• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Human rights and intellectual property, two bodies of law that were once strangers, are becoming increasingly intimate bedfellows. Over the past three years, human rights bodies within the United Nations have devoted unprecedented attention to intellectual property issues, including patented medicines, digital copyrights, technology transfers, economic, social and cultural rights, plant variety protection, and economic development. Unlike the approaches adopted in established intellectual property lawmaking organizations such as the WTO and WIPO, the new human rights approach to intellectual property is often critical of existing standards of protection and it seeks to address legal and policy issues that intellectual property treaty makers and legislators often ignore.

In this essay, I analyze two competing frameworks that governments, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations are using to conceptualize the intersection of human rights and intellectual property. The first approach views the two areas of law as in fundamental conflict, with strong intellectual property protection standards - in particular those of the TRIPs Agreement - undermining a broad spectrum of human rights. The second approach sees both areas of law as concerned with the same basic question: defining the appropriate scope of private monopoly power to give authors and inventors a sufficient incentive to create and innovate, while ensuring that the consuming public adequate access to the fruits of their efforts. The essay traces the evolution of these two competing approaches and explores their consequences for future international lawmaking.

Abstract:
This Article draws upon the international relations theory of regimes to analyze the growing chorus of challenges to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), and to the expansion of intellectual property rights more generally. The few years since TRIPs entered into force have seen nothing less than an explosion of interest in intellectual property issues in international fora not previously concerned with the products of human creativity or innovation. Intellectual property is now at or near the top of the agenda in intergovernmental organizations such as the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, in international negotiating fora such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's Conference of the Parties and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and in expert and political bodies such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights. In some of these venues, intellectual property lawmaking has led to the negotiation of new treaties; in others, challenges to TRIPs are framed through reinterpretation of existing agreements and the creation of nonbinding declarations, recommendations, and other forms of soft law.

The theoretical and practical consequences of these new developments have yet to be fully explored. I argue in this Article that the expansion of intellectual property lawmaking into these diverse international fora is the result of a strategy of "regime shifting" by developing countries and NGOs that are dissatisfied with many of the provisions in TRIPs and are actively seeking ways to recalibrate, revise, or supplement them. State and non-state actors shift lawmaking initiatives from one international regime to another for many reasons. In the case of intellectual property rights, developing countries and their allies have shifted negotiations and hard and soft lawmaking initiatives to four international regimes - those governing biodiversity, plant genetic resources, public health and human rights - whose institutions, actors, and subject matter mandates are more closely aligned with these countries' interests. Within these four regimes, developing countries are questioning established legal prescriptions and generating new principles, norms, and rules of intellectual property protection for states and private parties to follow. Intellectual property regime shifting thus heralds the rise of a more complex international environment in which seemingly settled treaty bargains are contested and new dynamics of lawmaking and dispute settlement must be considered.

Abstract:
This Article, prepared for a Symposium on Intellectual Property and Social Justice held at the University of California at Davis School of Law in March 2006, addresses the growing intersection of human rights law and intellectual property law. Its principal point of departure is a November 2005 General Comment on "the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author" - a relatively obscure provision of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Article builds upon the analysis in the General Comment to sketch the tentative outlines of a human rights framework for intellectual property, a framework that offers a distinctive approach for mediating the two fields of law and policy.

The Article also analyzes the rapidly changing institutional environment in which states and NGOs are generating new legal rules to govern the interface between human rights and intellectual property. It focuses in particular on three recent treaty-making initiatives in three intergovernmental organizations - UNESCO, WHO, and WIPO. These initiatives include (1) the recently adopted Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, (2) the proposed Medical Research and Development Treaty, and (3) the proposed Access to Knowledge Treaty. Each of these treaty texts draws upon international human rights law in different ways to question existing approaches to intellectual property protection and to revise the mandates of intergovernmental organizations.

Abstract:
The article critically assesses the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a potential model for solving the immense legal challenges presented by transborder activity. Inaugurated in late 1999 by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the UDRP creates a fast, inexpensive online mechanism for trademark owners to recapture domain names held by persons who, in bad faith, register and use domain names that are confusingly similar to those marks. At present, the UDRP applies only to a narrow segment of disputes between trademark owners and domain name registrants. But the UDRP has been heralded by some as the model for a new non-national approach to lawmaking and dispute settlement applicable to a broader set of legal issues that transcend national borders.

