Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118275
|
| Title: | 國際投資法架構下智慧財產權爭端解決 ─ 以投資人─地主國爭端仲裁為核心
The Settlement of Intellectual Property Under the Framework of International Investment Law ─ISDS as a Focus |
| Authors: | 蔡詠潔
Tsai, Yung-Chieh |
| Contributors: | 沈宗倫
Shen, Chung-Lun
蔡詠潔
Tsai, Yung-Chieh |
| Keywords: | 智慧財產權
國際投資法
投資人─地主國爭端仲裁解決機制
TRIPS協定
WTO爭端解決
Intellectual Property rights (IPRs)
International investment law
ISDS mechanism
TRIPS agreement
Philip Morris v. Australia
Philip Morris v. Uruguay
Eli Lilly v. Canada
CPTPP
TPP
TTIP
WTO dispute settlement system |
| Date: | 2018 |
| Issue Date: | 2018-07-03 17:31:59 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 智慧財產權之規範體制由原先各國依內國法決定轉向於國際貿易協定中建立統一之保障，如TRIPS協定即建立國際智慧財產權之最低保護標準。然隨著已開發國家對於國際智慧財產權之保護需求不斷提高，國際間逐漸開始將智慧財產權納入國際投資協定之架構中，國際貿易協定結合國際投資章節也開始成為新風潮如「跨太平洋夥伴全面進展協定」(Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans─Pacific Partnership; CPTPP)之前身「跨太平洋夥伴協定」(The Trans-Pacific Partnership; TPP)及目前尚未簽署之「跨大西洋貿易及投資夥伴協定」(US─EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP)都同時對智慧財產權以及投資人─地主國爭端仲裁解決機制(Investor-state dispute settlement; ISDS)設有規範，國際投資法架構下國際智慧財產權應如何適用成為爭議。且由於國際投資法對於國際智慧財產權是相對較新的領域，許多規範體制發展並未如國際智慧財產權於國際貿易法領域中有完整規範，智慧財產權無體財產之性質也增添適用上之難度，如智慧財產權是否為投資，以及徵收條款、國民待遇條款、最惠國待遇條款及公平與公正待遇條款又該如何適用到智財投資。
本文除對於智慧財產權如何適用國際投資法作出探討，更希望透過投資人─地主國爭端仲裁解決機制了解目前智慧財產權之規範體制向國際投資法發展會遇到之爭議，如對於「與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定」(Agreement on Trade─Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights，TRIPS協定)之彈性為國家主權留下之監管空間可能會受到挑戰，如Philip Morris公司案(Philip Morris v. Australia; Philip Morris v. Uruguay) 對澳洲及烏拉圭之菸品素面包裝法案提起投資人─地主國爭端仲裁，而Eli Lilly公司案(Eli Lilly v. Canada)亦對於加拿大之專利實用性承諾主義與其被撤銷之藥品專利提起投資人─地主國爭端仲裁，兩者皆為引起國際關注之智慧財產權投資人─地主國爭端仲裁案件。由於國際投資法之發展背景使其較傾向保護外國投資人及爭端仲裁案件之機密性質，使得對於投資人─地主國爭端仲裁解決機制之批評不斷加上智財投資爭端案件日益增加，CPTPP之前身TPP與TTIP開始重新反思投資人─地主國爭端仲裁解決機制之規範，如將仲裁文書資料公開透明化、對於仲裁人之選擇更加嚴謹、並新增第三方參加仲裁程序之制度及法庭之友制度等，更提出國際投資法院之構想欲創立多邊投資法院。
投資人─地主國爭端仲裁機制援引世界貿易組織(World Trade Orgazation; WTO) 爭端解決之法理，使得WTO下各項協定可能成為特定領域投資爭端之準據法。雖然對於智慧財產權是否應適用投資人─地主國爭端仲裁解決機制仍有許多爭議，但可預見的是WTO爭端解決機制已非智財爭端解決之唯一場域。從Eli Lilly公司案以及Philip Morris公司案的仲裁結果中，仲裁庭並未大幅提高智財的保護標準，而是維持TRIPS協定最低保護標準之規範未增設TRIPS協定所無之權利。投資人─地主國爭端仲裁程序雖不同於以往智慧財產權人尋求爭端解決之途徑，惟本質上智慧財產權於TRIPS協定中之核心原則並未被改變。
Shifting from the domestic law to the international trade law, the intellectual property (IP) regime established the minimum standards for the protection of IP in the The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)TRIPS agreement. While With the demands for higher IP protection by from the developed countries increase, the regime shifts towards the international investment law and IP has also been gradually encompassed intellectual property as “investment” in the International Investment Agreements (IIAs). The application of international intellectual property rights (IPRs) under the framework of international investment law becomes an issue following by the incorporation of investment chapters in the international trade agreements. For instance, the Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans─Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the revised Trans-Pacific Partership (TPP) Agreement as well as the negotiating US─EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) both Agreement include IP chapters and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. International investment law is a relatively new and underestimated growing field for IP norms comparinge with the trade regime. The intangibility of IP further complicates the convergence of IP norms and the investment regime. The issues involve lie in whether IPRs are covered investments and how IPRs are appliedto apply IPRs under the standards of investment protection, such as expropriation, national treatment (NT), most- favored- nation (MFN) and fair and equitable treatment (FET).
