Governing Knowledge: Discourses and Tactics of the European Union in Trade-Related Intellectual Property Negotiations
2011; Wiley; Volume: 43; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00860.x
ISSN1467-8330
AutoresDaniel Robinson, Chris Gibson,
Tópico(s)Intellectual Property and Patents
ResumoAntipodeVolume 43, Issue 5 p. 1883-1910 Governing Knowledge: Discourses and Tactics of the European Union in Trade-Related Intellectual Property Negotiations Daniel Robinson, Daniel Robinson Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW Sydney, Australia; [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorChris Gibson, Chris Gibson School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia; [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Daniel Robinson, Daniel Robinson Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW Sydney, Australia; [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorChris Gibson, Chris Gibson School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia; [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 10 February 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00860.xCitations: 7Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Abstract: With global shifts in the format of international trade negotiations—from multilateral to bilateral and regional fora—possibilities for the unequal exercise of power have amplified. At risk are the trade-related interests of “developing” economies, as well as public policy issues like access to medicines. In response we analyse some of the emerging governmental approaches currently being employed for trade-related intellectual property (IP) rules. Our concern is to provide a deeper understanding of the ways power is exercised internationally. Here, we explore the European Union (EU) approaches towards trade negotiations. Examining the role of the EU in IP-related trade negotiations, recent actions towards “economic partnership agreements” with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are discussed. Rather than exercise a singular approach, the EU has pursued a range of tactics, including educational and incentive-based measures, but also surveillance of foreign country IP protection, and increasingly overt disciplinary tactics in their negotiations. A veneer of inclusiveness masks a more sophisticated, diversified governing strategy still ultimately concerned with the sovereign or judicial enrolment and compliance of economically/technologically poorer nations to a regulatory apparatus of security that favours European IP interests. References African Group (2003) Taking Forward the Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, Submission to the WTO TRIPS Council. Doc: IP/C/W/404 Google Scholar Albania, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, the European Communities, Iceland, India, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Liechtenstein, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the ACP Group and the African Group (2008) Draft Modalities for TRIPS Related Issues. TN/C/W/52, 19 July. Geneva : WTO Trade Negotiations Committee Doc Google Scholar Anonymous developing country WTO delegates from Asia, Africa and Latin America (2005) Interviews, Geneva, October Google Scholar Anonymous WTO official (2005) Interviews, Geneva, October and November Google Scholar Antons C (2006) Specialised intellectual property courts in Southeast Asia. In A Kur, S Luginbuhl and E Waage (eds) ‘…und sie Bewegt sich Doch!’: Patent Law on the Move (pp 287–299). Berlin : Carl Heymanns Veilag Google Scholar Ariyanuntaka V (1999) TRIPS and the specialised intellectual property court in Thailand. International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 30(1): 360–376 Google Scholar Blakeney M (2005) Bioprospecting and biopiracy. In B Ong (ed) Intellectual Property and Biological Resources (pp 393–424). Singapore : Marshall-Cavendish Google Scholar Boyle J (1997) A politics of intellectual property: environmentalism for the net Duke Law Journal 87(1): 87–116 10.2307/1372861 Web of Science®Google Scholar Braithwaite J and Drahos P (2000) Global Business Regulation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press Google Scholar Castree N (2001) Marxism, capitalism, and the production of nature. In N Castree and B Braun (eds) Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics (pp 189–207). Oxford : Blackwell Google Scholar Castree N (2008) Neoliberalising nature: the logics of deregulation and reregulation. Environment and Planning A 40(1): 131–152 10.1068/a3999 Web of Science®Google Scholar CIEL (2008) Intellectual Property in European Union Economic Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries. Geneva : CIEL Google Scholar Corbridge S, Williams G, Srivastava M and Veron R (2005) Seeing the State: Governance and Governmentality in India. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511492211 Google Scholar Correa C (2005) Protecting test data for pharmaceutical and agrochemical products under free trade agreements. In P Roffe, G Tansey and D Vivas-Eugui (eds) Negotiating Health: Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines (pp 81–96). London : Earthscan Web of Science®Google Scholar Dalby S (1991) Critical geopolitics: difference, discourse and dissent. