The India-EFTA Deal: A New Model for Developing Countries?
By Danish
Governments are shifting from investor-state dispute mechanisms to treaties that encourage and ease investment. The India-European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement could be setting a new standard for developing countries to promote and benefit from foreign investment.
Knocking Down Business-related Human Rights Abuses with a Feather: Is the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Sufficient to Tackle Corporate Impunity?
By Daniel Uribe
In April 2024, the European Parliament approved the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), aiming to ensure that European firms and their partners uphold human rights and environmental standards in their supply chains. This Directive applies to large EU and non-EU companies, with a phased implementation starting in 2027. The CSDDD mandates the integration of due diligence in corporate policies and the development of transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. Despite these advancements, the Directive’s scope and civil liability provisions are limited to effectively hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses. The ongoing negotiations on an International Legally Binding Instrument on Business and Human Rights offer an opportunity to adopt common standards on due diligence and jurisdiction to improve access to justice and remedies for victims of corporate-related abuses.
On the Forty-eighth Session of UNCITRAL Working Group III
By Jose Manuel Alvarez Zarate
The forty-eighth session of UNCITRAL Working Group III (WGIII) on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) reform was held in New York from April 1-5, 2024. The WGIII made significant progress in various reform areas. The European Union’s proposal for a permanent Multilateral Investment Court is advancing, albeit with mixed support. A Code of Conduct, developed with ICSID and adopted in 2023, remains contentious. Likewise, discussions focused on the draft statute for an Advisory Centre on International Investment Dispute Settlement, revised guidelines for dispute prevention, and a draft statute for a Permanent Mechanism for ISDS. Despite progress, core criticisms of the ISDS system—transparency, balance of rights, and rule clarity—remain inadequately addressed. This document considers some of the progress made and the need to provide more time for discussions on procedural and cross-cutting issues, which are crucial for developing countries to achieve balanced and inclusive outcomes.
Understanding the Interconnected Threats to Global Sustainability: A Focus on Deforestation, Traditional Knowledge, and Biopiracy
By Marissa Costa De Castro
This paper examines the interconnected threats of climate change, deforestation, misappropriation of traditional knowledge (TK), and the detrimental phenomenon of biopiracy. It discusses the profound impacts of deforestation on climate change, with an illustrative case study centered on Brazil’s Matopiba region. Additionally, it investigates the intricate relationship between TK, land grabbing, and biopiracy within indigenous and local communities.
The Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions, Expressions of Folklore and Genetic Resources Within the African Continental Free Trade Area – Alignment with International and Regional Developments
By Caroline B. Ncube
The adoption of the Protocol on Intellectual Property Rights under the Agreement on the African Continental Free Trade Area presents an opportune moment to consider a continental framework for the protection of Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions, Expressions of Folklore and Genetic Resources. This SouthViews considers lessons which can be drawn from national laws, using South Africa as an example, for the relevant Annex to be negotiated under the protocol.
The Global Digital Compact we need for people and the planet
by Anita Gurumurthy, Nandini Chami, Shreeja Sen, Merrin Muhammed Ashraf of IT for Change
The Zero Draft of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) to be adopted at the Summit of the Future is crucial to international digital cooperation under a transformative vision of global digital governance. It should identify the means for achieving equitable participation, sustainable development, gender equality, increased local capacity, public ownership of core digital infrastructure and address the concentration of power in the digital economy. This SouthViews considers some of the shortcomings of the draft GDC, particularly in attaining equitable international data governance and democratic participation in a digital multistakeholder scenario to avoid data monopolies and ensure inclusive policy-making processes, while recentering the objectives of Internet governance for inclusive and development-oriented information societies.
Proposal for a new Article 11bis in the WHO Pandemic Accord: a Pandemic Technology Transfer Mechanism
by Olga Gurgula and Luke McDonagh
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the failure of voluntary mechanisms during global emergencies and exemplifies the need for effective involuntary technology transfer tools. The WHO Pandemic Accord offers an opportunity to provide an effective mechanism to build upon existing TRIPS flexibilities in the specific pandemic context. We propose a new provision (Article 11bis) that outlines a mechanism on cross-border procedure of non-voluntary technology transfer during a pandemic. This procedure could be invoked in a pandemic scenario in which voluntary technology transfer mechanisms have failed to provide sufficient supplies of a needed pandemic product.
Patent rights and misappropriation of traditional knowledge: the case of the Amazonian Mirantã
By Marcos Vinício Chein Feres
This article aims to understand whether there are any signs of misappropriation enabled by the international patent system in the case of associated traditional knowledge to Mirantã, a plant (genetic resource – GR) found in the Amazon Basin. There is clear correspondence between the traditional uses of Mirantã and patent claims found, which are, or may at least hint at, evidence of the misappropriation of traditional knowledge. More generally, this confirms the perspective of the existence of a coloniality of knowledge as in many jurisdictions, due to the lack of measures to protect traditional knowledge against misappropriation (e.g., via a disclosure requirement in patent applications), these patents are for now deemed valid.
¿Adónde va el tratado internacional vinculante negociado en la OMS contra futuras pandemias?
