, by including traditional knowledge in IP protected by it,the TRIPs Agreement would be addressing also specific developingcountry interests.C. Access to Essential MedicinesInfectious diseases kill over 10 million people each year, more than90% of whom are in the developing world.8 The main causes ofdeath in Africa, Asia and South-America are HIV/AIDS, respiratoryinfections, malaria and tuberculosis. There are several differentaspects to the lack of access by developing countries to medicinesessential to combat these diseases.9The TRIPs Agreement recognizes that there are instances whenthe societal goods served by IP protection must give way to otherpressing social needs: e.g. if in a case of public emergency, a pharmaceutical manufacturer is not able to produce enough of a neededmedicine for which it has a patent, the WTO Member can under789
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/16.WHO (2001), 144.See i.a. ’t Hoen (2003) that updates an earlier account of the TRIPsAgreement and medicines negotiation published in the Chicago Journal for International Law in 2002.
390
Jacques H. J. Bourgeois
TRIPs rules require that company to license its medicines to anotherdomestic manufacturer in order to supplement any anticipatedshortfall. This practice, commonly referred to as compulsory licensing, may seem particularly useful today, given heightened concerns over bio-terrorism for example. Given the spreading of Anthrax by mail in the United States, and the reliance on the drugCipro to combat it, it is not hard to see how WTO Members mightvalue the ability to resort to compulsory licensing.However, Article 31(f) of the TRIPs Agreement, which dealswith the issue of compulsory licenses, provides that production under compulsory licensing must be predominantly for the domestic market. The basic problem is that many developingcountry WTO Members simply have no capacity to produce, evenunder license, the necessary medicines. For them, the only realisticmeans of access is direct import of generics from a WTO Membercompany producing generic medicines under compulsory licenses.So, there is a conflict: on the one hand, a massive public healthproblem, and on the other, a system that was not set up to adequately deal with global public health crises.During the past few years, the WTO Members have sought toresolve this issue. The 2001 Ministerial Declaration refers to TRIPsand public health. It states that‘[we] agree that the TRIPs Agreement does not andshould not prevent Members from taking measures toprotect public health. Accordingly, we affirm that theAgreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members’ rightto protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.’10The Declaration further stated, in paragraph 6, that‘We recognize that WTO Members with insufficient or nomanufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sectorcould face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPs Agreement.’11The TRIPs Council was instructed to find an expeditious solution to this problem.1011
WTO, Doha Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement andPublic Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2), para 4.Ibidem, para 6.
Post Cancún WTO TRIPs – A Bumpy Road
391
Several avenues were explored to find a solution, pending theconclusion of the Doha Round.12 Amending the TRIPs Agreementwas too ambitious: for some WTO Members it must have appearedas a down payment on the conclusion of the Doha Round whichremains uncertain. Adopting an ‘interpretation’ of Article 30 did notprovide much legal certainty. Agreeing not to initiate dispute settlement proceedings in case of departure from Article 31(f) of theTRIPs Agreement was highly dubious from a systemic point ofview. The only appropriate solution was a ‘waiver’ within themeaning of Article IX(3) of the WTO Agreement.13 This solutionwas adopted in a Decision of the WTO General Council, which allows WTO Members to grant compulsory licenses with a view toexporting pharmaceutical products to countries with no or insufficient manufacturing capacities.14 This decision is accompanied by aChairman Statement reflecting the Members’ understanding onsome particular issues.This decision has been criticized: it has been pointed out thatcompulsory licenses for the domestic market (Art. 31(f)) as opposedto licenses for export, are not subject to WTO procedures, that thelimitation of the scope of the Decision – it should not be ‘an instrument to pursue industrial or commercial objectives’ – contradicts the objectives and principles of the TRIPs Agreement and thatthe measures provided to prevent re-exportation make this solutioncostly and inflexible.15 However, it is normal to provide measuresagainst the use of the system to other ends than those for which itwas established: the inclusion of compulsory licensing was not designed to pursue industrial or commercial objectives. Moreover,some safeguards against re-exportation are obviously needed otherwise compulsory licensing will not achieve its purpose.