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9(3): 261–283 10.1068/d090261 Web of Science®Google Scholar Dalby S and Ó Tuathail G (1996) Editorial introduction. The critical geopolitics constellation: problematizing fusions of geographical knowledge and power. Political Geography 15(6/7): 451–456 10.1016/0962-6298(96)00026-1 Web of Science®Google Scholar Dansuputra T (2005) Interview (Former Thailand WTO delegate), Bangkok, 20 July Google Scholar Dean M (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London : Sage Web of Science®Google Scholar Drahos P (1996) A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Aldershot : Dartmouth Google Scholar Drahos P (1997) Thinking strategically about intellectual property rights. Telecommunications Policy 21(3): 201–211 10.1016/S0308-5961(97)00002-5 Web of Science®Google Scholar Drahos P (2001) BITs and BIPs: bilateralism in intellectual property. Journal of World Intellectual Property 4(6): 791–808 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2001.tb00138.x Google Scholar Drahos P with Braithwaite J (2002) Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? New York : New Press Google Scholar Drahos P (2005a) Intellectual property engineering: the role of the chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries. In B Ong (ed) Intellectual Property and Biological Resources (pp 258–283). Singapore : Marshall Cavendish Academic Google Scholar Drahos P (2005b) Cities of planning and cities of non-planning: a geography of intellectual property. World Information—IP City Edition. http://world-information.org/wio/readme/992003309/1154965104 (last accessed 14 December 2009) Google Scholar Dutfield G (2004) Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge. London : Earthscan Google Scholar Dutfield G (2005) Disclosure of origin: time for a reality check? In M Chouchena-Rojas, M Ruiz Muller, D Vivas-Eugui and S Winkler (eds) Disclosure Requirements: Ensuring Mutual Supportiveness between the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the CBD (pp 43–45). Geneva : IUCN & ICTSD Google Scholar EC (2002) Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, and the Relationship Between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. “A Concept Paper”. Doc: IP/C/W/383. 17 October. Geneva : WTO TRIPS Council Google Scholar EC (2005) Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries. Brussels : EC Google Scholar EC (2007) European Development Fund. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r12102.htm (last accessed 29 May 2008) Google Scholar EPO (European Patent Office) (2005) Scenarios for the Future: How Might IP Regimes Evolve by 2025? What Global Legitimacy Might Such Regimes Have? Munich : EPO Google Scholar Farrands C (2003) Power, knowledge and governance: globalizing intellectual property management, reproducing inequalities. In E Kofman and G Youngs (eds) Globalization in Theory and Practice (pp 249–260). London : Continuum International Google Scholar Finston S K (2005) The relevance of genetic resources to the pharmaceutical industry: the industry viewpoint. Journal of World Intellectual Property 8(2): 141–155 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2005.tb00244.x Google Scholar Foucault M (1994 [1978]) Governmentality. In J D Faubion (ed) Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. III (pp 201–222). London : Penguin Google Scholar Gerhardsen T I S (2005) Hong Kong Ministerial ends with little overall progress; limited focus on IP. IP-Watch 18 December Google Scholar Gervais D and Nicholas-Gervais V (1999) Intellectual property in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Lessons to be learned. Journal of World Intellectual Property 2(2): 257–274 10.1111/j.1747-1796.1999.tb00060.x Google Scholar Hanson V and Julian M (2008) EPA negotiations update. Trade Negotiations Insights 7(3): 14–15 Google Scholar Harvey D (2006) Spaces of Global Capitalism: A Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London : Verso Google Scholar Hettinger E C (1997) Justifying intellectual property. In A D Moore (ed) Intellectual Property: Moral, Legal, and International Dilemmas (pp 17–38). Lanham : Rowman and Littlefield Google Scholar ICTSD (2005) Ministerial Chair John Tsang: development package must not be “bargaining chip”. Bridges Weekly Trade News 7 December Google Scholar ICTSD (2008) WTO Mini-Ministerial ends in collapse. Bridges 30 July Google Scholar ICTSD (2009) Fight over generic drug seizure takes centre stage at TRIPS Council meeting. Bridges Weekly Trade News 11 March Google Scholar Jones E (2008) Partnership or Power Play? How Europe Should Bring Development into Its Trade Deals with African, Caribbean, and Pacific Countries. Oxford : Oxfam Google Scholar Kuanpoth J (2005) Interviews (Academic, University of Wollongong; numerous interviews and personal communications from February 2005, Wollongong and Bangkok) Google Scholar Kuanpoth J (2009) TRIPS-Plus policies and the pharmaceutical industry in Thailand. In R Melendez-Ortiz and P Roffe (eds) Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Development Agendas in a Changing World (pp 140–174). London : Edward Elgar Web of Science®Google Scholar Larner W (2000) Neoliberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Economy 63(1): 5–25 10.1080/19187033.2000.11675231 Google Scholar Latour B (1986) The powers of association. In J Law (ed) Power Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp 264–280). London : Routledge Web of Science®Google Scholar Latour B (1987) Science in Action. Buckingham : Open University Press Google Scholar Levis M (2006) Role, perspectives and challenges of the generic pharmaceutical industry in Latin America. In P Roffe, G Tansey and D Vivas-Eugui (eds) Negotiating Health: Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines (pp 55–64). London : Earthscan Google Scholar Li T M (2007) The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Practice of Politics. Durham : Duke University Press 10.1215/9780822389781 Google Scholar Luke T W (1996) Governmentality and contragovernmentality: rethinking