نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار دانشکدة حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشکدة حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

10.22096/law.2018.30735

چکیده

تلاش‌های بین‌المللی برای حمایت از حقوق مالکیت فکری با تصویب موافقتنامة جهان شمول تریپس حداکثر توان و ظرفیت خود را به نمایش گذاشت اما حتی با این همگرایی در سطح بین‌المللی نیز، اختلافات موجود بین کشورهای توسعه یافته و درحال توسعه درخصوص سطح حمایت بین‌المللی از حقوق مالکیت فکری تقلیل پیدا نکرد. کشورهای درحال توسعه تصور می‌کردند، موافقتنامة تریپس آخرین گام نظام بین‌المللی در حمایت از حقوق مالکیت فکری خواهد بود. در حالی که کشورهای صنعتی تریپس را صرفاً واجد استاندارهای حداقلی می‌دانستند. بدین ترتیب کشورهای صنعتی برای حمایت مؤثرتر از حقوق مالکیت فکری و اتخاذ استانداردهای حمایتی مدنظر خود، مبادرت به تغییر نظام حمایتی از موافقتنامة چندجانبة تریپس به معاهدات تجاری و سرمایه‌گذاری در سطح دوجانبه و منطقه‌ای نمودند. در حال حاضر وضعیت پیچیده‌ای در عرصة نرم سازی حقوق مالکیت فکری بین‌المللی شکل گرفته است. بررسی جهت‌گیری نظام بین‌المللی حقوق مالکیت فکری در دوران بعد از تریپس و نقد و بررسی مبانی این تحولات موضوع مقالة حاضر است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Diverging after Convergence: The Evolution of International Intellectual Property System after TRIPS Agreement

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mirghasem Ja'farzadeh 1
  • Morteza Asadlou 2

1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University

2 PhD Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University

چکیده [English]

To protect intellectual property rights, the international efforts showed its maximum strength and capacity through ratifying the universal TRIPS Agreement. But even by this convergence at international level, struggles between developed and developing countries about intellectual property protection at international level did not decline. Developing countries believed that it would be the last pace of international intellectual property system. Developed countries, on the other hand, envisioned TRIPS only contains minimum-standards provisions. So, developed nations dissatisfied with the level of protection introduced by TRIPS and by the way, thought the multilateral regime has presented its utmost capacity by this agreement, shifted the current multilateral level to bilateral and regional agreements to transplant themselves intellectual property standards.
Since then, lots of efforts have been made to harmonize intellectual property provisions in international stage. This multilateral approach to protect intellectual property rights began by Paris and Bern conventions and reached to its best by TRIPS agreement. Now, there is a complicated situation in international intellectual property norm-setting. What is going to happen after TRIPS agreement? Divergence or convergence? In this article, we try to answer this question by examining the origin of these changes and specify some significant results at the end.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • TRIPS Agreement
  • Bilateral Investment Agreements
  • Regional Agreements
  • developed countries
  • developing countries
  1. منابع