In this article, we describe the conditions that led to the UDRP's formation and consider whether the UDRP can and should be replicated elsewhere. The process by which the UDRP was created, and the way in which it is structured, departs significantly from preexisting approaches to international lawmaking and dispute settlement. The UDRP is the product not of national legislation nor an international treaty, but rather of a web of contractual obligations imposed by a private, non-profit corporation with a monopoly over a valuable resource. Through its agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce, ICANN serves as the gatekeeper for anyone seeking to acquire the most commercially valuable internet addresses. Exclusive control of access to the root server enables ICANN to dictate the terms and conditions for domain name ownership. This technological control also facilitates enforcement of UDRP panel decisions compelling domain name registrars to cancel ownership of contested domain names or transfer them from registrants to trademark owners.

The UDRP deviates from preexisting lawmaking and dispute settlement paradigms in other ways that make its advantages considerable (and which may make it attractive for replication). For example, the UDRP is a hybrid dispute settlement system. It contains an amalgam of elements from three distinct decision making paradigms - judicial, arbitral and ministerial - and it draws inspiration from international, supranational, and national legal systems. The UDRP thus reveals how dispute settlement structures can be tailored to the needs of new technologies and new types of legal conflicts. The UDRP is also non-national. Neither its substantive content nor its prescriptive force necessarily depends upon the laws, institutions, and enforcement mechanisms of any single nation-state or treaty regime. It thus suggests ways to bypass the often slow and cumbersome mechanisms of national and international lawmaking and to fulfil the demand for effective dispute settlement mechanisms that, like so much current social activity, transcend national borders.

Even assuming the UDRP can be applied to other situations where the conditions of monopolistic technological control do not subsist, however, we do not believe that it should be uncritically extended to other contexts without first questioning how non-national systems ought to be structured. In particular, while we applaud the effort to construct a non-national model that draws upon but is not constrained by existing paradigms, the current iteration of that model fails to incorporate appropriate checking mechanisms to control the scope and pace of lawmaking and the limited powers granted to dispute settlement decisionmakers. Moreover, the tensions between national and non-national values may be more difficult to reconcile in other settings; cybersquatting, in contrast, was universally condemned, and thus competing national values were less frequently implicated. We seek to identify these and other variables that should guide the authors of new checking mechanisms for new non-national structures.

Abstract:
This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the intellectual property case law of the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR"). Within the last three years, the ECHR has issued a trio of intellectual property rulings interpreting the right of property protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. These decisions, which view intellectual property through the lens of fundamental rights, have important consequences for the region's innovation and creativity policies. The cases are also emblematic of a growing number of controversies in domestic and international law over the intersection of human rights, property rights, and intellectual property. The article analyzes this trend and uses it to develop three distinct paradigms to identify the proper place of intellectual property issues in the European human rights system. It concludes that the ECHR should find a violation of the right of property in intellectual property disputes only in cases of arbitrary government conduct.

intellectual property, trademarks, patents, copyrights, human rights, property rights, European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, international courts, international tribunals

Abstract:
A recent article in the California Law Review by Professors Eric Posner and John Yoo, Judicial Independence in International Tribunals, argues that the only effective international tribunals are dependent tribunals, by which the authors mean ad hoc tribunals staffed by judges closely controlled by governments through the power of reappointment or threats of retaliation. Independent tribunals, by contrast, meaning tribunals staffed by judges appointed on similar terms as those in domestic courts, pose a danger to international cooperation. According to Posner and Yoo, independent tribunals are suspect because they are more likely to allow moral ideals, ideological imperatives or the interests of other states to influence their judgments.

In this response, we identify the many shortcomings in the theory, methodology, and empirics in Judicial Independence in International Tribunals. We do so to challenge the authors' core conjecture: that formally dependent international tribunals are correlated with effective judicial outcomes. We then offer our own counter-theory; a theory of constrained independence in which states establish independent international tribunals to enhance the credibility of their commitments and then use more fine grained structural, political, and discursive mechanisms to limit the potential for judicial excesses.

International Law and Trade, Dispute Resolution

Abstract:
This Article explores issues at the frontier of international law and constitutional law. It considers five key structural and systemic challenges that the international legal system now faces: (1) decentralization and disaggregation; (2) normative and institutional hierarchies; (3) compliance and enforcement; (4) exit and escape; and (5) democracy and legitimacy. Each of these issues raises questions of governance, institutional design, and allocation of authority paralleling the questions that domestic legal systems have answered in constitutional terms.

For each of these issues, I survey the international legal landscape and consider the salience of potential analogies to domestic constitutions, drawing upon and extending the writings of international legal scholars and international relations theorists. I also offer some preliminary thoughts about why some treaties and institutions, but not others, more readily lend themselves to analysis in constitutional terms. And I distinguish those legal and political issues that may generate useful insights for scholars studying the growing intersections of international and constitutional law from other areas that may be more resistant to constitutional analogies.