Por Germán Velásquez
La idea de un tratado internacional sobre pandemias es evitar que se repitan los fracasos que se produjeron durante la crisis del COVID-19. Muchas cosas no funcionaron, pero el fracaso más flagrante fue la desigual distribución y acceso a las vacunas, diagnósticos y tratamientos. Se necesita un tratado internacional basado en los principios de equidad, inclusión y transparencia para garantizar un acceso universal y equitativo.
El actual proyecto de texto del “tratado pandémico” está lejos de responder adecuadamente los retos planteados durante la crisis de COVID-19. Los países desarrollados han debilitado el texto inicial. Los países desarrollados han debilitado la versión inicial del borrador, y el texto está ahora lleno de matices innecesarios. La expresión “cuando proceda” y otras formulaciones típicas de las disposiciones voluntarias aparecen ahora repetidamente. Se trata de proteger y garantizar el interés público y la salud de los ciudadanos como un derecho, o de defender los intereses de una industria que pretende enriquecerse sin límites. El tratado contra futuras pandemias será uno de los temas centrales de la próxima Asamblea Mundial de la Salud de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) en mayo de 2024. Si los países del Sur, que representan la mayoría de los miembros de la OMS, se unen con una visión clara y fuerte de la salud pública y los países del Norte actúan con lucidez, siguiendo las pruebas científicas al tiempo que persiguen la seguridad para todos, el tratado contribuirá al bienestar de las generaciones futuras. Si al final un pequeño grupo de países se opone a un tratado con disposiciones significativas, no debemos olvidar que la OMS es una institución democrática donde existe la posibilidad de votar.
Où va le traité international contraignant négocié à l’OMS pour lutter contre les futures pandémies ?
Par Germán Velásquez
L’idée d’un traité international sur les pandémies est d’éviter de répéter les échecs qui se sont produits lors de la crise du COVID-19. Beaucoup de choses n’ont pas fonctionné, mais l’échec le plus flagrant a été la distribution inégale des vaccins, des diagnostics et des traitements, ainsi que l’accès à ces derniers. Un traité international fondé sur les principes d’équité, d’inclusion et de transparence est nécessaire pour garantir un accès universel et équitable.
Le projet de texte actuel du “traité sur les pandémies” est loin de répondre de manière adéquate aux défis rencontrés lors de la crise du COVID-19. Les pays développés ont affaibli la version initiale du projet, et le texte est maintenant plein de nuances inutiles. L’expression « le cas échéant » et d’autres formulations typiques des dispositions volontaires apparaissent désormais à plusieurs reprises. Il s’agit soit de protéger et d’assurer l’intérêt public et la santé des citoyens comme un droit, soit de défendre les intérêts d’une industrie qui cherche à s’enrichir sans limites. Le traité contre les futures pandémies sera l’un des sujets centraux de la prochaine Assemblée mondiale de la santé de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) en mai 2024. Si les pays du Sud, qui représentent la majorité des membres de l’OMS, s’unissent autour d’une vision claire et forte de la santé publique et que les pays du Nord agissent avec lucidité, en suivant les preuves scientifiques tout en recherchant la sécurité pour tous, le traité contribuera au bien-être des générations futures. Si, en fin de compte, un petit groupe de pays s’oppose à un traité contenant des dispositions significatives, nous ne devons pas oublier que l’OMS est une institution démocratique où il est possible de voter.
Where is the Binding International Treaty Negotiated at the WHO Against Future Pandemics Going?
by Germán Velásquez
The idea of an international pandemic treaty is to avoid repeating the failures that occurred during the COVID-19 crisis. Many things did not work, but the most glaring failure was the unequal distribution of, and access to, vaccines, diagnostics and treatments. An international treaty based on the principles of equity, inclusiveness and transparency is needed to ensure universal and equitable access.
The current draft text of the “pandemic treaty” is far from adequately responding to the problems faced during the COVID-19 crisis. Developed countries have weakened the initial version of the draft, and the text is now full of unnecessary nuances. The expression “where appropriate” and other such wordings, typical of voluntary provisions, now appear repeatedly. It is a question of either protecting and ensuring the public interest and the health of citizens as a right, or of defending the interests of an industry that seeks to enrich itself without limits. The treaty against future pandemics will be one of the central topics at the next World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) in May 2024. If the countries of the South, accounting for the majority of the WHO membership, unite with a clear and strong public health vision and the countries of the North act lucidly, follow scientific evidence while pursuing safety for all, the treaty will contribute to the well-being of future generations. If in the end a small group of countries oppose a treaty with meaningful provisions, we must not forget that the WHO is a democratic institution where there is the possibility to vote.
New US Policy on Exercise of March-In Rights to Curb High Drug Prices: Lessons for the Global South
By Nirmalya Syam
In response to soaring prescription drug costs, the United States government recently announced proposed changes to the exercise of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act, allowing federal agencies to license taxpayer-funded inventions to other parties based on factors such as accessibility and affordability. This article explores the implications of the US policy shift on global pharmaceutical pricing and access, particularly for developing countries. Drawing parallels between the US approach and flexibilities under intellectual property laws such as compulsory licensing and government use authorizations that are allowed under the WTO TRIPS Agreement, the article suggests that similar strategies could be employed by developing nations to address public health needs and economic considerations.