In addition to issues involving the application of IPRs under international investment law, this paper also focuses on the controversies stemming from the intersection of ISDS and IPRs. The shift of the IP regime to ISDS challenges the TRIPS flexibilities and the regulatory space of the host statenational sovereignty. The classic typical examples are the Philip Morris cases and the Eli Lilly case. The former case concerneding Australia’s and Uruguay’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Acts, while the latter case concerneding Canada’s patent utility promise doctrine and invalidated pharmaceutical patents. These Both of the IP-related ISDS cases attract worldwide attentions. Since traditionally the origins of the international investment law, it tends to protect investors and mantain the confidentiality and party-autonomy of ISDS mechanisms, the IP-related investment disputes ISDS cases increase and accompany with a flood of criticism on about the ISDS mechanisms follows. It therefore can be seen that modern IIAs, including Consequently, CPTPP, (TPP) and TTIP sought begin to improve the ISDS mechanisms by making the arbitral documents publicly accessible to ensure the transparency of arbitral proceedings ; establishing moral and conduct standards for selecting ISDS arbitrators ofto ensure their integrity; coverallowing third-party and non-disputing party (amicus curiae) participation and accepting amicus curiae briefs. Also, the concept of Multiple Investment Court promoted by European Union is one of the promosing improvements. The Multiple Investment Court would be a permanent body with an appeal tribunal and have tenured, highly qualified judges instead of parties-selected arbitrators.
This paper argues that In fact, it is not the higher levels of IP protection that investors seek, but predictable answers to key legal questions. Although unsolved controversies regarding to the IP regime and the ISDS mechanisms still exist, what can be confirmed is there’s one thing to be sure that the WTO dispute settlement system is will no longer be the sole forum for the settlement of IP disputes. As demonstrated Iin the Philip Morris cases and the Eli Lilly case, arbitral tribunals did not significantly raise the level of IP protection level nor create new IPRs. The international minimum standard established in from the TRIPS agreement was well-repected. Aand ISDS still preserves the core value of IP. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
一、 中文專書
林彩瑜，WTO 制度與實務-世界貿易組織法律研究(三)，2013年，2版。
李貴英，國際投資法專論: 國際投資爭端之解決，2004年。
二、 中文論文
陳雅眉，ICSID架構下國際投資爭端解決體制之研究，東吳大學法律研究所，2008年。
三、 中文期刊
林韋仲，外國投資之法律管制與保護──以徵收 投資者私有財產為中心(上)，台灣國際法季刊，第八卷，第四期，2011年12月。
賴昀辰，解析跨大西洋貿易與與投資夥伴協議(TTIP)：理想與現實的可能矛盾，台灣大學政治科學論叢，第70期，2016年12月。
顏慧欣，美國雙邊投資條款之發展與對我國之啟示，中華經濟研究院台灣 WTO中，WTO電子報，第344 期，2012年。
龔鈺芬，ICSID 管轄權之範圍-從 ICSID 公約第 25.1 條及實務案例論投資概念，中華國際法與超國界法評論，第12卷，第2期，2016年。
四、 新聞資料
陳鷖人， CPTPP凍結20項條文 經濟部：凍結部分暫緩修法，中國時報，2018年2月22日。
中國新聞組，中美貿易戰 30億vs. 600億美元 專家：中國留餘地，世界日報，2018年3月 27日。
立院三讀藥事法 增訂藥品專利連結制度，中央通訊社，2017年12月29日。
英文文獻
一、 英文專書論著
ABBOTT, FREDERICK et al., INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN AN INTEGRATED WORLD ECONOMY (Wolters Kluwer Deutschland. 2011).