121314
15
On the issues and the negotiation see Abbott (2002); Bourgeois /Burns (2002); Correa (2002).Which empowers the WTO Ministerial Conference to waive anobligation imposed on a Member by any WTO Agreement.Decision of 30 August 2003, Implementation of Paragraph 6 of theDoha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health(WT/L/540 of 2 September 2003). For a good analysis of this decision and of the Chairman Statement see Vandoren / Van Eeckhoute(2003).I.a. Gopakumar (2004).
392
Jacques H. J. Bourgeois
The negotiations on how to incorporate this transitional solution in the TRIPs Agreement will offer the opportunity to fine-tunethis system. Rather than provide for regulatory measures in developing countries to prevent re-exportation or to control re-importation in developed countries on the basis of ‘non-exhausted’ IPrights, one could try to ensure that the medicines are effectivelyused in developing countries, e.g. by insisting that they are administered to patients in health centers rather than distributed in pharmacies and, if need be, with the assistance of NGOs active in thehealth sector.D. Capacity Building and Technical AssistanceDeveloped country WTO Members undertook in Article 66(2) ofthe TRIPs Agreement to provide incentives to their companies totransfer technology to least-developed country WTO Members.More is probably needed.Capacity building and technical assistance are increasingly onoffer bilaterally and unilaterally or through international organizations to help developing countries to catch up and to adapt to theregulatory requirements of international trade.This is particularly relevant for the setting-up or the reform ofIP protection systems and their management. Engineers and scientists, who are a scarce resource in certain developing countries,should be employed in research and production of goods rather thanin evaluating patent applications. Shouldn’t this be done by consultants put at the disposal of these countries by developed WTOMembers?III. Extending the ScopeA. Biotechnology and Relationship withAgreements on BiotechnologyThe advances in the field of biotechnology and the relationship witha series of fairly recent international agreements and arrangements16dealing with such advances may need to be addressed.Paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration put on the negotiationsagenda, on the one hand, the review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPsAgreement17 with reference to biotechnological inventions, plant1617
See i.a. the series of contributions in Cottier / Mavroïdis (2003).Which excludes from patentability i.a. ‘plants and animals other thanmicro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the produc-
Post Cancún WTO TRIPs – A Bumpy Road
393
varieties and possible exclusion of patentability and, on the other,the relationship between the TRIPs Agreement and the Conventionon Biological Diversity.18The first one of these topics raises technical issues (such as:how to define the terms used in Article 27.3(b)? what is meant bysui generis protection of plant varieties?) and ethical issues relatingto the patentability of life-forms.The second one raises the question whether and how the TRIPsAgreement can further the objectives of the Convention on Biodiversity, and more particularly whether IP can be an instrument forimplementing the Convention on Biodiversity, i.a. on the sharing ofbenefits resulting from the use of genetic resources and on the disclosure of the geographical source and origin of genetic material.The further issue is how this can be achieved without altering theprinciples of the TRIPs Agreement.B. Improved Protection of Geographical IndicationsProtection of geographical indications is a specific European concern. Already in the Roman Empire, there was case law on the illegal use of geographical denomination of origin.19Geographical indications are defined by the TRIPs Agreementas ‘indications which identify a good as originating in the territoryof a Member, or a region or a locality in that territory, where agiven quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin’ (Art. 22.1).They are basically to be protected against ‘any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article10bis of the Paris Convention (1967) (Art. 22.2(b)) and againstregistration of ‘a trademark which contains or consists of a geographical indication with respect to goods not originating in the territory indicated’ provided this is such as to mislead the public as tothe true place of origin (Art. 22.3). Interestingly, where there are
1819
tion of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes’ but which also provides for the protection of plant varieties ‘either by patents or by an effective sui generic system or by acombination thereof’’.On the issues which Article 27.3(b) TRIPs raises, see i.a. Llewelyn,(2003), at 306-308.31 ILM 818 (1992).Flury (2003), 6.
