Session III: Issues Concerning Enforcement and Dispute Resolution (Antony Taubman)

A. Taubman
{"title":"Session III: Issues Concerning Enforcement and Dispute Resolution (Antony Taubman)","authors":"A. Taubman","doi":"10.7916/D8PC3F0J","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thank you very much to everyone. I won’t consume my time with all my thanks. It’s great to be here. I’m lucky to be part of this panel, and I will try to build on the two previous presentations. Two important caveats, though, picking up from Sean. Of course, we don’t interpret treaty language, we organize a system whereby panel members and then the appellate body themselves clarify the terms, but I would just opportunistically make one quibble with what Sean said: I think one of the strengths of dispute settlement in the WTO is the institutional gravitas, the consistency, the coherence, the idea that it is a coherent system that is coherently managed. Okay, I am a bureaucrat, so nothing I say—in fact if you can discern any coherent view from what I’m saying, don’t attribute it to the WTO or to the Secretary or to the Members. I’m not going to talk about the law, or the interpretation of the law, so much as the ideas behind the law. It’s very rare that I’m let loose in a law faculty so I’m going to talk rather abstractedly, partly as a bureaucratic defense but also because I think there are some very interesting abstract ideas that come up in this discussion about dispute settlement that are worth thinking about. The idea of a TRIPS Agreement—we’re still debating what are those “trade related aspects” of intellectual property rights. I like to say, essentially TRIPS reframed the international law of intellectual property by saying that indeed, IP is trade-related. In other words, when there are trade negotiations, when there are trade disputes, when there are trade relations generally, IP is on the table, is on the agenda. And that’s the transformation that we’re seeing washing through the system, not merely multilaterally, but in the RTAs and the bilateral agreements, too, that we’ve been talking about. And behind this is this essential idea of what is adequate and effective protection of IP arts—and let’s just hang onto that concept.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8PC3F0J","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Thank you very much to everyone. I won’t consume my time with all my thanks. It’s great to be here. I’m lucky to be part of this panel, and I will try to build on the two previous presentations. Two important caveats, though, picking up from Sean. Of course, we don’t interpret treaty language, we organize a system whereby panel members and then the appellate body themselves clarify the terms, but I would just opportunistically make one quibble with what Sean said: I think one of the strengths of dispute settlement in the WTO is the institutional gravitas, the consistency, the coherence, the idea that it is a coherent system that is coherently managed. Okay, I am a bureaucrat, so nothing I say—in fact if you can discern any coherent view from what I’m saying, don’t attribute it to the WTO or to the Secretary or to the Members. I’m not going to talk about the law, or the interpretation of the law, so much as the ideas behind the law. It’s very rare that I’m let loose in a law faculty so I’m going to talk rather abstractedly, partly as a bureaucratic defense but also because I think there are some very interesting abstract ideas that come up in this discussion about dispute settlement that are worth thinking about. The idea of a TRIPS Agreement—we’re still debating what are those “trade related aspects” of intellectual property rights. I like to say, essentially TRIPS reframed the international law of intellectual property by saying that indeed, IP is trade-related. In other words, when there are trade negotiations, when there are trade disputes, when there are trade relations generally, IP is on the table, is on the agenda. And that’s the transformation that we’re seeing washing through the system, not merely multilaterally, but in the RTAs and the bilateral agreements, too, that we’ve been talking about. And behind this is this essential idea of what is adequate and effective protection of IP arts—and let’s just hang onto that concept.
第三场:执法与争议解决问题(安东尼·陶布曼)
非常感谢大家。我不会浪费时间来表达我的谢意。很高兴来到这里。我很幸运能成为这个小组的一员,我将尝试在前两次演讲的基础上继续努力。有两个重要的警告,从肖恩那里得到的。当然,我们不解释条约的语言,我们组织了一个系统,由小组成员和上诉机构自己来澄清条款,但我想投机地对肖恩所说的提出一个问题:我认为世贸组织争端解决的优势之一是制度的庄严,一致性,连贯性,这是一个连贯的系统,它是一个连贯的管理。好吧,我是一个官僚,所以我说的任何话——事实上,如果你能从我说的话中辨别出任何连贯的观点,不要把它归咎于世贸组织或秘书长或成员。我不会讲法律,也不会讲法律的解释,而是讲法律背后的思想。我很少能在法学院里自由自在所以我要抽象地谈谈,部分是作为一种官僚主义的辩护,但也因为我认为在这场关于争端解决的讨论中出现了一些非常有趣的抽象概念值得思考。《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》的想法——我们仍在争论什么是知识产权的“与贸易有关的方面”。我想说,从本质上讲,《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》重新定义了知识产权的国际法,指出知识产权确实与贸易有关。换句话说,当有贸易谈判时,当有贸易争端时,当有贸易关系时,知识产权就在谈判桌上,在议程上。这就是我们在整个体系中看到的转变,不仅仅是多边的,也包括我们一直在谈论的区域贸易协定和双边协议。这背后是一个基本的概念,什么是充分有效的知识产权艺术保护——让我们紧紧抓住这个概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信