Abstract:
This essay identifies some of the emerging legal issues relating to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"), a new anational online dispute settlement system established by a private, non-profit corporation, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in late 1999. The UDRP creates a fast and inexpensive mechanism for trademark owners to recapture domain names held by persons who, in bad faith, register and use domain names that are confusingly similar to those marks.

The UDRP is worthy of serious study for at least two reasons. First and foremost, the process by which the UDRP was created, and the way in which it is structured, departs significantly from preexisting approaches to international dispute settlement, not only for intellectual property rights but also for international law generally. These differences in creation and structure raise questions about the UDRP's legitimacy and thus the legitimacy of the case law it is producing.

Second, UDRP is already being heralded by national and international lawmakers as a model for resolving a much broader set of transborder legal problems. Although certain aspects of the UDRP may be worthy of emulation, this essay asks some hard questions about how anational dispute settlement systems ought to be structured. It focuses in particular on the mechanisms used to control the limited powers granted to dispute settlement decisionmakers such as UDRP panels. And it proposes several steps that ICANN should take to bolster the legitimacy of this new dispute settlement system.

Abstract:
This essay explores the relevance of the intellectual property provisions of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to the collective administration of copyright and neighboring rights in general and to the policies and practices of collective rights organizations (CROs) in particular. Until recently, the ICESCR's intellectual provisions were all but unexplored. Within the last year, however, these treaty clauses have been extensively analyzed by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee has produced a draft general comment on ICESCR Article 15(1)(c), "the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." The draft suggests the outlines of an emerging human rights framework for intellectual property, one aspect of which - a human rights framework for collective administration of copyright - I analyze in this essay.

Abstract:
This Article uses an interdisciplinary approach to explain why the International Labor Organization (ILO) has been given surprisingly short shrift in recent debates over the role of IOs in addressing the many transborder collective action problems that globalization has fostered. I review the ILO's past and its present with two broad objectives in mind.

First, I seek to correct a misperception among international lawyers and legal scholars that the ILO is a weak and ineffective institution. The organization's effectiveness in creating and monitoring international labor standards has fluctuated widely during its nearly ninety-year existence. Over the last decade, however, the ILO - led by the Director General and the ILO Office - has ushered in a period of innovation and reform, narrowing the organization's mandate to emphasize universal compliance with a core group of fundamental labor rights. These developments - many of which are unknown outside the organization - reveal that the ILO has learned from successful strategies of other IOs and from its own past mistakes. They also cast doubt on the widely held view that international bureaucracies seek to expand their mandates to increase their authority over member states.

A second objective of the Article is to analyze the under-studied issue of how IOs change and to assess three social science theories - (1) rational design; (2) neofunctionalism; and (3) historical institutionalism - that seek to explain how change occurs. A historical study of the ILO provides two opportunities to evaluate these competing frameworks and to consider the under-examined role of IO officials in promoting change. First, the four major phases of the ILO's existence - its founding in 1919, the interwar years, the decades following World War II, and post-Cold War globalization - offer discrete domains within which to assess the theories' comparative explanatory power. The second opportunity for theoretical assessment relates to the influence of the ILO's past on recently adopted reforms. None of the theories would have expected ILO officials to revitalize the organization, more than seventy-five years after its birth, by narrowing and refocusing its authority rather than expanding it.

labor, labour, international organizations, treaties, international law, ILO, international labor organization, director general

Abstract:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the crown jewel of the world's most advanced international system for protecting civil and political liberties. In recent years, however, the ECtHR has become a victim of its own success. The Court now faces a docket crisis of massive proportions, the consequence of the growing number of states subject to its jurisdiction, its favourable public reputation, its expansive interpretations of individual liberties, a distrust of domestic judiciaries in some countries, and entrenched human rights problems in others. In response to this growing backlog of individual complaints, the Council of Europe has, over the last five years, considered numerous proposals to restructure the European human rights regime and redesign the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article argues that these proposals should be understood not as ministerial changes in supranational judicial procedure, nor as resolving a debate over whether the ECtHR should strive for individual or constitutional justice, but rather as raising more fundamental questions concerning the Court's future identity. In particular, the article argues for recognition of embeddedness in national legal systems as a deep structural principle of the ECHR, a principle that functions as a necessary counterpoint to the subsidiary doctrine that has animated the Convention since its founding. Embeddedness does not substitute ECtHR rulings for the decisions of national parliaments or domestic courts. Rather, it requires the Council of Europe and the Court to bolster the mechanisms for governments to remedy human rights violations at home, obviating the need for individuals to seek supranational relief and restoring countries to a position in which the ECtHR's deference to national decision-makers is appropriate.

