SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Quantitative Analysis Of Contributions To NETMundial Meeting

A quantitative analysis of the 187 submissions to the April NETmundial conference on the future of internet governance shows broad support for improving security, ensuring respect for privacy, ensuring freedom of expression, and globalizing the IANA function, analyst Richard Hill writes.


Latest Comments
  • Why should anyone care what James Anaya thinks? In... »
  • If this goes ahead, as the EU will "speak" for all... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    EU Commissioner Defends Investor-State Provisions; NGOs Propose “Alternative Trade Mandate”

    Published on 28 November 2013 @ 12:46 am

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    European Union Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht today (27 November) defended the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement provision in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). De Gucht argued the out-of-court settlements allowing private sector to sue governments were necessary because the TTIP would not per se give EU companies a standing in US courts.

    “In the US, a trade agreement does not create a stance to litigate in a court,” de Gucht said.
    He spoke at a session of the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA) in Brussels.

    Several observers from the Green Party called de Gucht’s explanation “astonishing.”

    “We are checking this currently, but the notion that foreign investors would not be able to go to Court in the US is new to us,” the assistant to Green Party Member Ska Keller said.

    Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), used in the past when negotiating with countries with which there was no well-established framework, are now just thrown into every agreement, an assistant of Keller’s colleague Carl Schlyter said. The US and EU both have well-established frameworks to settle cases in court or bring cases to the World Trade Organization.

    When questioned by a Scottish Liberal MEP during the session today as to whether ISDS would make privatization of sectors like health a one-way street, de Gucht promised to check, but underlined that the “policy space certainly should allow to go in both directions.”

    ISDS has come under some scrutiny recently as after inclusion in the just-concluded Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA). The Commission, according to de Gucht, now is considering going even further in ISDS, where possible, in TTIP.

    INTA members were briefed on ISDS on 26 November in a technical briefing which was closed, according to the Commission’s calendar.

    The spokesperson for de Gucht in a tweet today pointed to a summary [pdf] of the Commission’s approach to ISDS. Reforms on ISDS are necessary, de Gucht said.

    The document points to a “re-balancing” by a two-pronged approach. There was a need to clarify the right “to regulate to pursue legitimate public policy objectives” and the meaning of “indirect expropriation” and “fair and equitable treatment.”

    The second part is reform of how the system operates adding transparency and a code of conduct for private arbitrators.

    Alternative Trade Mandate

    While the Commission is preparing for the third round of the TTIP, a growing coalition of health, farmers and civil liberty organisations today launched an “alternative trade mandate,” heavily criticising the current trade negotiation agenda of the EU.

    In the core document, the 50-plus organisations warn against the negative side effects for local users and consumers and heavily criticise the continued lack of transparency.

    A strategy meeting of EU NGOs on TTIP is planned for 12-13 December, just before the next official TTIP round. A coordination meeting with US NGOs was in the making for next year, Peter Fuchs from the German NGO PowerShift said.

    De Gucht assured the INTA Committee in today’s session that the Parliament would enjoy the same transparency as the Council of Ministers of the EU, yet the US was concerned about potential leaks of papers. Asked if there had been pressure to not share US negotiating positions with member states, de Gucht answered evasively.

    Monika Ermert may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. william Mupunga says:

      Why is IP watch so silent about the ARIPO Administrative Council taking place in Kampala Uganda? I would have expected you to report something from there especially seeing that this year they also have a Council of Ministers taking place there.

    2. Roman Catholic Church Joins Opposition to ‘Trade’ Agreements | Techrights says:

      […] EU Commissioner Defends Investor-State Provisions; NGOs Propose “Alternative Trade Mandate” […]

    3. henk houweling says:

      It is not surprising to understand what the corporate world wants: getting around national parliaments and judiciaries. After the MAI failed, the business world gives it a new try in the TTIP. Of course, neo-liberal European Union joins the US in both trade and resource wars. Corporate ideal is to rule of societies without political responsibility: its most preferred option.

      See what happened in the recent past:

      1) Australian government, that refused to agree with ISD clause. It was sued by a US tobacco company that saw the value of its investments in Australia declined due new health regulations compelling companies to print stern warnings on the package. However, the company found that Australia had an ISD clause in treaty with H Kong; the company relocated to HK and sued the Australian government ; [info from NHK world discussion on TPP, on September 14, 2014]

      From the same source

      2) Over $350 million in compensation has already been paid out to corporations in a series ofInvestor-State cases under NAFTA alone. This included attacks on natural resource policies, environmental protection and health and safety measures, and more. In fact, all of the 17 pending claims under only U.S. FTAs, seeking over $12.5 billion damages, relate to environmental, public health and
      transportation policy – not traditional trade issues. In several instances,
      arbitral tribunals have gone beyond awards of cash damages and issued
      injunctive relief that creates severe conflicts of law. For instance, a recent
      order by a tribunal in the case brought by Chevron against Ecuador under a U.S.-Ecuador BIT ordered the executive branch of that country to violate its
      constitutional separation of powers and somehow halt the enforcement of an
      appellate court ruling. (This case is described below in more detail.) The
      international tribunals that currently rule over Investor-State claims lack
      public accountability, standard judicial ethics rules, and appeals processes.


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.204.68.109