394
Jacques H. J. Bourgeois
homonymous geographical indications for wines, each indication isto be protected (subject to Art. 22.4).However, geographical indications can often not be registeredas trademarks, to the extent that they lack distinctiveness. Protection via unfair competition laws, e.g. misrepresentation, may not beadequate, as geographical indications do more than simply guarantee the geographical origin.In line with its own legislation,20 the EC has proposed to introduce in the TRIPs Agreement a system of ‘registered geographicalindications’ requiring not only proof of geographical origin but alsocompliance with product standards. This can be expected to be adifficult negotiation as such system has also a number of disadvantages.21 Quite apart from the paradox that poor European emigrantsused in their new home countries their skills, applied their productstandards and tended to use geographical indications of their country of origin, a system of registered geographical indications maygrant a right of exclusive use over a word that is commonly used orhas become generic in another jurisdiction.22IV. EnforcementMuch work has been done by WTO Members to adapt their national laws to the TRIPs Agreement. However, enforcing the rulesappears to be a considerable challenge in a series of sectors.A. Causes of Inadequate EnforcementThere seems to be two main causes of inadequate enforcement.First, intellectual property rights are not universally acceptedand recognized by public opinion, not only in developing countryWTO Members but also in developed country WTO Members, andthe degree to which IP rights are accepted differs according to IP20
2122
Council Regulation (EC) 2081/92 on the protection of geographicalindications and designations of origin for agricultural products andfoodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208/1).For a good analysis of the various issues and the pros and cons, seevan Caenegem (2003).Such a phenomenon also occurred within the EC, where Catalanproducers had to abandon the use of the word ‘crémant’, reserved forcertain quality sparkling wines produced in France and Luxembourg,for their sparkling wines following Spain’s accession to the EC. SeeCodorniú SA v. Council, C-309/89 [1994] ECR, I-1853.
Post Cancún WTO TRIPs – A Bumpy Road
395
rights. Particularly in developing country WTO Members theproposition that certain ideas, technologies and processes should beprotected is far from being accepted. Establishing such protectionand enforcing it is rather unpopular and infringing the relevant rulesis socially acceptable. The phenomenon is not limited to developingcountries: piracy of compact disks and of DVDs is occurring on alarge scale in developed countries as well.23Second, the global explosion of information technology, mediaand access to technology has created stresses on the system in theface of continued technological innovation and the ever increasingsophistication of those who seek to infringe IP rights and sidestepprotection. The most obvious, albeit not the only, sector affected isthat of music and video recording, where the industry is waging abattle, i.a. against online downloading. Although the technicalmeans to identify music file-swappers exist, e.g. with Internetsearch engines – ‘crawler/spider’ – targeting websites and users ofpeer-to-peer file-sharing networks sites, their lawfulness is beingcontested:24 there is a clear need for legislative solutions, if not atthe international level, then at least at national level.25 The difficultywill be to strike the right balance between the rights of IP holdersand the privacy rights of citizens, who are not all pirates.B. Cost of EnforcementEnsuring that a country’s legal, administrative and enforcementinfrastructure is adequate to implement the TRIPs Agreement mayrepresent a fairly considerable cost.26Developing country WTO Members should be encouraged topool their resources and to establish regional IP offices, as e.g. theOrganisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle.2723
2425
26
It has been reported that US Secretary of Commerce Evans told hisChinese hosts last year that he bought a pirated DVD of Kill Bill inChina for US$1. But he could probably find this pirated DVD in NewYork as well if not for US$1 then at least for US$5.E.g. The Financial Times, Two rulings hit crackdown in internet piracy, December 20/21, 2003.In the EC the matter could and should be dealt with under EC Directive of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regardto the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data(OJ 1995 L281/31).Lybbert (2002), at 310. There may also be an indirect cost: largetransfers of income between countries (McCalman (2001)).