BALAŠ, VLADIMÍR, Review of Awards, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Peter Muchlinski, et al. eds., 2008).
BENTON, LAUREN LAW AND COLONIAL CULTURES: LEGAL REGIMES IN WORLD HISTORY, 1400─1900 (Cambridge University Press. 2002).
CARVALHO, NUNO PIRES DE, The Current System of Intellectual Property Rights Aims to Promote Trade and Not Innovation, in EUROPEAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 2016 (2016).
CHAISSE, JULIEN & DINI SEJKO, Investor─State Arbitration Distorted: When the Claimant Is a State, in JUDGING THE STATE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT LAW: SOVEREIGNTY MODERN, THE LAW AND THE ECONOMICS (Leïla Choukroune ed. 2016).
CORREA, CARLOS M, The Current System of Trade and Intellectual Property Rights, in EUROPEAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW (2016).
Cottier, Thomas, Embedding Intellectual Property in International Law, in CURRENT ALLIANCES IN INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWMAKING: THE EMERGENCE AND IMPACT OF MEGA─REGIONALS (Pedro Roffe and Xavier Seuba ed. Sep, 2017).
DELANEY, JOACHIM & DANIEL BARSTOW MAGRAW, Procedural transparency, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Peter Muchlinski, et al. eds., 2008).
DINWOODIE, GRAEME B & ROCHELLE C DREYFUSS, A NEOFEDERALIST VISION OF TRIPS: THE RESILIENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (Oxford University Press. 2012).
DOLZER, RUDOLF & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Oxford University Press, 2ed. 2012).
GWYNN, MARIA A, POWER IN THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (Springer. 2016).
HILTY, RETO M, Ways out of the Trap of Article 1 (1) TRIPS, in TRIPS PLUS 20 (2016).
KLEINHEISTERKAMP, JAN & LAUGE N SKOVGAARD POULSEN, Investment Protection in TTIP: Three Feasible Proposals, in EUROPEAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 2016 (2016).
KUR, ANNETTE, From minimum standards to maximum rules, in TRIPS PLUS 20 (2016).
LEE, JAEMIN, Taming Investor– State Arbitration?, in INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW AND GOVERNANCE: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF MITSUO MATSUSHITA (Julien Chaisse & Tsai─Yu Lin eds., 2016).
LIN, TSAI ─ YU, Facilitating Coherent Application of WTO Law Within and Outside the Organization: Investment Regime as an Example in INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW AND GOVERNANCE: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF MITSUO MATSUSHITA (Julien Chaisse & TsaiYu ─ Lin eds., 2016).
MERCURIO, BRYAN, Chapter 16 Retaliatory Trade Measures in the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Are There Really Alternatives?, in TRADE DISPUTES AND THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE WTO: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT (2009).
MILES, KATE, THE ORIGINS OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: EMPIRE, ENVIRONMENT AND THE SAFEGUARDING OF CAPITAL (Cambridge University Press. 2013).
PUCHALA, DONALD J. & RAYMOND F. HOPKINS, International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis, in INTERNATIONAL REGIMES (Stephen D Krasner ed. 1983).
REINISCH, AUGUST & LORETTA MALINTOPPI, Methods of Dispute Resolution, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Peter Muchlinski, et al. eds., 2008).
