Do Developing Countries Have a Say? Bilateral and Regional Intellectual Property Negotiations with the EU

Abstract

Bilateral and regional agreements concluded with the European Union (EU) and the United States are extensive and include high levels of IP protection and enforcement standards. Such protection is crucial to enhance their competitiveness, but it does not seem to be a priority for developing countries (DCs). This paper analyses how DCs should best address trade negotiations in which high standards of IP protection and enforcement are sought and few balancing (safeguard and flexibility) provisions, or such that can stimulate technology transfer, are on offer. The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition's ''Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements'' cover many issues that are worth discussing as to how these can be incorporated in the negotiating process. Data collected from the CARIFORUM region when negotiating the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement reconfirm the Principles' main recommendations; so do the experiences from India, Central American countries, Colombia and Peru in negotiations with the EU. The argument made here, however, is that a crucial factor in achieving more favourable outcomes for DCs is through an increase of their bargaining power. It will be examined what structural factors influence bargaining power and how this impacts the use of negotiating strategies.

The US and EU’s Intellectual Property Initiatives in Asia: Competition, Coordination or Replication?

“…However, it was only after the release of the 2006 Global Europe Strategy that the EU became more assertive with regard to the inclusion of TRIPS‐plus obligations in trade agreements. The EU‐CARIFORUM economic partnership agreement signed in 2008 was the first such agreement (Jaeger, 2015; Melo Araujo, 2013; Moerland, 2017).…”

Mapping the New Frontier of International IP Law: Introducing a TRIPs-plus Dataset

“…Existing datasets lack the scope and depth to explore these questions. Several studies on TRIPs-plus provisions are limited to agreements involving the United States (US) (Fink and Reichenmiller, 2006; Krikorian, and Szymkowiak, 2007; Osgood and Feng, 2018; Morin and Gold, 2014), the European Union (EU) (El Said, 2007; Drexl, 2014; Moerland, 2017), or a combination of both (Pugatch, 2007; Lindstrom, 2009; Cottier et al ., 2017). This limited coverage is problematic given that a number of TRIPs-plus agreements do not include the US or the EU.…”