Cross-Retaliation in Intellectual Property: towards a more effective performance of developing Countries in the WTO dispute settlement system
Keywords:
World Trade Organization, Dispute settlement, Cross-retaliation, Intellectual property, Developing countries, International trade.Abstract
This article analyses cross-retaliation, especially that which targets intellectual property rights as an alternative to the more usual instruments available in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement provisions. Cross-retaliation is examined from the perspective of developing countries, and recommended due to its potential to enhance their participation in the Dispute Settlement Body. First, the procedures of the WTO’s dispute settlement system and the possibilities to retaliate are described in order to allow the study of the requirements for cross-retaliations to be authorized and of the practical experience accumulated during the WTO disputes. Then, the peculiarities of cross-retaliation in intellectual property are exposed with the objective of identifying the positive and negative reflexes of its use, proposals for its improvement, and the parliamentary bills which aim to provide for cross-retaliation in Brazil. The article concludes with a summary of the requests by developing countries to cross-retaliate on intellectual property rights, in light of the ‘US – Upland Cotton’ dispute between Brazil and the US.Downloads
References
BARBOSA, Denis B. Uma introdução à propriedade intelectual. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2003.
BENKLER, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven (EUA): Yale University Press, 2006.
CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS. Comissão de Desenvolvimento Econômico, Indústria e Comércio - Projeto de Lei n. 1.893, de 2007: parecer do Relator, Dep. Miguel Corrêa Jr. (PT-MG), pela aprovação. Disponível em: <http://www.camara.gov.br/sileg/integras/524860.pdf >. Acesso em: 28 jun. 2008.
CRETELLA NETO, José. 2002. Sistema processual de solução de controvérsias da OMC – Organização Mundial do Comércio: casuística de interesse para o Brasil. São Paulo. Tese (Doutorado) - Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de São Paulo.
DAVEY, William J. 2006. The WTO: looking forwards. Journal of International Economic Law, v. 9, n. 1, p. 3-29, 2006.
FLIGSTEIN, Neil. The political and economic sociology of international economic agreements. In: SMELSER, Neil J.; SWEDBERG, Richard (Eds.). The Handbook of Economic Sociology. 2. ed. New Jersey (EUA): Princeton University Press, 2005.
HUDEC, Robert. 2002. The adequacy of WTO dispute settlement remedies: a developing country perspective. In: HOEKMAN, Bernard; MATTOO, Aaditya; ENGLISH, Philip (Eds.). Development, trade, and the WTO: a handbook. Washington, DC (EUA): World Bank, 2002. p. 81-91.
KECK, Alexander; SCHROPP, Simon. 2007. Indisputably Essential: The Economics of Dispute Settlement Institutions in Trade Agreements (September 2007). WTO Staff Working Paper N. ERSD-2007-02. Disponível em: <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd200702_e.pdf>. Acesso em: 08 dez. 2007.
LAFER, Celso. 1998. A OMC e a regulamentação do comércio internacional: uma visão brasileira. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 1998.
LANDES, William M.; POSNER, Richard A. The economic structure of intellectual property law. Cambridge (EUA): Belknap, 2003.
LEMLEY, Mark. Property, intellectual property, and free riding. Texas Law Review, v. 83, p. 1.031-1.075, 2005.
MALACRIDA, Reto. Towards sounder and fairer WTO retaliations: suggestions for possible additional procedural rules governing members’ preparation and adoption of retaliatory measures. Journal of World Trade, v. 42, n. 1, p. 3-60, 2008.
NORTH, Douglass C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge (GBR): Cambridge University Press, 1990.
NZELIBE, Jide. 2008. The Case Against Reforming the WTO Enforcement Mechanism. University of Illinois Law Review, n. 1, p. 319-358, 2008.
OCDE. 2007. OECD Science, Technology and Industry: Scoreboard 2007. Paris (FRA): OCDE. Disponível em: <http://caliban.sourceoecd.org/vl=2280175/cl=20/nw=1/rpsv/sti2007/index.htm> Acesso em: 06 jan. 2007.
OMC. 1991. MTN.GNS/W/120. SERVICES SECTORAL CLASSIFICATION LIST. 10 July 1991.Original: English/ Restricted. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 1999. WT/GC/W/162. GENERAL COUNCIL - PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1999 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE: The Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) - Communication from Pakistan. 1 April 1999. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2000A. WT/DS27/ARB/ECU. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANANAS: Recourse to arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU - Decision by the Arbitrators. 24 March 2000. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2000B. WT/DS27/54. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANANAS: Recourse to Article 22.7 of the DSU by Ecuador. 8 May 2000. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2000C. WT/DSB/M/78. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY: Minutes of Meeting (Held in the Centre William Rappard on 7 April 2000). 12 may 2000. Original: English/ Restricted. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2001. WT/DS27/ 8. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANANAS: Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution. 2 July 2001. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2002. TN/DS/W/19. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY: Special Session - Negotiations on the Dispute Settlement Understanding - Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Coutries - Proposals on DSU by Cuba, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. 9 October 2002. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2003. TN/DS/W/47. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY: Special Session - Dispute Settlement Understanding Proposals - Legal Text - Communication from India on behalf of Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jamaica and Malaysia. 11 February 2002. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2004. A handbook on the WTO dispute settlement system: a WTO Secretariat publication. Cambridge (GBR): Cambridge University Press.
OMC. 2005A. WT/DS267/21. UNITED STATES - SUBSIDIES ON UPLAND COTTON: Recourse to Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU by Brazil. 5 July 2005. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2005B. WT/DS267/26. UNITED STATES – SUBSIDIES ON UPLAND COTTON: Recourse to Article 7.9 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU by Brazil. 7 October 2005. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2007A. World trade report 2007: six decades of multilateral trade cooperation: what have we learnt? Geneva: OMC. Disponível em: <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/ world_trade_report07_e.pdf> Acesso em: 06 dez. 2007.
OMC. 2007B. WT/DS27/80. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANANAS: Recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador - Request for the Establishment of a Panel. 27 February 2007. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2007C. WT/DS285/22. UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING AND BETTING SERVICES: Recourse by Antigua and Barbuda to Article 22.2 of the DSU. 22 June 2007. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2007D. WT/DS285/ARB. UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING AND BETTING SERVICES: Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU – Decision by the Arbitrator. 21 December 2007. Original: English. Geneva: OMC.
OMC. 2008. WT/DS267/AB/RW. APPELLATE BODY REPORT - UNITED STATES - SUBSIDIES ON UPLAND COTTON - RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY BRAZIL: - Report of the Appellate Body. 2 June 2008. Original: English. Geneva: OMC, 2008.
PAUWELYN, Joost. 2000. Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO: rules are rules – toward a more collective approach. American Journal of International Law, v. 94, n.2, p. 335-347.
RUSE-KHAN, Henning G. 2008. Suspending IP obligations under TRIPS: a viable alternative to enforce prevailing WTO rulings? Geneva (CHE): Center for International Environmental Law. Disponível em: <http://www.ciel.org/Publications/TRIPS_IP_7may08.pdf>. Acesso em: 20 jun. 2008.
SMITH, James M. 2003. Compliance Bargaining in the WTO: Ecuador and the Bananas Dispute. Trabalho apresentado à Conference on Developing Countries and the Trade Negotiation Process – UNCTAD (November 2003). Disponível em: <http://www.ruig-gian.org/ressources/dupont-Smith.pdf>. Acesso em: 10 dez. 2007.
SPADANO, Lucas E. F. A. 2005. Cross-agreement retaliation in the WTO dispute settlement system: an important enforcement mechanism for developing countries? Trabalho apresentado à London School of Economics and Political Science, Law Department (September 2005).
SUBRAMANIAN, Arvind; WATAL Jayashree. Can TRIPS Serve as an Enforcement Device for Developing Countries in the WTO? Journal of International Economic Law, v. 3, n. 3, p. 403-416, 2000.
SUTHERLAND, Peter et al. The future of the WTO: addressing institutional challenges in the new millennium. Geneva (CHE): WTO Publications, 2004.
UNCTAD-ICTSD. 2006. Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries. Issue Paper n. 17. Geneva (CHE): UNCTAD. Disponível em <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc200612_en.pdf> Acesso em: 01 mar. 2008.
VALOR ECONÔMICO. 2008. País vence disputa por algodão e pode retaliar EUA. Sergio Leo. 3 Junho 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.valoronline.com.br/valoreconomico/285/primeirocaderno /brasil/Pais+vence+disputa+por++algodao+e+pode+retaliar+EUA,,,63,4960945.html>. Acesso em: 03 jun. 2008.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2008 Revista da Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de São Paulo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
