2, offers a good concise summary of the agreement, as does Matthews, Globalising Intellectual Property Rights, op. cit., ch. 3, but also see the discussion in May, A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights, op. cit., ch. 3.

23 K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Boston, Beacon Press, 1944 (reprinted 1957), pp. 72ff.

24 Plant, A., ‘The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions’, Economica, 1 (February 1934), pp. 30–51, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Sell and May, ‘Moments in Law’, op. cit.

26 May, A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights, op. cit., pp. 22–9 and passim.

27 Ibid., pp. 18–21.

28 D. C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 34–5, while a recent popular iteration of this perspective can be found in H. de Soto, The Mystery of Capital, London, Bantam Press, 2000.

29 Richards, D. G., ‘The Ideology of Intellectual Property Rights in the International Economy’, Review of Social Economy, 60: 4 (December 2002), pp. 521–41,CrossRefGoogle Scholar links this third set of justifications back to Jeremy Bentham and utilitarianism, although it seems to me a much less clear line of development than the explicit philosophical foundations of the first two narratives, which in itself may be a comment on the ubiquity of utilitarianism in contemporary political discourse, of course.

30 J. R. Commons, Legal Foundation of Capitalism, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1924 (reprinted 1959), p. 53.

31 Waldron, J., ‘From Authors to Copiers: Individual Rights and Social Values in Intellectual Property’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68 (1993), pp. 841–87, 862.Google Scholar

32 Bräutigam, D., ‘Foreign Aid and the Politics of Participation in Economic Policy Reform’, Public Administration and Development, 20: 3 (2000), pp. 253–64, 262.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Ibid.

34 R. Higgott and M. Ougaard, ‘Introduction: Beyond System and Society – Towards a Global Polity’, in M. Ougaard and R. Higgott (eds), Towards a Global Polity, London, Routledge, 2002, p. 12.

35 Gakunu, ‘Intellectual Property: Perspective of the Developing World’, op. cit., p. 364.

36 Bawa, R., ‘The North–South Debate Over the Protection of Intellectual Property’, Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies, 6 (1997), pp. 77–119, 96.Google Scholar

37 Kumar, N., ‘Intellectual Property Rights, Technology and Economic Development’, Economic and Political Weekly, 38: 3 (18 January 2003), pp. 209–25, 216.Google Scholar

38 Brenner-Beck, D., ‘Do As I Say, Not As I Did’, UCLA – Pacific Basin Law Journal, 11 (1992), pp. 84–118, 115.Google Scholar

39 Dinwoodie, G., ‘The Architecture of the International Intellectual Property System’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 77: 3 (2002), pp. 993–1014, 1004Google Scholar (emphasis added).

40 Cullet, P., ‘Patents and Medicines: the Relationship between TRIPs and the Human Right to Health’, International Affairs, 79: 1 (January 2003), pp. 139–60, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Reichman, J. H., ‘From Free Riders to Fair Followers: Global Competition under the TRIPs Agreement’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 29 (1997), pp. 11–93.Google Scholar

42 Bawa, ‘The North–South Debate’, op. cit., pp. 108 and 109.

43 Quoted in: S. Boseley, ‘Saving Grace’, Guardian (special section), 18 February 2003.

44 See the discussion of the history of specific ‘pirate’ countries in Brenner-Beck, ‘Do As I Say, Not As I Did’, op. cit.

45 Parrish, C., ‘Unilateral Refusals to License Software: Limitations on the Right to Exclude and the Need for Compulsory Licensing’, Brooklyn Law Review, 68: 2 (2002), pp. 557–87, 585Google Scholar (emphasis added).

46 Kongolo, T., ‘The African Intellectual Property Organisations’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 3: 2 (March 2000), pp. 265–88, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 K. Singh, ‘Anthrax, Drug Transnationals, and TRIPs’, Foreign Policy in Focus, 29 April 2002 (available at http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0204trips_body.html (15 May 2002)).

48 GATT, Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round, op. cit., section A1C, pp. 14 and 15.

49 Oddi, ‘TRIPs – Natural Rights’, op. cit., p. 456, see Gold, E. R. and Lam, D. K., ‘Balancing Trade in Patents: Public Non-Commercial Use and Compulsory Licensing’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 6: 1 (2003), pp. 5–31; 14–19,CrossRefGoogle Scholar for an account of the negotiating history of Article 31 of TRIPs’ treatment of ‘non-commercial use’.

50 For Intel and other members of the Semiconductor Industry Association's impact on Article 31 of TRIPs see P. Drahos, and J. Braithwaite, Information Feudalism. Who Owns the Knowledge Economy, London, Earthscan, 2002, pp. 148 and 149.

51 J. H. Reichman and C. Hasenzahl, Non-Voluntary Licensing of Patented Inventions, Geneva, UN Conference on Trade and Development and International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 2002, pp. 6–8.

52 C. Correa, ‘Pro-competitive Measure under TRIPs to Promote Technology Diffusion in Developing Countries’, in P. Drahos and R. Mayne (eds), Global Intellectual Property Rights. Knowledge, Access and Development, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan and Oxfam, 2002, p. 50.

53 Gold and Lam, ‘Balancing Trade in Patents’, op. cit.

54 Quoted in Nissé, J., ‘WTO turned by America into “Mafia racket”’, Independent on Sunday, (Business Section), 4 May 2003, p. 1.Google Scholar

55 Held, D., ‘Law of States, Law of Peoples: Three Models of Sovereignty’, Legal Theory, 8 (2002), pp. 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar