以符合人权文书的方式解释TRIPS条款:探索南南司法合作的政策选择

T. Manu
{"title":"以符合人权文书的方式解释TRIPS条款:探索南南司法合作的政策选择","authors":"T. Manu","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2017.1322850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The rigid interface between the enforcement provisions of patents under TRIPS standards and the institutional, technical and human resource capacity deficiencies means that political decisions to exploit the TRIPS flexibilities to promote access to medicines in the context of Africa is almost an exercise in futility. Notably, the Development Agenda under the auspices of WIPO often follows the North-South model, and the failings are well documented in the empirical literature, as this has brought little institutional change. For instance, the judiciary that could help to provide an interpretation of the TRIPS flexibilities to promote public health simply lacks capacity. At the same time, the Indian judiciary, through the lens of human rights norms, is widely known for its functional activism in the interpretation of the TRIPS provisions consistent with public health protection, and is the best example for African countries. It is on this basis that this paper attempts a critical exploration of judicial cooperation based on a South-South model with a view to underlining its doctrinal significance for African countries. Therefore, the author questions the rationality of African countries’ exclusive reliance on so-called North-South capacity building and argues that the South-South judicial cooperation model would provide a logical platform that could operate alongside the conventional North-South system for building institutional, technical, and human resource-based aspects of capacity for its judiciary to interpret TRIPS in a manner consistent with human rights norms to promote access to medicines.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2017.1322850","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpretation of TRIPS provisions in a manner consistent with human rights instruments: a policy option for the exploration of South-South judicial cooperation\",\"authors\":\"T. Manu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2017.1322850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The rigid interface between the enforcement provisions of patents under TRIPS standards and the institutional, technical and human resource capacity deficiencies means that political decisions to exploit the TRIPS flexibilities to promote access to medicines in the context of Africa is almost an exercise in futility. Notably, the Development Agenda under the auspices of WIPO often follows the North-South model, and the failings are well documented in the empirical literature, as this has brought little institutional change. For instance, the judiciary that could help to provide an interpretation of the TRIPS flexibilities to promote public health simply lacks capacity. At the same time, the Indian judiciary, through the lens of human rights norms, is widely known for its functional activism in the interpretation of the TRIPS provisions consistent with public health protection, and is the best example for African countries. It is on this basis that this paper attempts a critical exploration of judicial cooperation based on a South-South model with a view to underlining its doctrinal significance for African countries. Therefore, the author questions the rationality of African countries’ exclusive reliance on so-called North-South capacity building and argues that the South-South judicial cooperation model would provide a logical platform that could operate alongside the conventional North-South system for building institutional, technical, and human resource-based aspects of capacity for its judiciary to interpret TRIPS in a manner consistent with human rights norms to promote access to medicines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2017.1322850\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2017.1322850\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2017.1322850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》标准下的专利强制执行条款与机构、技术和人力资源能力的缺陷之间的僵硬联系意味着,利用《与贸易相关的知识产权协定》的灵活性在非洲促进药品获取的政治决定几乎是徒劳的。值得注意的是,知识产权组织主持下的《发展议程》通常遵循南北模式,经验文献中充分记录了这些失败,因为这几乎没有带来制度变革。例如,可以帮助解释《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》的灵活性以促进公共卫生的司法机构根本缺乏能力。与此同时,从人权规范的角度来看,印度司法机构以其在解释符合公共卫生保护的《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》条款方面的职能积极性而广为人知,是非洲国家的最佳榜样。正是在此基础上,本文试图对基于南南模式的司法合作进行批判性探索,以强调其对非洲国家的理论意义。因此,作者质疑非洲国家完全依赖所谓的南北能力建设的合理性,并认为南南司法合作模式将提供一个逻辑平台,可以与传统的南北体系一起运作,以及司法部门以符合人权规范的方式解释《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》以促进获得药品的能力的人力资源方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Interpretation of TRIPS provisions in a manner consistent with human rights instruments: a policy option for the exploration of South-South judicial cooperation
ABSTRACT The rigid interface between the enforcement provisions of patents under TRIPS standards and the institutional, technical and human resource capacity deficiencies means that political decisions to exploit the TRIPS flexibilities to promote access to medicines in the context of Africa is almost an exercise in futility. Notably, the Development Agenda under the auspices of WIPO often follows the North-South model, and the failings are well documented in the empirical literature, as this has brought little institutional change. For instance, the judiciary that could help to provide an interpretation of the TRIPS flexibilities to promote public health simply lacks capacity. At the same time, the Indian judiciary, through the lens of human rights norms, is widely known for its functional activism in the interpretation of the TRIPS provisions consistent with public health protection, and is the best example for African countries. It is on this basis that this paper attempts a critical exploration of judicial cooperation based on a South-South model with a view to underlining its doctrinal significance for African countries. Therefore, the author questions the rationality of African countries’ exclusive reliance on so-called North-South capacity building and argues that the South-South judicial cooperation model would provide a logical platform that could operate alongside the conventional North-South system for building institutional, technical, and human resource-based aspects of capacity for its judiciary to interpret TRIPS in a manner consistent with human rights norms to promote access to medicines.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1