    الف- فارسی

    1. حبیبا، سعید، نظام حق اختراع ایران پس از پذیرش موافقتنامه راجع به جنبه‌های مرتبط با تجاریت حقوق مالکیت فکری، مجلة دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، 1383، شمارة 66، زمستان.
    2. قنبرلو، عبداله، سازمان جهانی تجارت و منطقه‌گرایی در اپک، فصلنامة مطالعات راهبردی، سال دوازدهم، بهار 1388، شمارة 43.
    3. کمالی اردکانی، مسعود (مترجم)، فرصت‌ها و چالش‌های تعامل منطقه‌گرایی و چندجانبه‌گرایی، بررسی‌های بازرگانی، آذر و دی ماه 1387، شمارة 32.
    4. موسوی، سیدمحمدعلی، جهانی شدن و منطقه گرایی: انفکاک یا همگرایی، فصلنامة بین‌المللی روابط خارجی، سال اول، پاییز 1388،‌ شمارة سوم.
      1. Anderson, Alan M. & Razavi, Bobak, "Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights: TRIPS, BITs, and the Search for Uniform Protection, The.", GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L., Vol. 38, 2010.
      2. Andrew Christie, Sophie Waller and Kimberlee Weatherall, ‘Exporting the DMCA through Free Trade Agreements’ in Christopher Heath and Anselm Kamperman Sanders (eds), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements (Hart Publishing 2007) 220.
      3. Baldwin, Richard, ‘The Causes of Regionalism’, The World Economy, 20(7),1997, PP. 865–88.
      4. Bhagwati, Jagdish. ‘U.S. Trade Policy: The Infatuation with Free Trade Areas’ in Jagdish Bhagwati and Anne O Krueger, The Dangerous Drift to Preferential Trade Agreements (AEI Press 1995) .
      5. Blackeney, Michael, Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights: A Concise to TRIPS Agreement, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1996.
      6. Braithwaite J, Drahos P. Global business regulation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, P. 58.
      7. Damro, Chad, ‘The Political Economy of Regional Trade Agreements’ in Lorand Bartels and Federico Ortino (eds), Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (OUP 2006).
      8. Correa, Carlos, Review of the TRIPS Agreement Fostering the Transfer ofTechnology to Developing Countries, Third World Network http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/foster.htm
      9. Dahlquist, Kyla, Strategic Protection of Vital U.S. Assets Abroad: Intellectual Property Protection in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, University of Cincinnati, 2014.
      10. Deere, Carolyn, The Implementation Game: The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries, Oxford University Press Inc., New York. 2009.
      11. Drahos, Peter, BITs and BIPs: Bilateralism in Intellectual Property, 4 J. WORLD INTELL. PROP, 2001,791
      12. Drahos, Peter, The Universality of Intellectual Property Rights: Origins and Development, WIPO, http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/paneldiscussion/ papers/pdf/drahos.pdf.
      13. Grosse Ruse-Khan, Henning and Kur, Annette, Enough is Enough - The Notion of Binding Ceilings in International Intellectual Property Protection (December 8, 2008). Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 09-01.
      14. Eyal Benvenisti and George W Downs, ‘The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law’ (2007) 60 Stanford L Rev 595, 597–98.
      15. Farley, Christine Haight, Trips-Plus Trade and Investment Agreements: Why More May Be Less for Economic Development, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 35, No. 101, 2014; American University, WCL Research Paper 2014-22.
      16. Frankel, Susy, The Legitimacy and Purpose of Intellectual Property Chapters in FTAs, Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Papers, Volume 1 Issue No 1, 2011.
      17.  Matthews, Duncan, Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: The TRIPs Agreement, Routledge, London, 2002.
      18. Mercurio, Bryan Christopher, TRIPS-Plus Provisions in FTAs: Recent Trends, P.217. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=947767.
      19. Morin, Jean-Frederic, Multilateralising TRIPS-Plus Agreements: Is the US Strategy a Failure?, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 175–197, 2009.
      20. Olwan, Rami, Intellectual Property and Development, A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of philosophy, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Australia, 2013.
      21. Ravenhill, John, Global Political Economy, OUP, 2005.
      22. Ruggiero, Renato,‘Comment’ in Jeffrey J. Schott (ed), Free Trade Agreements: US Strategies and Priorities (Institute for International Economics), 2004.
      23. Ruth L. Okediji, Back to Bilateralism? Pendulum Swings in International IntellectualProperty Protection, 1 U. OTrAwA L. & TECH. J. 125, (2003-2004).
      24. Haslam, Paul Alexander, Regime for the Americas BITing Back: Bilateral Investment Treaties and the Struggle toDefine an Investment, 23 POL'Y & SOC'Y 91, PP. 93-94 (2004)
      25. Stein, Arthur A, ‘Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World’ in Stephen D Krasner (ed), International Regimes (Cornell UP 1983).
      26. Sungjoon ,Cho, ‘A Bridge Too Far: The Fall of the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancún and the Future of Trade Constitution’ (2004) 7 J Intl Economic L 219, 238.
      27. Y.S. Lee, Bilateralism under the World Trade Organization, 26 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus, PP. 357-371, 2005-2006.
      28. Yu, Peter K., The Non-multilateral Approach to International Intellectual Property Normsetting (September 13, 2013). Research Handbook on International Intellectual Property Law, Daniel J. Gervais, ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014.
      29. _________, The International Enclosure Movement. Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 82, pp. 827-907, 2007; MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 03-22, PP. 889-91. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=896134
      30. _________, ‘Dean’s Lecture Series: A Tale of Two Development Agendas’, 35 OhioLaw Northern University Review 466, 2009.
      31. _________, Currents and Crosscurrents in the International Intellectual Property Regime. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 38, 2004.
      32. _________, “The objectives and principles of the TRIPS agreement,” in Research Handbook on the Protection of Intellectual Property under WTO Rules: Intellectual Property in the WTO – Volume I, edited by Carlos M. Correa (Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2010), 146-191. 

    ب- لاتین

CAPTCHA Image