Abstract:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the crown jewel of the world's most advanced international system for protecting civil and political liberties. In recent years, however, the ECtHR has become a victim of its own success. The Court now faces a docket crisis of massive proportions, the consequence of the growing number of states subject to its jurisdiction, its favourable public reputation, its expansive interpretations of individual liberties, a distrust of domestic judiciaries in some countries, and entrenched human rights problems in others. In response to this growing backlog of individual complaints, the Council of Europe has, over the last five years, considered numerous proposals to restructure the European human rights regime and redesign the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article argues that these proposals should be understood not as ministerial changes in supranational judicial procedure, nor as resolving a debate over whether the ECtHR should strive for individual or constitutional justice, but rather as raising more fundamental questions concerning the Court's future identity. In particular, the article argues for recognition of 'embeddedness' in national legal systems as a deep structural principle of the ECHR, a principle that functions as a necessary counterpoint to the subsidiary doctrine that has animated the Convention since its founding. Embeddedness does not substitute ECtHR rulings for the decisions of national parliaments or domestic courts. Rather, it requires the Council of Europe and the Court to bolster the mechanisms for governments to remedy human rights violations at home, obviating the need for individuals to seek supranational relief and restoring countries to a position in which the ECtHR's deference to national decision-makers is appropriate.

European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, international courts, international tribunals, Council of Europe, docket crisis, institutional reforms, subsidiary, embeddedness

Abstract:
This article documents the rise of nonconsensual international lawmaking and analyzes its consequences for the treaty design, treaty participation, and treaty adherence decisions of nation states. Grounding treaties upon the formal consent of states has numerous advantages for a decentralized and largely anarchic international legal system that suffers from a pervasive "compliance deficit." But consent also has real costs, including the inability to ensure that all nations affected by transborder problems join treaties that seek to resolve those problems. This "participation deficit" helps explain why some international rules bind countries without their acceptance or approval. Such rules have wide applicability. But they can also increase sovereignty costs, exacerbating the compliance deficit.

Nonconsensual international lawmaking thus appears to create an insoluble tradeoff between increasing participation and decreasing compliance. This article explains that such a tradeoff is not inevitable. Drawing on recent examples from multilateral efforts to prevent transnational terrorism, preserve the global environment, and protect human rights, the article demonstrates that the game-theoretic structure of certain cooperation problems, together with their institutional and political context, create self-enforcing equilibria in which compliance is a dominant strategy. In these situations, nonconsensual lawmaking reduces both the participation and the compliance deficits. In other issue areas, by contrast, problem structure and context do not affect the tradeoff between the two deficits, and the incentive to defect remains unaltered. Analyzing the differences among these issue areas helps to identify the conditions under which nonconsensual lawmaking increases the welfare of all states.

international lawmaking, nonconsensual lawmaking, consent, game theory, participation, compliance, UN Security Council, transnational terrorism, global environmental protection, human rights

Abstract:
This monograph, commissioned by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, provides an overview of the international legal regime regulating intellectual property rights in plant varieties. It identifies the essential features of this regime, including the policies supporting the grant of intellectual property rights and the societal objectives in tension with those rights, the institutions that have shaped the international intellectual property system, and the provisions contained in the relevant international treaties. The study identifies different sets of policy options for national governments based upon the specific constellation of treaty commitments they have undertaken. It then sets forth regulatory options for those governments to protect plant varieties while achieving other public policy objectives relating to plant genetic resources.

Abstract:
This article analyzes the under-explored phenomenon of unilateral exit from international agreements and intergovernmental organizations. Although clauses authorizing denunciation and withdrawal from treaties are pervasive, international legal scholars and international relations theorists have largely ignored them. This article draws upon new empirical evidence to provide a comprehensive interdisciplinary framework for understanding treaty exit. It examines when and why states abandon their treaty commitments and explains how exit helps to resolve certain theoretical and doctrinal puzzles that have long troubled scholars of international affairs.

International Law and Trade, Law Institutions and Development, Law and Economics

Abstract:
The last few years have been a particularly heady period for governments, private parties, and NGOs seeking to develop new rules to regulate intellectual property ("IP") protection standards. During that time, a slew of lawmaking initiatives, studies, and reports have been launched in a strikingly large number of international venues. Work on intellectual property rights is now underway in intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), and Food and Agriculture Organization ("FAO"); in negotiating fora such as the Convention on Biological Diversity ("CBD") and its Conference of the Parties and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; and in United Nations expert and political bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In some of these venues, IP lawmaking has involved the negotiation of new international agreements. In others, IP norms are being generated through the reinterpretation of existing treaties or the creation of nonbinding guidelines, resolutions, and other forms of soft law.