REINISCH, AUGUST, STANDARDS OF INVESTMENT PROTECTION (Oxford University Press. 2008).
SCHILL, STEPHAN W, In Defense of International Investment Law, in EUROPEAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 2016 (Christoph Herrmann Marc Bungenberg , Markus Krajewski, Jorg Philipp Terhechte ed. 2016).
SCHREUER, CHRISTOPH, Consent to Arbitration, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Peter Muchlinski, et al. eds., Oxford University Press 2008).
STRANGE, SUSAN, STATES AND MARKETS (Continuum 2 ed. 1994).
SUREDA, ANDRÉS RIGO, INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION: JUDGING UNDER UNCERTAINTY (Cambridge University Press. 2012).
THOMAS JAEGER, Merging ACTA into TRIPS: Does TRIPS─Based IP Enforcement Need Reform?, in TRIPS PLUS 20 (2016).
VAN HARTEN, GUS, A Critique of Investment Treaties, in RETHINKING BILATERL INVESTMENT TREATIES: CRITICAL ISSUES AND POLICY CHOICES (Kavaljit Singh and Burghard Ilge ed. 2016).
VANHONNAEKER, LUKAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AS FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: FROM COLLISION TO COLLABORATION (Edward Elgar Publishing. 2015).
WEISS, FRIEDL, Trade and Investment, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Peter Muchlinski, et al. eds., 2008).
YANNACA─SMALL, KATIA, Parallel Proceedings, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Peter Muchlinski, et al. eds., Oxford University Press 2008).
二、 英文期刊專論
Alvarez, José E, Is the Trans─Pacific Partnership`s Investment Chapter the New Gold Standard, 47 VICTORIA U. WELLINGTON L. REV. (2016).
Baker, Brook K & Katrina Geddes, ISDS, Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health (2016).
Baker, Brook K & Katrina Geddes, The Incredible Shrinking Victory: Eli Lilly v. Canada, Success, Judicial Reversal, and Continuing Threats from PharmaceuticalI ISDS, (2017).
Baker, Brook K, Corporate Power Unbound: Investor─State Arbitration of IP Monopolies on Medicines–Eli Lilly and the TPP, (2013).
Boie, Bertram, The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights through Bilateral Investment Treaties: Is there a TRIPS-plus Dimension?, NCCR Trade Regulation, Trade Working Paper (2010).
Chaisse, Julien & Puneeth Nagaraj, Changing Lanes: Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Investment, 37 HASTINGS INT`L & COMP. L. REV. (2014).
Chaisse, Julien & Xinjie Luan, Revisiting the Intellectual Property Dilemma: How Did We Get to a Strong WTO IPR Regime, 34 SANTA CLARA HIGH TECH. LJ (2018).
Ciuriak, Dan et al., Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans─Pacific Partnership, 21 EAST ASIAN ECONOMIC REVIEW (2017).
Collishaw, Neil, History of Tobacco Control in Canada, OTTAWA: PHYSICIANS FOR A SMOKE─FREE ONTARIO (2009).
Correa, Carlos M, Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements: Implications for the Granting of Compulsory Licenses, 26 MICH. J. INT`L L. (2004).
Cox, Krista L, The Intellectual Property Chapter of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement and Investment in Developing Nations, 35 U. PA. J. INT`L L. (2013).
de Figueiredo, Roberto Castro, The Investment Requirement of the ICSID Convention and the Role of Investment Treaties, 26 AM. REV. INT`L ARB. (2015).
Dinev, Plamen, Regulatory Chill and the TTIP: an Intellectual Property Perspective, E.I.P.R., 39(6), 344 (2017).
Ding, Jieying, Enforcement in International Investment and Trade Law: History, Assessment, and Proposed Solutions, 47 GEO. J. INT`L L. (2016).
Dinwoodie, Graeme B & Rochelle C Dreyfuss, TRIPS and the Dynamics of Intellectual Property Lawmaking, 36 CASE W. RES. J. INT`L L. (2004).
