Trips Agreement In Arabic
Although attention to lax enforcement has often focused on China, China is not alone. Chart 1 shows similar differences between accounting laws and laws in practice in many other emerging economies such as Argentina, Mexico, the Philippines and Turkey, as well as India, Russia and Brazil (many of these countries were initially opposed to the TRIPS agreement). As pointed out in Athreye, Martelli and Piscitello (2020), we can identify two groups of countries – those for whom, de jure and de facto, intellectual property goes in the same direction (a positive relationship) and a smaller group of middle-income countries, for which both are rebalancing (a negative report).13 It is worth noting both the introduction and application of new laws on how the new international agreement has changed the nature of creating a new authority and dash for technology-intensive sectors. This has been done in much the way Baldwin (2016) claims that the principle of rebalancing within the GATT has helped to push back political interests to create a crook of customs behavior between nations. Prior to the TRIPS AGREEMENT, national patent policies were largely marked by strong consumer groups and importing industrial sectors. Innovators (in fact, young and emerging) have rarely had a significant and direct say in the development of national IP policies that, in many developing countries, were not so much about promoting innovation as it was about ensuring that knowledge, information and technology-intensive products were accessible to consumers and as directions for local industry. By imposing changes in national policies towards greater protection of intellectual property, TRIPS has been an exogenous shock that has altered the distribution of income between innovative and non-innovative business groups14. This has changed the balance of political power with both groups in a way that has been strengthened, because in successive political conflicts over the spiritual interest, it is the economic actors more oriented towards innovation (and also within the state) that have taken over. And the likes of the actors have also changed. Faced with a new status quo, some actors who opposed TRIPS have adapted to the new environment and seen opportunities where they previously felt only threats. When this was done, they reviewed their policies and probably sought alliances with actors who had supported the introduction of new agreements (Sinha, 2016); Shadlen, 2011). The obligations under Articles 3 and 4 do not apply to procedures under WIPO-led multilateral agreements on the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights. Although TRIPS have introduced harmonization, they have not created a world of unitary patent policies and levels of patent protection.
This means that a number of countries could match all TRIPS, but all show differences in the details of their national IP systems. The reasons are twofold. First, TRIPS is not a self-structuring legal body, but an agreement that imposes and prohibits different practices and leaves implementation issues to countries. For example, trips sets out a number of conditions that should be met when issuing compulsory licences, but how are these conditions implemented in national patent systems (what type of behaviour of patent holders is a mandatory reason for licensing? Can the Ministry of Health act alone? Should there be a health emergency and, if so, how is it determined and who explains it?) in situ.