This essay views these myriad developments through the lens of the international relations theory of regimes. It uses the insights of regime theory to make three basic points. First, it explains why IP lawmaking has broken out of the confined institutional spaces of established international IP fora, such as WIPO and the WTO, and has moved into a broad and growing array of other international venues in environmental law, human rights, and public health. Second, it shows how this recent expansion helps to enrich regime theory itself by illustrating how regimes evolve over time and how they interact with institutions and actors in other issue areas. And third, it describes a working typology of the different modes of interaction that are developing among the many international venues in which IP lawmaking is now occurring.

International Law & Trade, Intellectual Property, Comparataive Law

Abstract:
Recently, assessments of the performance of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) have stressed the need for institutional and procedural reforms relating to issues such as forum shopping, panel selection, and pleading rules. Far less attention, however, has been paid to a different set of issues critical to assessing the UDRP's performance: its relationship to national courts and to national intellectual property laws. There are three different ways in which this relationship might evolve to change the present structure and functions of the UDRP.

First, the UDRP might be made more autonomous in character, transforming it into a body of non-national rules and procedures distinct from any one nation's laws and largely insulated from review in national courts. Second, the UDRP might become more Americanized by interpreting its substantive rules in harmony with U.S. statutes and case law, and by funneling judicial challenges to panel decisions into U.S. courts. Third, the UDRP might be made more cosmopolitan, enhancing the influence of a diverse array of national laws and legal institutions and generating new modes of interaction among national and non-national legal systems.

This Essay explores these three evolutionary pathways and the critical questions each presents for institutions such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), for national lawmakers and national courts, and for those advocating procedural reforms of this new dispute settlement system.

Abstract:
This Essay responds to Reserving, a forthcoming Article by Professor Edward T. Swaine to be published in the Yale Journal of International Law. The Essay first reviews the Article's explanation of the complex and often counterintuitive rules that govern the filing of unilateral reservations to multilateral treaties. It then offers three modest additions to Professor Swaine's insightful contribution to the growing body of interdisciplinary scholarship on treaty design. First, the Essay applies Swaine's theory of state interests and information to a dynamic model that takes account of temporal issues such as when states file reservations and how treaty commitments change over time. Second, it extends Reserving's analysis to the flexibility devices that states employ when they preclude reservations or bargain around the default rules in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Third, it considers the relationships between reservations and other treaty flexibility tools and explores the consequences of those relationships for managing the risks of international agreement.

international law, treaties, reservations, rational choice

Abstract:
This article, part of an interdisciplinary symposium on international delegation, analyzes grants of authority to international organizations (IOs) to monitor compliance with un-ratified treaties and non-binding norms and standards.

It begins with a historical review of the different ways in which officials and review bodies of the International Labor Organization (ILO) monitor compliance with treaties and recommendations that the organization has adopted, but that a member state has not ratified or otherwise accepted as legally binding. The ILO membership has repeatedly expanded these monitoring powers since the organization's founding in 1919. It has done so both informally (by allowing ILO officials to expand the scope of the initial delegation that established the organization) and formally (by amending the ILO constitution to codify and further enlarge these informal expansions of the organization's monitoring authority). Taken together, these developments challenge the conventional wisdom that the delegation of authority to the ILO involves only modest sovereignty costs.

The article then uses the ILO's history to emphasize the importance of delegations that authorize international bodies to monitor compliance with nonbinding international rules. Such delegations often arise and thrive outside of the formal channels of authority. This makes it essential for scholars to look beyond treaty texts and institutional design features to consider how power is actually exercised within IOs and how the costs and benefits of international delegations change over time. Finally, the article considers what insights the ILO offers for delegations to other IOs. It argues that monitoring compliance with unconsented-to legal rules is an alternative institutional response to a problem that many IOs confront: how to ensure that all states affected by a cooperation problem participate in the resolution of that problem rather than free riding on the efforts of other countries.

international delegation, international institutions, international organizations, compliance with international law, international labor organization, ILO, international labor law, international monitoring mechanisms

Abstract:
This article raises the intriguing claim that international law can be overlegalized. Overlegalization occurs where a treaty's substantive rules or its review procedures are too constraining of sovereignty, causing governments to engage in acts of non-compliance or even to denounce the treaty. The concept of legalization and its potential excesses, although unfamiliar to many legal scholars, has begun to be explored by international relations theorists analyzing the effects of legal rules in changing state behavior.

