This study will analyze the dialectical interaction between the global South and North in redefining intellectual property (IP) norms in the digital era, specifically by situating them in norm contestation. The focus of research will be on Brazil and India on the one hand, while the United States and Japan on the other hand. These countries are chosen based on their significance in challenging and defending existing IP norms in various international fora, namely Joint Initiative on E-Commerce and G20. Drawing on constructivist theory, the study applies the concept of norm entrepreneurs and antipreneurs which are helpful in mapping out the different positions and strategies of these countries. The study will probe how Brazil and India, as norm entrepreneurs pursue a more flexible IP norm, while those of the antipreneurs, the U.S and Japan, seek more protective IP norms. Despite the uncertainties, these contestations provide opportunities for the global South to restructure the normative architecture of the intellectual property, though with limited success.
Acharya, A. (2011). Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders: Sovereignty, Regionalism, and Rule-Making in the Third World. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123. JSTOR.
Acharya, A. (2013). The R2P and Norm Diffusion: Towards A Framework of Norm Circulation, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(4), 466-479. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00504006
Amuso, V., Poletti, G., & Montibello, D. (2020). The Digital Economy: Opportunities and Challenges. Global Policy, 11(1), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12745
Banga, K., & Saha, A. (2021, April 15). Lobbying for Digital Dominance in Africa [Institute of Development Studies]. https://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/lobbying-for-digital-dominance-in-africa/
Basu, A. (2021). Sovereignty in a ‘Datafied’ World. [Obsrever Research Foundation] Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1850429/sovereignty-in-a-datafied-world/2597359/ on 13 Aug 2022. CID: 20.500.12592/q5vsrm.
Bloomfield, A. (2016). Resisting the Responsibility to Protect. In Norm Antipreneurs and The Politics of Resistance to Global Normative Change (p. 19). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bloomfield, A., & Scott, S. V. (Eds.). (2017). Norm Antipreneurs and the Politics of Resistance to Global Normative Change (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315707341
CDIP. (2019). IP and Development on Digital Environment. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_23/cdip_23_16.pdf
Ciuriak, D. (2021). Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Five Issues for International Norms and Trade Rules. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3923127
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789
Eimer, T. R., Lütz, S., & Schüren, V. (2016). Varieties of localization: International norms and the commodification of knowledge in India and Brazil. Review of International Political Economy, 23(3), 450–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2015.1133442
Gorlich, D., & Stein-Zalai, J. (2020). Reinvigorating multilateral cooperation during the COVID-19 crisis: The role of the G20. G20 Insight. https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/reinvigorating-multilateral-cooperation-during-the-covid-19-crisis-opportunities-and-difficulties-1607613314.pdf
Greenleaf, G. (2019). G20 Makes Declaration of ‘Data Free Flow With Trust’: Support and Dissent. 160 Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 18-19. UNSW Law Research, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3514407
G20. (2015, November 16). G20 Communique. G20 Communiqué Agrees on Language to Not Conduct Cyber Economic Espionage. https://www.csis.org/blogs/strategic-technologies-blog/g20-communiqu%C3%A9-agrees-language-not-conduct-cyber-economic
G20. (2019). G20 Ministerial Statement on Trade and Digital Economy [Statement]. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/june/tradoc_157920.pdf
Hughes, L., Lantis, J. S., & Solis, M. (2014). The Life Cycle of Regimes: Temporality and Exclusive Forms of International Cooperation. 5(2), 85–115.
Ido, V. (2019). Intellectual Property and Electronic Commerce: Proposals in the WTO and Policy Implications for Developing Countries. South Centre, 62, 8.
Irfan, M. (2019). Data Flows, Data Localisation, Source Code: Issues, Regulations and Trade Agreements. Geneva: CUTS International, Geneva. https://www.cuts-geneva.org/pdf/WTOSSEA2018-Study-Data_Flows_Localisation_Source_Code.pdf
Kettemann, M. C. (2020). The normative order of the internet: A theory of rule and regulation online. Oxford University Press.
Lantis, J. S., & Bloomberg, D. J. (2018). Changing the code? Norm contestation and US antipreneurism in cyberspace. International Relations, 32(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818763006
Legro, J. W. (2000). The Transformation of Policy Ideas. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669256
Lippman, A. (2014), Cannibalizing copyright? Vernacularizing open intellectual property in Brazil (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate). Anthropology Today, 30: 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12131
Marr, B. (2020, March 18). Robots And Drones Are Now Used To Fight COVID-19. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2020/03/18/how-robots-and-drones-are-helping-to-fight-coronavirus/?sh=2bc84a592a12
May, C. (2000). A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures? Routledge. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=gAJsQgAACAAJ
Menezes, H. Z. de. (2018). South-South Collaboration for an Intellectual Property Rights Flexibilities Agenda. Contexto Internacional, 40(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-8529.2017400100006
Miller, M.C. (2013), Wronged by Empire: Post-Imperial Ideology and Foreign Policy in India and China (Stanford: Stanford University Press). https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=22642
Mishra, A. R. (2020, September 22). India says No to Free Flow of Data at G20 Meeting. Live Mint.