Engfeldt, Helena Jung, Should ICSID Go Gangnam Style in Light of Non─Traditional Foreign Investments Including Those Spurred on by Social Media─Applying an Industry─Specific Lens to the Salini Test to Determine Article 25 Jurisdiction, 32 BERKELEY J. INT`L L. (2014).
Farley, Christine Haight, TRIPS-plus Trade and Investment Agreements: Why More May Be Less for Economic Development, 35 U. PA. J. INT`L L. (2013).
Frankel, Susy, Interpreting the Overlap of International Investment and Intellectual Property Law, 1 (2016).
Gaffney, John P, When is Investor─State Dispute Settlement Appropriate to Resolve Investment Disputes? an Idea for a Rule─of─Law Ratings Mechanism, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Columbia FDI Perspectives No. 149, 1 (2015).
Gathii, James Thuo & Cynthia M Ho, Regime Shifting of IP Law Making and Enforcement from the WTO to the International Investment Regime, 18 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 427 428(2017).
Gervais, Daniel J Intellectual Property, Trade & Development: The State of Play, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. (2005).
Haggard, Stephan & Beth A. Simmons, Theories of International Regimes, 41 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 491(1987).
Hartmann, Stephanie, When Two International Regimes Collide: An Analysis of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Disputes and Why Overlapping Jurisdiction of the WTO and Investment Tribunals Does Not Result in Convergence of Norms, 21 UCLA J. INT`L L. FOREIGN AFF. (2017).
Helfer, Laurence R., Regime Shifting in the International Intellectual Property System, 7 PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS 39(2009).
Helfer, Laurence R., Regime Shifting: the Trips Agreement and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking, 29 YALE J. INT`L L. (2004).
Ho, Cynthia M, A Collision Course Between TRIPS Flexibilities and Investor─State Proceedings, 6 UC IRVINE LAW REVIEW (2016).
Ho, Cynthia M, Sovereignty Under Siege: Corporate Challenges to Domestic Intellectual Property Decisions, 30 BERKELEY TECH. LJ (2015).
Hughes, Kelly, Trans (Parency) Pacific Partnership: The Downfall of the TPP, 15 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. (2016).
Keohane, Robert O, The Demand for International Regimes, 36 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION (1982).
Knahr, Christina & August Reinisch, Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration–The Biwater Gauff Compromise, 6 THE LAW & PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (2007).
Korzun,Vera, The Right to Regulate in Investor─State Arbitration: Slicing and Dicing Regulatory Carve─outs, 50 VAND. J. TRANSNAT`L L. (2017).
Krasner, Stephen D, Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables, 36 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION (1982).
Lazo, Rodrigo Polanco & Sebastián Gómez Fiedler, A Requiem for the Trans─Pacific Partnership: Something New, Something Old and Something Borrowed?, 18 MELBOURNE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2017).
Maupin, Julie A, Public and Private in International Investment Law: an Integrated Systems Approach, 54 VA. J. INT`L L. (2013).
Mercurio, Bryan, Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements, 15 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW (2012).
Morris, Emily Michiko, Much Ado About the TPP’s Effect on Pharmaceuticals, (2017).
Nussbaum, Arthur, Arbitration Bewteen the Lena Goldfields Ltd. and the Soviet Government, 36 Cornell L. Rev. (1950).
Okediji, Ruth L, Is Intellectual Property Investment─Eli Lilly v. Canada and the International Intellectual Property System, 35 U. PA. J. INT`L L. (2013).
Potestà, Michele, Republic of Italy v. Republic of Cuba, 106 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2012).
Puig, Sergio, The Merging of International Trade and Investment Law, 33 BERKELEY J. INT`L L. (2015).
Ragavan, Srividhya, Drugs, Drugs Everywhere but Just Not for the Poor, TEX. A&M L. REV., (2016).
Raustiala, Kal & David G Victor, The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources, 58 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION (2004).
Ruse─Khan, Henning Grosse, Litigating Intellectual Property Rights in Investor─State Arbitration: From Plain Packaging to Patent Revocation, (2014).