This article bridges the gap between international legal scholarship and international relations theory by exploring a recent case study of overlegalization. It seeks to understand why, in the late 1990s, three Commonwealth Caribbean governments denounced human rights treaties and withdrew from the jurisdiction of international tribunals. I refer to these events as the Caribbean backlash against human rights regimes.

My study of this backlash has two objectives. The first is to show how overlegalizing human rights can lead even liberal democracies to reconsider their commitment to international institutions that protect those rights. The second objective is to assess three competing international relations theories that seek to explain the conditions under which states comply with their treaty commitments. To provide a more persuasive analysis of these issues, the article includes empirical data analyzing changes in the filing and review of international human rights petitions against Caribbean governments during the 1990s.

Abstract:
In 'Technological Change and the Design of Plant Variety Protection Regimes', Mark Janis and Stephen Smith make two novel and provocative claims. They first argue that the legal regime for protecting new plant varieties has become hopelessly outdated in light of recent changes in technology. They next assert that the fate of the plant variety protection (PVP) system illustrates a broader and more disturbing phenomenon in intellectual property law: the potential for sui generis, industry-specific intellectual property regimes to become increasingly ineffective over time. In this brief essay, I offer three points to amplify the authors' contributions and highlight the legal and political consequences of the arguments they advance. I first discuss plant breeders' rights as a distinct form of intellectual property protection. Next, I review the challenges to implementing the authors' proposal to replace existing PVP rules with unfair competition principles. Third and finally, I consider the extent to which the obsolescence of plant breeders' rights represents a phenomenon that exists in intellectual property systems more generally.

intellectual property, plant variety protection, plant breeding, international law, international legal regimes, innovation, technological change

Abstract:
The Andean Community - a forty-year-old regional integration pact of small developing countries in South America - is widely viewed as a failure. In this Article, we show that the Andean Community has in fact achieved remarkable success within one part of its legal system. The Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) is the world's third most active international court, with over 1400 rulings issued to date. Over 90% of those rulings concern intellectual property (IP). The ATJ has helped to establish IP as a rule of law island in the Andean Community where national judges, administrative officials, and private parties actively participate in regional litigation and conform their behavior to Andean IP rules. In the vast seas surrounding this island, by contrast, Andean rules remain riddled with exceptions, under-enforced, and often circumvented by domestic actors. We explain how the ATJ helped to construct the IP rule of law island and why litigation has not spilled over to other issue areas regulated by the Andean Community.

Our analysis makes four broad contributions to international law and international relations scholarship. First, we adopt and apply a broad definition of an effective rule of law, using qualitative and quantitative analysis to explain how the Andean legal system contributes to changing national decision-making in favor of compliance with Andean rules. Our definition and our explanation of the ATJ's contributions to constructing an effective rule of law provide a model that can be replicated elsewhere.

Second, we explain how the Andean legal system has helped domestic IP administrative agencies in the region resist pressures for stronger IP protection from national executives, the United States, and American corporations. We emphasize the importance of these agencies rather than domestic judges as key constituencies that have facilitated the emergence of an effective rule of law for IP. As a result of the agencies' actions, Andean IP rules remain more closely tailored to the economic and social needs of developing counties than do the IP rules of the Community's regional neighbors.

Third, the reality that the ATJ is effective, but only within a single issue area, makes the Andean experience of broader theoretical interest. We offer an explanation for why Andean legal integration has not extended beyond IP. But our answer suggests avenues for additional research. We note that Andean IP rules are more specific than other areas of Andean law and that most administrative agencies in the region lack the autonomy needed to serve as compliance partners for ATJ rulings. We also find that, outside of IP, the ATJ is unwilling to issue the sort of purposive interpretations that encourages private parties to invoke Andean rules in litigation. The result is both a lack of demand for and supply of ATJ rulings.

Fourth, our study of the Andean legal system provides new evidence to assess three competing theories of effective international adjudication - theories that ascribe effectiveness to the design of international legal systems, to the ability of member states to sanction international judges, and to domestic legal and political factors. We also explore the possibility that rule of law islands may be emerging in other treaty-based systems subject to the jurisdiction of international tribunals.

Andean Community, Andean Tribunal, International Courts, International Tribunals, European Court of Justice, Intellectual Property, Trademarks, Patents, Pharmaceuticals, Regional Trade, Regional Integration, International Relations, Institutional Design, Administrative State, Administrative Agency

Abstract:
Are international courts power-seeking by nature, expanding the reach and scope of international rules and their own authority where permissive conditions allow? Or, does expansionist lawmaking require special nurturing? We investigate the relative influences of nature versus nurture by comparing expansionist lawmaking in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), the ECJ’s jurisdictional clone and the third most active IC. We argue that international judges are more likely to become expansive lawmakers where they are supported by sub-state interlocutors and compliance constituencies, including government officials, advocacy networks, national judges, and administrative agencies. This comparison of two structurally identical international courts calls into question prevailing explanations of ECJ lawmaking, and it suggests that prevailing scholarship puts too much emphasis on self-interested power seeking of judges, the importance of regime design features, and the preferences of governments in explaining IC lawmaking.

