* Corresponding Author
THE TRADE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK PROVIDED BY TRIPS AND CLAIM OF ‘PRO-DEVELOPMENT’ AGENDA
https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.36976 Karina Dwi Nugrahanti Putri(1*)
(1) Scopus ID : 57192265977, Universitas Gadjah MAda
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
Abstract
Having encountered objection from developing countries during previous negotiations, the WTO has tried to soften the framework of trade liberalisation in subsequent negotiations, held in Doha in 2001. In this round, the WTO gave rise to the ‘pro-development framework’ to attract fuller participation by developing countries. However, the development agenda had been assumed as a strategy in maintaining the superiority of advanced industrialised countries in applying ‘organised imbalance. This essay will discuss the implementation of special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing countries within TRIPS provisions. The promise of help through SDT for developing countries (as the majority of importer country of patented rights) is merely used as the medium with which to prioritise MNCs from developed countries which operate in developing countries.
Intisari
Setelah mendapatkan pertentangan dari negara-negara berkembang dalam putaran negosiasi sebelumnya, pada Putaran Doha (Doha Round) WTO merespon dengan memperkenalkan konsep framework perdagangan bebas baru yang dinilai lebih lunak. Pada putaran Doha, WTO meluncurkan konsep ‘pro-development framework’ untuk menarik partisipasi dari negara berkembang. Akan tetapi, hal ini dianggap sebagai strategi negara maju untuk mempertahankan dominasi mereka di dalam sistem WTO. Tulisan ini akan membahas bagaimana implementasi dari Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) didalam aturan Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) yang ditujukan untuk negara berkembang. Ide pro-pembangunan yang digadang-gadang sebagai bantuan dalam bentuk SDT bagi negara berkembang (sebagai mayoritas pengimpor produk-produk intelektual), dinilai sebagai kedok untuk melayani kepentingan perusahaan multi nasional (PMN) yang banyak beroperasi di negara-negara tersebut.
Intisari
Intisari
Setelah mendapatkan pertentangan dari negara-negara berkembang dalam putaran negosiasi sebelumnya, pada Putaran Doha (Doha Round) WTO merespon dengan memperkenalkan konsep framework perdagangan bebas baru yang dinilai lebih lunak. Pada putaran Doha, WTO meluncurkan konsep ‘pro-development framework’ untuk menarik partisipasi dari negara berkembang. Akan tetapi, hal ini dianggap sebagai strategi negara maju untuk mempertahankan dominasi mereka di dalam sistem WTO. Tulisan ini akan membahas bagaimana implementasi dari Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) didalam aturan Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) yang ditujukan untuk negara berkembang. Ide pro-pembangunan yang digadang-gadang sebagai bantuan dalam bentuk SDT bagi negara berkembang (sebagai mayoritas pengimpor produk-produk intelektual), dinilai sebagai kedok untuk melayani kepentingan perusahaan multi nasional (PMN) yang banyak beroperasi di negara-negara tersebut.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Reference List Charlton, Andrew H. and Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2005. ‘A Development-friendly Prioritisation of Doha Round Proposals’, The World Economy 28 (3): 293-312. Clive, George. 2010. The Truth About Trade: The Real Impact of Liberalization. London: Zed Books. Ezeani, Elimma. 2013. ‘WTO post Doha: trade deadlocks and protectionism’, Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 12 (3): 272-288. Finger, J. Michael. 2008. ‘Developing Countries in WTO System:Applying Robert Hudec’s Analysis to the Doha Round’, The World Economy 31(7): 887-904. Guzman, Andrew T. 2004. ‘Global Governance and the WTO’, Harvard International Law Journal 45(2): 303-352. Hart, Michael and Dymond, Bill. 2003. ‘ Special and Differential Treatment and The Doha ‘Development’ Round’, Journal of World Trade 37 (2): 395-415. Higgott, Richard and Weber,Heloise. 2005. ‘GATS in context: development, an evolving lex mercantoria and the Doha Agenda,’ Review of International Political Economy. 12(3): 434-455. Keohane, Robert O. 2011. ‘Global governance and legitimacy’, Review of International Political Economy 18 (1): 99-109. Koopmann, Georg. 2005. ‘Doha Development Round Perspectives’. Intereconomics 40 (4): 235-240. Levine, D.P. 2001. ‘Political Economy and the Idea of Development’, Review of Political Economy 13 (4): 523-536. Madeley, John. 2007. ‘Doha round is on wrong track’, Appropriate Technology 34 (3): 68-69. Marden, Emily. 1999. The Neem Tree Patent: International Conflict over the Commodification of Life, International & Comparative Law Review 22 (2): 279-295. Matthews, Duncan and Munoz-Tellez, Viviana. 2006. ‘Bilateral Technical Assistance & TRIPS: The US, Japan & The European Communities in Comparative Perspective’, The Journal of World Intellectual Property 9 (6): 629-653. O’ Brien, R. and Williams, M. 2010. ‘Approaches to Global Political Economy’. In O’Brien and Williams (eds.) Global Political Economy. London: Palgrave. Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Heaven: Yale University Press. Senona, Joseph M. 2009. ‘EPAs and the Doha Round: development or discontent’, Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 8 (1): 60-83. Shiva, Vandana. 2004. ‘TRIPS, Human Rights and the Public Domain’, The Journal of World Intellectual Property 7 (5): 665-673. The WTO Trade and Development Committee. 2013a. Work on special and differential provisions. Accessed 18 October 2013. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/dev_special_differential_provisions_e.htm The WTO. 2013b. Fact File. Accessed 18 October 2013. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/thewto_e.htm The WTO. ND. Comparative advantage. Accessed 28 October 2013. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/cadv_e.htm Thomas, Caroline and Weber, Martin. 2004. ‘The Politics of Global Health Governance: Whatever Happened to “Health for All by the Year 2000”?’, Global Governance 10 (2): 187-205. Timms, Dave. 2002. ‘Double-dealing in Doha’, The Ecologist 32 (1): 68. Weber, Heloise. 2004. ‘Reconstituting the Third World’? Poverty Reduction and Territoriality in Global Politics of Development’, Third World Quarterly 25 (1): 187-206. Weber, Martin. 2001. ‘Competing Political Visions: WTO Government and Green Politics’, Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 92-113. Xin Z, Liu G. 2013. ‘Homo Economicus Belief Inhibits Trust’, PLoS ONE 8(10): 1-5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.36976
Article Metrics
Abstract views : 1613
| 
views : 1926
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 Karina Dwi Nugrahanti Putri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