sovereignty and territoriality after the Cold War. Political Geography 15(6/7): 491–507 10.1016/0962-6298(96)00028-5 Web of Science®Google Scholar Maskus K (2000) Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Washington , DC : Institute for International Economics Google Scholar May C (2001) A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights. London : Routledge Google Scholar McAfee K (1999) Selling nature to save it Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17(1): 133–154 10.1068/d170133 Web of Science®Google Scholar McAfee K (2003) Neoliberalism on the molecular scale: economic and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles. Geoforum 34(2): 203–219 10.1016/S0016-7185(02)00089-1 Web of Science®Google Scholar McCarthy J (2004) Privatising conditions of production: trade agreements as neoliberal environmental governance. Geoforum 35(3): 327–342 10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.07.002 Web of Science®Google Scholar McCarthy J and Prudham S (2004) Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35(3): 275–283 10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.07.003 Web of Science®Google Scholar Moran W (1993) Rural space as intellectual property. Political Geography 12(3): 263–277 10.1016/0962-6298(93)90057-E Web of Science®Google Scholar Musungu S F (2007) An Analysis of the EC Non-Paper on the Objectives and Possible Elements of an IP Section in the EC-Pacific EPA. Geneva : ICTSD and CAFOD Google Scholar Norway (2006) Amending the TRIPS Agreement to Introduce an Obligation to Disclose the Origin of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge in Patent Applications: Communication from Norway. Doc: IP/C/W/473. 14 June. Geneva : WTO TRIPS Council Google Scholar Ó Tuathail G (1996) Critical Geopolitics. London : Routledge Google Scholar Ó Tuathail G and Dalby S (1998) Rethinking Geopolitics. London : Routledge Web of Science®Google Scholar Ó Tuathail G, Herod A and Roberts S M (1998) Negotiating unruly problematics. In A Herod, G Ó Tuathail and S M Roberts (eds) An Unruly World: Globalization, Governance and Geography (pp 1–24). London : Routledge Google Scholar Pacific Network on Globalisation (2008) Pacific trade ministers slam EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson. http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=11848 (last accessed 27 May 2008) Google Scholar PACREIP (2007) PACP Trade Ministers gravely concerned and disappointed about EU's linking the 10th EDF to the EPA. PACREIP News 10 September Google Scholar Roberts S M (1998) Geo-governance in trade and finance and political geographies of dissent. In A Herod, G Ó Tuathail and S M Roberts (eds) An Unruly World: Globalization, Governance and Geography (pp 116–134). London : Routledge Google Scholar Robinson D (2007) Exploring Components and Elements of Sui Generis Systems for Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Knowledge in Asia. Geneva : ICTSD Google Scholar Robinson D (2008) Beyond “protection”: promoting traditional knowledge systems in Thailand. In J Gibson (ed) Patenting Lives: Life Patents, Culture and Development (pp 121–138). Aldershot : Ashgate Google Scholar Roffe P, Tansey G and Vivas-Eugui D (eds) (2005) Negotiating Health: Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines. London : Earthscan Google Scholar Rose N (1999) Powers of Freedom. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511488856 Google Scholar Routledge P (1996) Critical geopolitics and terrains of resistance. Political Geography 15(6/7): 509–531 10.1016/0962-6298(96)00029-7 Web of Science®Google Scholar Routledge P (2006) Anti-geopolitics. In G Ó Tuathail, S Dalby and P Routledge (eds) The Geopolitics Reader (pp 233–248). London : Routledge Google Scholar Santa Cruz M S (2007) Intellectual Property Provisions in European Union Trade Agreements: Implications for Developing Countries. Geneva : ICTSD 10.7215/IP_IP_20070601 Google Scholar Sell S K (1998) Power and Ideas: North-South Politics of Intellectual Property and Antitrust. New York : SUNY Press Google Scholar Sell S K (2003) Private Power, Public Law: The Globalisation of Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511491665 Google Scholar Shiva V (1997) Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Cambridge : South End Press Google Scholar ten Kate K and Laird S (1999) The Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing. London : Earthscan Google Scholar Traub-Werner M (2007) Free trade: a governmentality approach. Environment and Planning A 39(6): 1441–1456. 10.1068/a38228 Web of Science®Google Scholar USA (2004 and 2005) Article 27.3(b), Relationship Between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore: Communication from the United States. Docs: IP/C/W/434; IP/C/W/449. 26 November, 10 June. Geneva : WTO TRIPS Council Google Scholar Von Braun J and Pugatch M P (2005) The changing face of the pharmaceutical industry and intellectual property rights. Journal of World Intellectual Property 8(5): 599–623 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2005.tb00271.x Google Scholar Widdus R (2005) Product development partnerships on “neglected diseases”: intellectual property and improving access to pharmaceuticals for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In P Roffe, G Tansey and D Vivas-Eugui (eds) Negotiating Health: Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines (pp 205–226). London : Earthscan Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume43, Issue5Bio(necro)polis: Marx, Surplus Populations, and the Spatial Dialectics of Reproduction and ‘Race’November 2011Pages 1883-1910 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)