Andean Community, Andean Tribunal, International Courts, International Tribunals, European Court of Justice, European Community, Regional Trade, Regional Integration, International Relations, Administrative State, Administrative Agencies, Judicial Politics, Preliminary References

Abstract:
In the European Union, national courts have been key intermediaries in helping to bolster and expand the authority of the European Court of Justice through its preliminary reference mechanism. This article analyzes the role of national judges in the Andean Community, a regional legal system whose judicial institution - the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) - was modeled directly on its European predecessor. Our analysis is based on an original coding of every publically available national court referral to the ATJ from 1987 to 2007 and interviews with over forty participants in the Andean legal system.

We find that the relationship between the ATJ and national judges differs significantly from the relationship between the ECJ and its domestic judicial colleagues. As in Europe, references from national judges account for the vast majority of cases on the ATJ's docket. But unlike in Europe, national courts are mostly passive intermediaries. Our coding reveals that national judges do not pose provocative questions to the ATJ, and that there is significant cross-national variation in referral patterns. Interviews corroborate what the data suggests: national judges have a circumscribed understanding of what Andean law requires of them. More than 90% of references involve technical issues of Andean intellectual property (IP) law and the registration decisions of domestic IP administrative agencies. National judges have embraced the ATJ's active role in IP disputes because of the support of these agencies, which seek the Tribunal's guidance to interpret vague areas of Andean law. Outside the area of IP, national judges are far more reluctant, contributing to the limited penetration of Andean law into national legal orders. We conclude by comparing the role of national judges in Europe to their role in the Andean context, extracting broader insights about the role of national judges in building international rules of law.

Andean Community, Andean Tribunal, International Courts, International Tribunals, European Court of Justice, European Union, European Community, Intellectual Property, Regional Trade, Regional Integration, International Relations, Administrative State, Administrative Agencies, Judicial Politics

Abstract:
This essay analyzes the “creators’ rights” provisions of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the context of the collective administration of copyright and neighboring rights and the policies and practices of collective management organizations (CMOs). It also addresses other human rights treaties and international court rulings relevant to collective rights management. The essay begins with an overview of the ICESCR Committee’s General Comment on ICESCR Article 15(1)(c), “the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” It then analyzes the key provisions of the General Comment relevant to the collective administration of copyright and neighboring rights. The essay next considers two legal and policy issues with important human rights implications: whether membership in CMOs should be mandatory, and whether CMOs should promote national culture. The essay concludes by evaluating the practical implications of adopting a human rights framework to analyze collective management issues.

intellectual property, copyright, human rights, creators' rights, authors' rights, Collective Rights Organizations, Collective management organizations, CRO's, collective administration of copyright, neighboring rights

Abstract:
This article analyzes the dispute settlement proceedings pending before the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning the Fairness in Music License Act of 1998, a new provision of the US Copyright Act that exempts many bars, restaurants, and retail stores from paying license fees for performing broadcast music in their establishments. In May 1999, the European Community challenged the Act, and its predecessor "homestyle exemption," as a violation of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne).

The FMLA dispute is the first time in history that US copyright laws will be judged by an international tribunal. The case is an embarrassing one for the United States, which has recently pursued a policy of aggressively encouraging other nations to provide strong legal protections for copyrighted works. Although officials within the Clinton Administration warned legislators that the Fairness in Music Licensing Act might be incompatible with the Berne and TRIPs treaties, Congress enacted the statute over their objections. Thus, in the first year of the new century, Congress may be faced with an unprecedented choice: modify the Copyright Act to satisfy the demands of international trade jurists or face retaliatory trade sanctions by the EC.

In addition to analyzing the legal arguments available to the US and the EC under the Berne and TRIPs treaties, this article also seeks to explain why Congress deliberately chose to ignore past US intellectual property policy. Using insights from law and economics and from a study of the history of laws and licensing practices governing secondary uses of broadcast music, the article demonstrates how an increasingly broad free use exemption developed for businesses playing radio and television music. It then draws on these economic and historical insights to develop legislative reform proposals that are both compatible with United States? treaty obligations and that encourage performance rights organizations and associations of copyright users to reach an efficient private agreement to resolve the WTO dispute.

