The WTOs DSU Article 23 as Guiding Principle for the Systemic Interpretation of International Investment Agreements in the Light of TRIPs

Klopschinski, Simon

doi:10.1093/jiel/jgw011

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Applying the rule to the STEPANOV | 741 definition of IP as an investment would mean that the definition of IP itself must be in line with the IP chapter of the relevant PTA. 37 Even when no such express link exists, reliance on other legal sources like the TRIPS might nevertheless be relevant (Dreyfuss & Frankel, 2018;Klopschinski, 2016).…”

Section: Ip As Investment In Iilmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A type of clause often found in the investment chapter states that “[i]n the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter and another Chapter of this Agreement, the other Chapter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.” Applying the rule to the definition of IP as an investment would mean that the definition of IP itself must be in line with the IP chapter of the relevant PTA 37. Even when no such express link exists, reliance on other legal sources like the TRIPS might nevertheless be relevant (Dreyfuss & Frankel, 2018; Klopschinski, 2016).…”

Section: Ip As Investment In Iilmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic development dimension of intellectual property as investment in international investment law

Stepanov

2020

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intellectual property (IP) and foreign direct investment (FDI) are seen as important contributors to economic development. However, once given a closer look, a complex economic landscape emerges. Although, both IP and FDI can be beneficial to the economic development of a country their presence does not automatically guarantee it. From a legal perspective, the treaties governing the two international legal regimes, international IP law and international investment law (IIL), reflect the positive developmental aspirations ascribed to IP and FDI. Nevertheless, once these international treaties are put to the test in international adjudication, economic development becomes a contested notion. In particular, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals are often confronted with economic development as a legal concept and the way they treat it can vastly differ. By relying on the Salini test in ISDS cases dealing with IP, the Tribunals had the chance to address the developmental dimension of IP as FDI. Philip Morris v. Uruguay and Bridgestone v. Panama give a detailed outlook on the different outcomes such considerations might result in.

show abstract

Section: Ip As Investment In Iilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ip As Investment In Iilmentioning

confidence: 99%