396
Jacques H. J. Bourgeois
C. Enforcement Through the WTO Dispute Settlement SystemAs already indicated, one of the achievements of the TRIPs Agreement is the application of the WTO DSU to disputes on IP matterscovered by the agreement, at least with respect to most TRIPs provisions. In fact, a fair number of dispute settlement proceedingshave been initiated. At the time of writing, 22 disputes had beenbrought.28 One of them has created an interesting precedent as toremedies: in US – Copyright of Music in Bars,29 the US agreed topay compensation to EC copyright holders.Yet, not subjecting some obligation to the DSU is seen bysome as a way out of a diplomatic stalemate. The example set byArticle 6 TRIPs Agreement (‘For the purposes of dispute settlementunder this Agreement … nothing in this Agreement shall be used toaddress the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property rights’)may be followed if at the end of the day no other way is found toreach agreement on a substantive rule. E.g. as already indicated, atsome point in time this was one of the solutions contemplated forthe purposes of implementing paragraph 6 of the Doha Declarationon the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health. Such a solution mightbe an elegant way out from a diplomatic ‘impasse’. From a lawyer’sperspective, excluding the application of the DSU to a given WTOobligation is tantamount to degrading the obligation agreed upon towhat John Jackson once called ‘a norm of aspiration’.V. ConclusionThis brief and incomplete review of issues arising in the review ofthe TRIPs Agreement in the framework of the Doha Round hashighlighted the need to better take account of the specific difficulties developing country WTO Members are facing in implementingthe TRIPs Agreement and to include a form of IP protection of traditional knowledge offering more balanced benefits. It has drawnthe attention to the issue of compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticalpatents with a view to export. It has dealt with the challenge of including a system of registered geographical indications in theTRIPs Agreement. It has addressed the enforcement issue in someof its different aspects.272829
See Nwauche (2003).For an analysis, see Abbott (2004).WT/DS160/R of 15 June 2000.
Post Cancún WTO TRIPs – A Bumpy Road
397
Finding reasonable and balanced solutions to these issues atWTO level will require considerable efforts and skills, differentfrom those needed for GATT and GATS matters. It should be bornein mind that the legal structures of the TRIPs Agreement differ inmany respects from those of the GATT and of the GATS, in thati.a. it includes not only negative (prohibitive) rules but also a largenumber of positive (affirmative) obligations to introduce measuresfor the protection of IP rights and it is designed to protect privaterights.30
ReferencesFrederick M. Abbott (2002), Compulsory Licensing for PublicHealth Needs: the TRIPs Agenda at the WTO after the DohaDeclaration on Public Health, Quaker U.N. Office OccasionalPaper No. 9, Geneva 2002.Frederick M. Abbott (2004), WTO Dispute Settlement Practice Relating to the Agreement in Trade-Related Intellectual PropertyRights, in: Federico Ortino / Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.),The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2003, Den Haag /London / New York (Kluwer Law International) 2004, 421453.Marco C. E. J. Bronckers (1994), The Impact of TRIPs: IntellectualProperty Protection in Developing Countries, in: CommonMarket Law Review 31 (1994), 1245-1281.Jacques H. J. Bourgeois / Thadeus J. Burns (2002), ImplementingParagraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPs and PublicHealth – The Waiver Solution, in: The Journal of World Intellectual Property 5 (2002) No. 5, 835-864.Carlos M. Correa (1998), Implementing the TRIPs Agreement inthe Patent Field – Options for Developing Countries, in: TheJournal of World Intellectual Property 1 (1998) No. 1, 75-99.Carlos M. Correa (2002), Implications of the Doha Declaration onthe TRIPs Agreement and Public Health, WHO Health Economics and Drugs EDM Series No. 12, Geneva 2002.
30
See Petersmann (2003), at 23.
398
Jacques H. J. Bourgeois