Mishra, N. (2021). India: Leading or Thwarting Data Governance and Digital Trade. Henrich Foundation. https://www.hinrichfoundation.com/research/article/digital/india-leading-or-thwarting-data-governance-and-digital-trade/
Murphy, H., & Kellow, A. (2013). Forum Shopping in Global Governance: Understanding States, Business and NGOs in Multiple Arenas. Global Policy, 4(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00195.x
Neeraj RS (2019). Trade Rules for the Digital Economy: Charting New Waters at the WTO. World Trade Review 18(1):121–141, 123.
Okediji, R. L. (2006). The International Copyright System: Limitations, Exception and Public Interest Consideration for Developing Countries. UNCTAD. Issue Paper No. 15. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ictsd2006ipd15_en.pdf
Radu, R., Kettemann, M. C., Meyer, T., & Shahin, J. (2021). Normfare: Norm entrepreneurship in internet governance. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6), 102148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102148
Reid-Smith, S. (2017). Some preliminary implications of WTO Source Code Proposal (Briefing Paper No. MC11). Third World Network. https://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2017/TWN_Source_code.pdf
Sell, S. K. (2003). Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=B81qmONSs9cC
Serrano, O. (2016). China and India’s insertion in the intellectual property rights regime: Sustaining or disrupting the rules? New Political Economy, 21(4), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2016.1113950
Serrano Oswald, O. R., & Burri, M. (2021). India, Brazil, and public health: Rule-making through south–south diffusion in the intellectual property rights regime? Regulation & Governance, 15(3), 616–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12355
Shao, K. (2006). What May Validate Intellectual Property in a Traditional Chinese Mind? Examining the U.S.-China IP Disputes through a Historical Inquiry. J. Inf. Law Technol., 2006.
Shaver, L. (2010). Access to Knowledge in Brazil: New Research on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Development. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=fEP2smsHVCwC
South Centre. (2022). Statement by the South Centre to the 2022 Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO.
Steele, B. (2017). Broadening the Contestation of Norms in International Relations. Polity, 49(1), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1086/689981
The White House. (2016). G20 Leaders Communiqué. Office of the Press Secretary. November 26, 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/16/g20-leaders-communiqu
UNCTAD. (2019). Digital economy report 2019: Value creation and capture: implications for developing countries. United Nations. Geneva.
UNCTAD. (2021). What is at stake for the developing countries in trade negotiation on e-commerce: the case of Joint Statement initiative. United Nations. Geneva.
Wiener, A. (2004). Contested Compliance: Interventions on the Normative Structure of World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 10(2), 189–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104042934
Wiener, A. (2009). Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies, 35(1), 175-193. doi:10.1017/S0260210509008377
Wiener, A. (2014). Introduction: Contestation as a Norm-Generative Social Practice. In A. Wiener (Ed.), A Theory of Contestation (pp. 1–15). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55235-9_1
Wiener, A. (2017). A theory of contestation—A concise summary of its argument and concepts. Polity, 49(1), 109-125.
WIPO. (2019). The Global Innovation Index 2019: Creating Healthy Lives - The Future of Medical Innovation.
WTO. (1999). Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. IP/C/W/149. 14 July 1999. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=233488,232275,228997,46383,3141,2252,18842,13715,5481,10824&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=6&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True
WTO. (2016). Electronic Commerce and Copyright [Communication]. https://www.tralac.org/images/docs/11367/electronic-commerce-and-copyright-communication-from-brazil-general-council-trips-december-2016.pdf
WTO. (2018). Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce Initiative [Communication from the United States]. JOB/GC/178. 12 April 2018. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=244489,244495,244488,244469,244463,244471,244470,244437,244474,244472&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=6&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=False&HasSpanishRecord=False
Yanisky-Ravid, S. (2020). Intellectual Property Laws in the Digital Era: An International Distributive Justice Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3822753
Zarakol, A. (2014). What made the modern world hang together: Socialisation or stigmatisation? International Theory, 6(2), 311-332. doi:10.1017/S1752971914000141
Zimmermann, L., Deitelhoff, N., & Lesch, M. (2017). Unlocking the agency of the governed: Contestation and norm dynamics. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(5), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2017.1396912
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.