Skip to main content

The Max Planck Principles as an Aspect of Global Administrative Law

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Jul. 24, 1971, 1161 U.N.T.S. 31; Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Jul. 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1583, 828 U.N.T.S. 305; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments—Results of the Uruguay Round, Vol. 31, 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994).

  2. 2.

    Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, Legal Instruments—Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994).

  3. 3.

    Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, Jul. 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1749, 848 U.N.T.S. 3; World Health Organization Const., reprinted in 1946 U.N.Y.B. 793, U.N. Sales No. 1947.1.18; UNCTAD Charter, G.A. Res. 1995, 19 U.N. G.A.O.R. Supp. (No. 15) at 1, U.N. Doc. A/5815 (Dec. 30, 1964).

  4. 4.

    Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, May 2011 Text, available at http://www.ustr.gov/acta; the draft text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement remain confidential however information on negotiations through 2013 is available at http://www.ustr.gov/tpp; text of all free trade agreements involving the United States are available at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements.

  5. 5.

    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, http://www.icann.org/.

  6. 6.

    A compilation of standard setting organizations is available at http://www.consortiuminfo.org/links/.

  7. 7.

    61 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1989, Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1176-79 (1989); 19 U.S.C. § 2242.

  8. 8.

    TRIPS art. 39.3.

  9. 9.

    For an example of an FTA elaborating on TRIPS, see the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, art. 15.10.

  10. 10.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217 (III) (Dec. 10, 1948).

References

  1. Benvenisti E (2005) Public choice and global administrative law: who’s afraid of executive discretion? Law Contemp Probl 68:319–339

    Google Scholar 

  2. Büthe T, Mattli W (2011) New global rulers: the privatization of regulation in the world economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  3. Correa C (2004) Protecting test data for pharmaceutical and agrochemical products under free trade agreements. UNCTAD-ICTSD dialogue on moving the pro-development IP agenda forward: preserving public goods in health, education and learning. http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/bellagio/docs/Correa_Bellagio4.pdf

  4. Dinwoodie G, Dreyfuss R (2012) A neofederalist vision of TRIPS: building a resilient international intellectual property system. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Drahos P (2008) Trust me: patent offices in developing countries. Am J Law Med 34:151–174

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drahos P (2010) The global governance of knowledge: patent offices and their clients. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Dreyfuss R (2012) The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: a new paradigm for international harmonisation? Singapore Acad Law J 24:669–697

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dreyfuss R, Rodríguez-Garavito C (2013) The battle over intellectual property laws and access to medicines in Latin America: a primer on global administrative law, intellectual property, and political contestation. In: Dreyfuss R, Rodríguez-Garavito C (eds) Balancing wealth and health: global law and the battle over intellectual property and access to medicines in Latin America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 1 (forthcoming)

  9. Helfer L (2004) Regime shifting: the TRIPS agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale J Int Law 29:1–83

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kapczynski A (2009) Harmonization and its discontents: a case study of TRIPS implementation in India’s pharmaceutical sector. Calif Law Rev 97:1571–1649

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kingsbury B, Krisch N, Stewart RB (2005) The emergence of global administrative law. Law Contemp Probl 68:15–61

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moral M (2004) EEUU, Colombia, Perú y Ecuador presentaron sus propuestas para el TLC. America Economica.com. http://www.americaeconomica.com/numeros4/276/reportajes/maria276.htm

  13. Sell SK (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Shapiro M (2005) ‘Deliberative’, ‘independent’ technocracy v. democratic politics: will the globe echo the E.U.? Law Contemp Probl 68:341–356

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stewart R (2013) Solving the problems of disregard in global administrative governance: accountability, participation and responsiveness (forthcoming)

  16. Sunder M (2006) IP3. Stanford Law Rev 59:257–332

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dreyfuss, R.C. The Max Planck Principles as an Aspect of Global Administrative Law. IIC 44, 906–912 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0125-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intellectual Property
  • World Trade Organization
  • Free Trade Agreement
  • Uruguay Round
  • World Intellectual Property Organization