Thomas Cottier / Petros C. Mavroïdis (eds.) (2003), IntellectualProperty, Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development (=World Trade Forum Vol. 3), Ann Arbor / MI (The Universityof Michigan Press) 2003.Ituku Elangi Botoy (2004), From the Paris Convention to the TRIPsAgreement – A One-Hundred-and-Twelve-Year TransitionalPeriod for the Industrialized Countries, in: The Journal ofWorld Intellectual Property 7 (2004) No. 1, 115-130.Andrea E. Flury (2003), Grundprobleme des Rechts der geografischen Herkunftsbezeichnungen, Bern / Stuttgart / Wien(Haupt) 2003.Daniel Gervais (2003), TRIPs, Doha and Traditional Knowledge,in: The Journal of World Intellectual Property 6 (2003) No. 3,403-419.K. M. Gopakumar (2004), The WTO Deal on Cheap Drugs. A Critique, in: The Journal of World Intellectual Property 7 (2004)No. 1, 99-113.Margaret Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law –Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in: Cottier / Mavroïdis(2003), 303-339.Travis J. Lybbert (2002), On assessing the cost of TRIPs implementation, in: World Trade Review 1 (2002) No. 3, 309-321.Phillip McCalman (2001), Reaping What You Sow: An EmpiricalAnalysis of International Patent Harmonization, in: Journal ofInternational Economics 55 (2001), 161-186.Enyinna S. Nwauche (2003), An Evaluation of the African RegionalIntellectual Property Rights System, in: The Journal of WorldIntellectual Property 6 (2003) No. 1, 101-138.Bernard O’Connor (2003), Protecting Traditional Knowledge. AnOverview of a Developing Area of Intellectual Property Law,in: The Journal of World Intellectual Property 6 (2003) No. 5,677-697.Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (2003), From Negative to Positive Integration in the WTO: the TRIPs Agreement and the WTO Constitution, in: Cottier / Mavroïdis (2003), 21-52.Ellen F. M. ’t Hoen (2003), TRIPs, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond, avail-
Post Cancún WTO TRIPs – A Bumpy Road
399
able at http://www.accessmed-msf.org/documents/chicagojournalthoen.pdf.William van Caenegem (2003), Registered Geographical Indications. Between Intellectual Property and Rural Policy, in: TheJournal of World Intellectual Property 6 (2003) No. 5, 699-719and No. 6, 861-874.Paul Vandoren / Jean Charles Van Eeckhoute (2003), The WTOdecision on paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPSAgreement and public health, in: The Journal of World Intellectual Property 6 (2003) No. 6, 779-793.WHO (2001), The World Health Report 2001, Geneva 2001.
AbbreviationsACP:ADP:AFTA:AG:AGOA:AIDS:al.:AMS:AoA:APEC:Art.:ASEAN:ATC:ATP:AU:AVE:
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of StatesAntidumping AgreementASEAN Free Trade AreaAttorney General(US) African Growth and Opportunity ActAcquired Immuno Deficiency SyndromealiiAggregate Measurement of SupportAgreement on AgricultureAsia-Pacific Economic CooperationArticleAssociation of South East Asian NationsAgreement on Textiles and ClothingAndean Trade Preference Agreement (‘Andean Pact’)African UnionAd valorem tariff equivalent
BI:BISD:
Bahnzhaf power indexBasic Instruments and Selected Documents (of theGATT)Balance of paymentsIMF Balance of payments manual
BoP:BPM:
CACM:Central American Common MarketCAFOD: Catholic Agency for Overseas DevelopmentCAP:Common Agricultural Policy (of the EU)CARICOM: Caribbean Common MarketCCCT:Commonwealth Caribbean Countries TariffCEEC:Central and Eastern European CountriesCEFTA:Central European Free Trade AgreementCEMAC: Economic and Monetary Community of CentralAfrican States (cf UDEAC)cf:confer
402
Abbreviations
CGE:Computable general equilibriumCHF:Swiss FrancsCOMECON: Council for Mutual Economic CooperationCOMESA: Common Market for Eastern and Southern AfricaCVD:Countervailing DutyDDA:Doc.:DOTS:DSB:DSR:DSU:DVD:
Doha Development AgendaDocumentIMF Direction of Trade StatisticsDispute Settlement BodyDispute Settlement ReportsDispute Settlement UnderstandingDigital Video Disk
E:EastEBA:Everything but ArmsEC:European CommunityECCAS:Economic Community of Central African StatesECJ:European Court of JusticeECOWAS: Economic Community of West African StatesECR:European Court Reports (Reports of Cases before theCourt of Justice and the Court of First Instance)ECU:European Currency UnitEEC:European Economic CommunityEFTA:European Free Trade Areae.g.:Exempli gratiaEMU:Economic and Monetary Union (of the EU)etc.:et ceteraEU:European UnionEurostat:Statistical Office of the European CommunitiesFAO:fn.:FSC:FTA:FTAA:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UNfootnoteForeign sales corporationFree trade areaFree Trade Area of the Americas
G20(+):G22:G33:G90:
Group of twenty(-plus) (countries in the WTO)Group of twenty-two (countries in the WTO)Group of thirty-three (countries in the WTO)Group of ninety (countries in the WTO)
Abbreviations
403
GATS:GATT:GDP:GI:GNP:GSP:GTAP:
General Agreement on Trade in ServicesGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGross Domestic ProductGeographical indicationGross National ProductGeneralized System of Tariff PreferencesGlobal Trade Analysis Project
HFCS:HIV:H.R.
