Author
Abstract
In connection with the run-up to the Cancun Ministerial Conference, the author was asked whether there are grounds for recommending amendment of WTO TRIPS Agreement rules addressing competition. The general conclusion of the study is that the TRIPS Agreement in its present form provides substantial discretion to WTO Members in the formulation and application of competition rules regulating intellectual property, and this arrangement serves the best interests of developed and developing countries. Potential amendments were considered across a matrix of interested country groups: North-North, North-South, South-North and South-South. Although country groups with different interests might seek to modify TRIPS competition-related rules to their perceived advantage, there is little reason to believe that consensus would be reached on such changes. The study acknowledges that global welfare benefits might flow from a more highly integrated international competition regime with powers to investigate and enforce agreed upon rules. There is, however, little identifiable near-term impetus for building such a regime, whether at the WTO or elsewhere. Competition laws of certain developed countries expressly exempt conduct with wholly foreign effects from the application of rules regulating anticompetitive practices, including those concerning intellectual property. Such exemptions appear inconsistent with advocacy of liberal market principles, and they are damaging to developing country interests. As part of the Doha Development Round commitment to developing countries, a decision by developed countries to eliminate these exemptions would be constructive. Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Frederick Abbott, 2004.
"Are The Competition Rules In The Wto Trips Agreement Adequate?,"
Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 687-703, September.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:7:y:2004:i:3:p:687-703
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's
web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:7:y:2004:i:3:p:687-703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.