Abstract:
The article analyzes a growing trend in international human rights law: the submission of petitions by aggrieved individuals to multiple human rights courts, tribunals, or treaty bodies, each of which is authorized to review the petition and to determine whether the individuals? rights have been violated.

Most commentators have viewed this practice of "forum shopping for human rights" as a danger to be avoided. This article questions that conventional wisdom and offers in its place a re-envisioning of the human rights petition system. Although efficiency, finality and other concerns weigh against some varieties of duplicative review, this article argues that forum shopping, if properly regulated, will enhance the development of international human rights law. Forum shopping is the only way that many aggrieved individuals can receive a complete review of the rights violations allegations in their petitions, and it serves the further salutary function of encouraging jurists on human rights tribunals to engage in a dialogue to harmonize the content of legal rules shared by more than one treaty.

The article first examines the haphazard approach to forum shopping that States have adopted in various human rights treaties, and it discusses two different strands of case law that together create incentives for individuals to forum shop for a favorable human rights ruling. The article then critiques the established view that forum shopping is harmful to human rights law, and it identifies in a comprehensive way the theoretical justifications for and against the practice of forum shopping. Building upon this theoretical analysis, the article then develops a comprehensive proposal for reforming the current approach to forum shopping and discusses alternative ways in which the proposal can be implemented into practice.

Abstract:
The article analyzes a growing trend in international human rights law: the submission of petitions by aggrieved individuals to multiple human rights courts, tribunals, or treaty bodies, each of which is authorized to review the petition and to determine whether the individuals' rights have been violated.

Most commentators have viewed this practice of "forum shopping for human rights" as a danger to be avoided. This article questions that conventional wisdom and offers in its place a re-envisioning of the human rights petition system. Although efficiency, finality and other concerns weigh against some varieties of duplicative review, this article argues that forum shopping, if properly regulated, will enhance the development of international human rights law. Forum shopping is the only way that many aggrieved individuals can receive a complete review of the rights violations allegations in their petitions, and it serves the further salutary function of encouraging jurists on human rights tribunals to engage in a dialogue to harmonize the content of legal rules shared by more than one treaty.

The article first examines the haphazard approach to forum shopping that States have adopted in various human rights treaties, and it discusses two different strands of case law that together create incentives for individuals to forum shop for a favorable human rights ruling. The article then critiques the established view that forum shopping is harmful to human rights law, and it identifies in a comprehensive way the theoretical justifications for and against the practice of forum shopping. Building upon this theoretical analysis, the article then develops a comprehensive proposal for reforming the current approach to forum shopping and discusses alternative ways in which the proposal can be implemented into practice.

Abstract:
Supranational adjudication in Europe is a remarkable and surprising success. Europe's two supranational courts -- the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) -- issue dozens of judgments each year with which defending national governments habitually comply in essentially the same manner as they would with domestic court rulings. These experiences stand in striking contrast to those of many international tribunals past and present.

Can the European experience of supranational adjudication be transplanted beyond Europe? Professors Helfer and Slaughter argue that the effectiveness of the ECJ and the ECHR is linked to their power to hear claims brought by private parties directly against national governments or against other private parties. Such "supranational" jurisdiction has allowed the European courts to penetrate the surface of the state, to forge direct relationships not only with individual citizens but also with distinct government institutions such as national courts. Over time, this penetration and the deepening relationships between supranational jurists and domestic legal actors have led to the evolution of a "community of law," a web of nominally apolitical relations among subnational and supranational legal actors.

The simple provision of supranational jurisdiction, however, is not a guarantee of effective adjudication. Drawing on the observations of scholars, practitioners, and judges, Professors Helfer and Slaughter develop a "checklist" of factors that enhance the effectiveness of supranational adjudication. They distinguish among those factors that are within the control of member states; those that are within the control of the judges themselves; and those that may be beyond the control of either states or judges. Isolating the factors in this way provides both a rough metric for evaluating the effectiveness of other supranational tribunals and a potential set of prescriptions for judges on those tribunals seeking to enhance their institutions' effectiveness.

After developing the checklist, Professors Helfer and Slaughter use it to analyze the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). Although the UNHRC was established expressly as a committee of experts rather than a court, analysis of its recent practice reveals that it is becoming increasingly "court-like." Moreover, within the constraints imposed by severely limited resources, UNHRC members are independently following many of the checklist prescriptions for increased effectiveness. The next step is for the organization to enter into a sustained dialogue with its European counterparts, harmonizing its decisions with theirs in some areas while consciously preserving its own distinctive jurisprudence in others. Structured and regular interaction between these tribunals would add additional voices to an emerging transjudicial conversation, potentially laying the foundation for a global community of law.