Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Role of IP in Investor-State Conflicts Involving Human Rights Issues


Affiliations
1 King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom
 

The field of investor-state arbitration in recent years has been a playground between investors and state. Fortunately or unfortunately, it has also taken within its garb the issues involving human rights. The state is often coerced by the investors to forsake its duty to protect the rights of its own citizens in lieu of its treaty obligation to protect their agreed investor rights. A new actor has emerged in this conflict, namely, Intellectual Property Rights. The article is an attempt to assess the role of intellectual property and its possible contribution in conciliation of the conflict. The first section traces the path of intellectual property emerging as an ‘investment’ in the context of investment law. The second section focuses on the use of intellectual property (IP) norms and human rights standards in treaty interpretation and arguments forwarded by both parties. The third section sets out the possible role that IP can play as a conciliator in this conflict.

Keywords

Investment Treaty, International Investment Agreements, TRIPS Plus, Investment Arbitration Proceedings, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act, 2011, WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, NAFTA, Investor State Dispute Settlement Proceedings, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Umbrella Clauses, Intangible Goods, Human Rights.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Tinta MF , 'Like oil and water? Human rights in investment arbitration in the wake of Philip Morris v Uruguay', Journal of International Arbitration, (2017) 34.

  • Farley C H, TRIPS–Plus trade and investment agreements: Why more may be less for economic development, University of Pensylvania Journal of International Law, 35 (2014) 1061, 1065.

  • Khan H G R, Challenging compliance with international intellectual property norms in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Journal of International Economic Law, 1 (2018).

  • Mortenson J D, Intellectual property as transnational investment: Some preliminary observations, Transnational Dispute Management, 2 (2009), https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1449.

  • Vadi V S, Trademark Protection, Public Health and International Investment Law: Strains and paradoxes, The European Journal of International Law, 20 (2009).

  • Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the death of common sense, Yale Law Journal, 108 (1999) 1687.

  • Lunney Jr, Trademark monopolies, Emory Law Journal, 48 (1999) 367, 371 – 372.

  • Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the death of common sense, Yale Law Journal, 108 (1999) 1697.

  • Article 8 TRIPS- Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.

  • Grass, Inordinate chill: BITs, Non-NAFTA MITs and Host-State Regulatory Freedom – An Indonesian case study, Michigan Journal of International Law, 24 (2002 – 2003) 893.

  • Ethyl Corp v Government of Canada, Award on Jurisdiction under (NAFTA/UNCITRAL), Reprinted in 38 ILM 708 (1999), https://www.italaw.com/cases/409.

  • Nusa Tenggara Partnership B.V. and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/15 (2014), https://www.italaw.com/cases/2723.

  • Philip Morris Asia Ltd. v Commonwealth of Australia, U.N. Commission on Int’l Trade L. [UNCITRAL], PCA Case No. 2012-12.

  • Australia - Hong Kong, China SAR BIT (1993), https://investmentpolicy. unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaties/bit/207/australia---hong-kong-china-sar-bit-1993-.

  • Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2011B00127/Explanatory%20Memorandum/Text.

  • https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303683830_Analysis_of_the_Paternalistic_Justification_of_an_Agenda_Setting_Public_Health_Policy_The_Case_of_Tobacco_Plain_Packaging.

  • Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, [2009], ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 (Philip Morris v Uruguay).

  • Switzerland - Uruguay BIT (1988), https://investmentpolicy. unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaties/bit/3004/switzerland---uruguay-bit-1988-.

  • Ordinance 514 dated 18 August 2008, https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/files/live/Uruguay/Uruguay%20-%20Ordinance%20No.%20514.pdf (unofficial translation).

  • Enactment by the President of Uruguay of Decree 287/009 dated 15 June 2009.

  • Perterfield M & C Brynes, Philip Morris v Uruguay on cigarette branding, Info-Justice’ 2011; Weiler T, Philip Morris v Uruguay: An Analysis of Tobacco Control Measures in the Context of International Investment Law, Report For Physicians For A Smoke Free Canada, 2010.

  • Eli Lilly & Co. v Gov’t of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2.

  • Chapter 11 of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Investment, https://idatd.cepal.org/Normativas/TLCAN/Ingles/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement-NAFTA.pdf.

  • Eli Lilly Canada Inc., et al. v Novopharm Limited, 2013 CanLII 26762 (SCC); Eli Lilly and Company v Teva Canada Limited, 2011 CanLII 79177 (SCC).

  • AAPL v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3.

  • Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3.

  • UN Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-seventh Session (2 May–3 June &11 July–5 August 2005), GA Sixtieth Session, A/60/10, Para 467.

  • Bernhard von Pezold and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15.

  • Khan H R G, Challenging Compliance with International Intellectual Property Norms in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Journal of International Economic Law, (2018) 1.

  • Weiler T, Philip Morris v Uruguay: An Analysis of Tobacco Control Measures in the Context of International Investment Law, Report For Physicians For A Smoke Free Canada, 2010.

  • Eureko B.V. v Republic of Poland, Partial Award under UNCITRAL, 19 August 2005, https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/413.

  • Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, [2009], ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 (Philip Morris v Uruguay).

  • F3DE75EB4D6B?sequence=1.

  • World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) (2003), https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42811/9241591013.pdf;jsessionid=5665D18E376A8E627489F3DE75EB4D6B?sequence=1ssionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx.

  • Vadi V S, Towards a new dialectics: Pharmaceutical patents, public health and Foreign Direct Investments, New York University Journal of Intellectual Property And Entertainment Law, (2015) 5.

  • Vadi V S, Mapping uncharted waters: Intellectual property disputes with public health elements in Investor-State Arbitration, Transnational Dispute Management, (2009) 6.

  • Panel Report, European Communities–Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs WTO Doc. WT/DS/174R (15 March 2015).

  • Geiger, “Constitutionalising” Intellectual Property Law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in the European Union, International Rev Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 37 (2006) 351; Gervais, The Changing Landscape of International Intellectual Property in C. Heath and A. Kamperman Sanders (eds), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements, (2007).

  • Geiger, “Constitutionalising” Intellectual Property Law? The Influence of Fundamental Rights on Intellectual Property in the European Union, Int’l Rev Intellectual Property and Competition Law 37 (2006) 351.


Abstract Views: 185

PDF Views: 99




  • Role of IP in Investor-State Conflicts Involving Human Rights Issues

Abstract Views: 185  |  PDF Views: 99

Authors

Chintan Nirala
King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom

Abstract


The field of investor-state arbitration in recent years has been a playground between investors and state. Fortunately or unfortunately, it has also taken within its garb the issues involving human rights. The state is often coerced by the investors to forsake its duty to protect the rights of its own citizens in lieu of its treaty obligation to protect their agreed investor rights. A new actor has emerged in this conflict, namely, Intellectual Property Rights. The article is an attempt to assess the role of intellectual property and its possible contribution in conciliation of the conflict. The first section traces the path of intellectual property emerging as an ‘investment’ in the context of investment law. The second section focuses on the use of intellectual property (IP) norms and human rights standards in treaty interpretation and arguments forwarded by both parties. The third section sets out the possible role that IP can play as a conciliator in this conflict.

Keywords


Investment Treaty, International Investment Agreements, TRIPS Plus, Investment Arbitration Proceedings, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act, 2011, WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, NAFTA, Investor State Dispute Settlement Proceedings, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Umbrella Clauses, Intangible Goods, Human Rights.

References