Schill, Stephan W, The Public Law Challenge: Killing or Rethinking International Investment Law? (2012).
Schwartz, Joanna C, The Cost of Suing Business, 65 DEPAUL L. REV. (2015).
Schwieder, Robert W, TTIP and the Investment Court System: A New (and Improved) Paradigm for Investor─State Adjudication, 55 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT`L L. (2016).
Sell, Susan K, TRIPS was Never Enough: Vertical Forum Shifting, FTAS, ACTA, and TPP, 18 J. INTELL. PROP. L. (2011).
Shi, Wei, Retrieving the Missing Ladder: Excavating Flexibility of the Trips Mechanism, 31 CONN. J. INT`L L. (2016).
Trakman, Leon E, Investment Dispute Resolution under the Transpacific Partnership Agreement Prelude to a Slippery Slope?, 5 GEO. MASON J. INT`L COM. L. (2013).
Trimble, Marketa, Advancing National Intellectual Property Policies in a Transnational Context, 74 MD. L. REV. (2014).
Vadi, Valentina S, Towards a New Dialectics: Pharmaceurtical Patents, Public Health and Foreign Direct Investments, 5 NYU J. INTELL. PROP. & ENT. L. (2015).
Van Harten, Gus & Martin Loughlin, Investment treaty arbitration as a species of global administrative law, 17 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2006).
Van Harten, Gus, A Parade of Reforms: the European Commission`s Latest Proposal for ISDS, OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL, LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES (2015).
Van Harten, Gus, A Report on the Flawed Proposals for Investor─State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) in TTIP and CETA, OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL, LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES (2015).
Van Harten, Gus, Key Flaws in The European Commission’s Proposals for Foreign Investor Protection in TTIP, OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL, LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES(2016).
Voon, Tania SL et al., Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: Striving for Coherence in National and International Law, Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 675 (2012).
Wagner, Markus, Regulatory Space in International Trade Law and International Investment Law, 36 U. PA. J. INT`L L. (2014).
Watal, Jayashree, Pharmaceutical Patents, Prices and Welfare Losses: Policy Options for India under the WTO TRIPS Agreement, 23 THE WORLD ECONOMY 733(2000).
Weaver, Mark, The Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): ISDS Provisions, Reconciliation, and Future Trade Implications, 29 EMORY INT`L L. REV. (2014).
Yu, Peter K, Crossfertilizing ISDS with TRIPS, TEX. A&M L. REV. (2017).
Yu, Peter K, Currents and Crosscurrents in the International Intellectual Property Regime, 38 LOY. LAL REV. (2004).
Yu, Peter K, From Pirates to Partners: Protecting Intellectual Property in China in the Twenty─First Century, 50 AM. UL REV. (2001).
Yu, Peter K, The Investment─Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 66 AM. UL REV. (2017).
Yu, Peter K, Thinking About the Trans─Pacific Partnership (and a Mega─Regional Agreement on Life Support), TEX. A&M L. REV. (2017).
三、 案件資料
Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1 (Aug 25, 2014).
AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 36 SCC, Supreme Court of Canada (2018).
Australia — Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, DS467 (WTO).
Australia — Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, Communication From The Chairperson Of The Panel, WT/DS467/22 (WTO).
Australia ──Tobacco Plain Packaging (WTO).
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co, Ltd (Belgium v Spain), I.C.J. 1970 I.C.J. 3. (1970)
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, para 352 (Jul. 24, 2008).
British American Tobacco Australasia Limited and Ors v. Commonwealth of Australia and J T International SA v. Commonwealth of Australia, (High Court of Australia).
Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4 (2004)
Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, Government of Canada Statement of Defence, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, UNCITRAL (Jun. 30, 2014 ).
Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, Notice Of Arbitration, UNCITRAL (Sep.12, 2013)
Eli Lilly and Company v. Gvernment of Canada, Final Award, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, UNCITRAL (Mar. 16, 2017).
Eli Lilly and Company v. Gvernment of Canada, Submission of Amicus Curiae Brief On The Merits Of The Dispute, Burcu Kilic, Brook K. Baker, HU Yuanqiong, Cynthia Ho, Luke McDonagh, Pratyush Upreti, Yaniv Heled, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, UNCITRAL (Feb. 12, 2016).