High-Fructose Corn SyrupHuman Immuno-deficiency VirusHouse Reports (of the US Congress)
i.a.:ICJ:ICJ REP:ICSID:
IFS:ILM:ILO:IMF:IP:IPR:ITA:ITC:ITLOS:
inter aliaInternational Court of JusticeICJ ReportsInternational Centre for Settlement of InvestmentDisputesInternational Center for Trade and SustainableDevelopmentid estInternational Finance Corporation of the World BankGroupIMF’s International Financial StatisticsInternational Legal MaterialsInternational Labour OrganizationInternational Monetary FundIntellectual propertyIntellectual property rightInformation Technology AgreementInternational Trade Centre (of UNCTAD and WTO)International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
JSEPA:
Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement
lit.:LDC:
literaLeast developed country
ICTSD:i.e.:IFC:
MAS:Mutually agreed solutionMEA:Multilateral Environmental AgreementMERCOSUR: Mercado Común del Sur (‘Southern CommonMarket’)
404
Abbreviations
MDG:MFA:MFN:
Millenium Development GoalMultifibre ArrangementMost favourite nation (treatment)
N:NAFTA:NGO:NIC:NTB:NTM:
NorthNorth American Free Trade AreaNon-governmental organizationNewly industrializing countryNon-tariff barrierNon-tariff measure
ODA:OECD:
Official Development AssistanceOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopmentOfficial Journal of the European CommunitiesOne stage least-squareOSlo PARis Convention / Commission for theProtection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic
OJ:OLS:OSPAR:
Para.:PCIJ:PPP:
ParagraphPermanent Court of International JusticePurchasing power parity
QR:
Quota rent
R&D:RTA:
Research and developmentRegional trade agreement
S:S&D:SAARC:SADC:SAL:SAR:SCM:SDR:SDT:Ser.:SM:SP:
SouthSpecial and differential treatment (SDT)South Asian Association for Regional CooperationSouthern African Development CommunityStructural Adjustment LoansSpecial Administrative RegionSubsidies and Countervailing MeasuresSpecial Drawing Right (of the IMF)Special and differential treatment (S&D)SeriesSimple majoritySpecial product
Abbreviations
SPS:SSG:SSI:SSM:
Sanitary and Phytosanitary MeasuresSpecial safeguardShapley-Shubik indexSpecial Safeguard Mechanism
T&C:TBT:TEC:TFP:TRAINS:TRIMs:TRIPS:TRQ:
Textiles and clothingTechnical barriers to tradeTreaty establishing the European CommunityTotal factor productivityTrade Analysis and Information SystemTrade Related Investment MeasuresTrade-related aspects of intellectual property rightsTariff rate quota
UDEAC:
405
Communauté économique et monétaire de l’Afriquecentral (cf CEMAC)UEMOA: Union Économique et Monétaire Ouest AfricaineUK:United KingdomUN(O):United Nations (Organization)UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaUNCTAD: United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUR:Uruguay RoundURAA:Uruguay Round Agreement on AgricultureUS(A):United States (of America)USITC:United States International Trade Commissionv.:VCLT:
versusVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
W:WDI:WHO:WIPO:WITS:WTO:
WestWorld Bank World Development IndicatorsWorld Health OrganizationWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationWorld Integrated Trade SolutionWorld Trade Organization
The Authors of this VolumeLorand Bartels, Lawyer, holds degrees in English Literature andLaw from the University of New South Wales, Australia, and adoctorate in Law from the European University Institute inFlorence, Italy. Before joining the University of Cambridge /UK, he served as a Lecturer in International Economic Law atthe University of Edinburgh. Currently he is Humboldt Fellow atMax Planck Institute for International Law in Heidelberg.Jacques Bourgeois, Lawyer, professor at the College of Europe inBruges. Before, he worked with the EC Commission’s legalservice, with the main work focuses trade and antitrust policies.Fritz Breuss, Economist, is Jean Monnet-Professor for the economyof European integration at the Europainstitut of Wirtschaftsuniversität, Vienna, and collaborator of the Austrian Institute ofEconomic Research – WiFo. Since 2002 he is President ofECSA Austria.Thomas Cottier, Lawyer, is Managing