KEVIN J. FANDL, American University Washington College of Law, George Mason University - School of Public Policy
Email: fandl@american.edu

This paper approaches the growing debate over the reform of U.S. immigration law and proposes a new model to regulate the influx of migrant workers. After briefly tracing the history of U.S. immigration law, the paper explores the role that immigrant labor plays in international trade, specifically by exploring its effects on economic growth in national economies. It goes on to discuss the role of GATS mode 4 and the commitments made by Member States to liberalize their immigration laws to allow more foreign workers from developing countries to temporarily relocate to developed countries for work. The paper finally refreshes a largely overlooked economic notion of re-conceptualizing immigration as a trade issue and setting-up an immigrant tariff regime in place of existing immigration laws, seeing the latter as protectionist and violative of commitments under the GATT and WTO.

GILLES CUNIBERTI, University of Luxembourg
Email: gilles.cuniberti@free.fr

Arbitration is a creature of contract. It is a mode of dispute resolution which is only available to parties who have agreed to resort to it. Yet, it is widely perceived as the most suitable and the dominant method for the settlement of international commercial disputes. Why is it, then, that parties must opt in for a solution which appears as the most natural one in the community? The Article explores whether arbitration could become a default solution and thus lose its contractual foundation. The core of the Article discusses the numerous objections that such a proposition raises. Most importantly, I argue that the legitimacy of arbitrators would not be significantly lower than the legitimacy of courts, and that recent developments in specialized fields of international arbitration have shown that arbitrators can serve the public functions of courts. At the end of the Article, a model of non-consensual arbitration is proposed.

CAI CONGYAN, affiliation not provided to SSRN

International custom is one of the main sources of international law. As a relatively new branch of international law, international investment treaties, emerging in the late 1950s and having been very energetic since the mid-1990s, have become a driving force and an important forum for the formation, application and transformation of the customary international law rules.

SHAMNAD BASHEER, National University of Juridical Sciences
Email: shamnad@gmail.com
ANNALISA PRIMI, affiliation not provided to SSRN
Email: annalisa.primi@cepal.org

The WIPO Development Agenda is in many ways, a reaction to the "one size fits all" mantra that has plagued international intellectual property (IP) law making for many years now. In an effort to counter this disturbing trend that does not pay heed to either the relative economic status of the member countries (particularly the developing ones) or of technological specificity, the Development Agenda clearly spells out that future "norm setting activities shall take into account different levels of development".

Unfortunately, some of the IP and development literature that is sceptical of the above trend runs the risk of falling into the same trap of endorsing a one size fits all mentality. At the risk of oversimplification, the broad notion in the literature is this:

Developed countries may need strong IP regimes, as they are highly innovative and strong IP regimes provide the requisite incentives in this regard. Developing countries however ought to implement only minimalist IP regimes, as they are hardly innovative and are often net importers of technology.

This black and white categorisation ignores technological heterogeneity between developing countries. It also ignores technological specificity between sectors in the same country. In other words, emerging economies such as India, China, Brazil and Russia which are technologically more proficient in one or more areas of technology may require different IP norms than their relatively less proficient counterparts such as Nepal and Uganda.

We need to therefore move away from an antiquated "developed-versus-developing" classification and differentiate developing countries according to their technological/innovative proficiencies. Such differentiation would help calibrate IP norms according to the specific developmental needs of the country in question.

We use certain technology/innovation indicators to arrive at our list of "technologically proficient" developing countries (TPDC); countries that may require different IP norms, when compared with their less technologically dynamic countries.

This paper does not seek to spell out the precise nature of IP norms that developing countries ought to adopt and implement. Rather, it is to suggest that this determination will vary from case to case and depends on factors such as the "technological capability" of the country in question and the specific "technology" sector under consideration. This paper therefore cautions one against the tendency to swing from a one "super size" fits all model to a one "micro-mini" fits all model. The technology/innovative capability indicators deployed and the TPDC list arrived are not precise and may need to be refined further. In other words, the list could serve as a starting point towards a more nuanced classification at the WTO/WIPO.

Failing to acknowledge the technological differences between countries and of the different needs of TPDCs in particular may result in a weak development agenda implementation. The inherent schisms between these countries is likely to lead to tension and impact the progress of the agenda. Explicitly recognising these differences and leveraging them to further the cause of the agenda may be far more strategic in the long run.

RAFAEL LEAL-ARCAS, Queen Mary, University of London - School of Law
Email: r.leal-arcas@qmul.ac.uk

Th is article aims to stress the importance of services negotiations for the conclusion of the Doha Round. It is argued in the article that trade in services is of high importance for the economies of both developed and developing countries, and that there remains substantial scope for many World Trade Organization (WTO) countries to make further commitments towards greater liberalization within the services sectors and within all modes of supply provided in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). After an explanation of the notion of trade in services, the article analyzes the GATS, the progressive liberalization of trade in services in the framework of the Doha Round, the request/off er method of negotiations in services trade viewed from the perspective of the European Communities, and the July 2008 WTO Mini-Ministerial Conference in relation to services.