Eli Lilly and Company v. Gvernment of Canada, Submission Of Mexico Pursuant To NAFTA Article 1128, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, UNCITRAL (Mar. 18, 2016).
Eli Lilly and Company v. Gvernment of Canada, Submission Of The United States Of America, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, UNCITRAL (Mar. 18, 2016).
Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3 (Mar 9, 1998).
La Republique d`Italie v. La Republique de Cuba, UNCITRAL (Aug. 23, 1995).
Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, Award on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, (May 17, 2007)
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, Final Award, UNCITRAL (Aug. 3, 2005).
Philip Morris Aisa Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, UNCITRAL Case No. 2012-12, PCA ( Dec. 17, 2015).
Philip Morris Aisa Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, Notice of Arbitration, PCA (Nov. 21, 2011).
Philip Morris Aisa Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, Procedural Order No. 4 Regarding the Procedure until a Decision on Bifurcation, UNCITRAL Case No. 2012-12, PCA, (Oct. 26, 2012).
Philip Morris Brands Sarl, et al. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, PCA (Jul. 8, 2016 ).
Philip Morris Brands Sarl, et al. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Request for Arbitration, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, PCA (Feb. 19, 2010).
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Morocco, 42 ILM 609, 622 (2003).
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Procedural order No. 2, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13 (2004).
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (16 May 2006).
Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, Notice of arbitration, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, (May 31, 2012).
四、 新聞資料
Boffey, Daniel, Hopes of EU─US trade agreement put on ice, say Brussels sources, THE GUARDIAN, June 5, 2017.
Bravo, Richard and Julia Chatterley, Trump Is Willing to Reopen TTIP Amid EU─U.S. Trade Dispute, Ross Says, BLOOMBERG, 29 March 2018.
Colombia Cuts Price of Novartis Cancer Drug by 44 Percent, REUTERS, December 21, 2016.
Compulsory Licensing in Colombia: Leaked Documents Show Aggressive Lobbying by NOVARTIS, PUBLIC EYE, April 12, 2017.
Geller, Martinne & Tom Miles, Australia Wins Landmark WTO Tobacco Packaging Case - Bloomberg, REUTERS, May 4, 2017.
Keating, Dave, EU Tells Trump: No Paris Climate Deal, No Free Trade, FORBES, 8 FEB 2018.
Kovensky, Josh, Company Sues Ukraine in Bid to Corner Hepatitis C Drug Market, KYIV POST (UKRAINE`S GLOBAL VOICE), June 16 2017.
Nightingale, Alexandra, The Significance Of Uruguay’s Win Over Philip Morris International, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WATCH, July 21, 2016.
PhRMA Statement on NAFTA Tribunal Decision in the Eli Lilly Case, PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA (PHRMA), March 21, 2017.
Swanson, Ana, Trump’s administration has a new target on trade — and it’s not China or Mexico, THE WASHINGTON POST, January 31, 2017.
U.S. Chamber Statement on Eli Lilly v. Canada Patent Ruling, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, March 21, 2017.
USTR Releases NAFTA Negotiating Objectives, UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT, July 2017.
五、 網路資料
Corporate Europe Observertoroy, Civil Society Groups Say No To Investor─State Dispute Settlement in EU─US Trade Deal(17th Dec 2013), available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1008.
Gilead Pharma Corp Withdraws Investment Arbitration after Ukraine Agrees to Settlement of Dispute over Monopoly Rights to Market Anti─Viral Drug(16 March 2017).
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/02/02/france─us─no─paris─agreement─no─trade─agreement─1/.
Mathiesen, Karl, France to Trump: ‘No Paris Agreement, no EU trade agreement’(2 Feb 2018), available at
Patent on Hep C Drug Rejected in Ukraine: Price of Sofosbuvir Will Significantly Reduce (March 14, 2018). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
104651011 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104651011 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.001.2018.F10 |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101101.pdf | | 5421Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 96 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
