For several years, research at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law (MPI) - in collaboration with experts from all over the world - has examined the trend of bilateral and regional agreements that include provisions on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights. By building on this research, the following principles – express core concerns regarding the use of IP provisions as a bargaining chip in international trade negotiations, the increasing comprehensiveness of international IP rules and the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in the negotiating process; and – recommend international rules and procedures that can achieve a better, mutually advantageous and balanced regulation of international IP. These principles emanate from several consultations within the MPI and especially from a workshop that was held with external experts in October 2012 in Munich, Germany. They represent the views of those first signatories and are open to signature by scholars who share the objectives of the Principles

This chapter turns to the various approaches for addressing overlaps and resolving conflicts previously summarized. A range of specific conflict rules, the general conflict of norm principles referred to in the ILC Fragmentation Report, as well as alternatives such as conflict-of-laws concepts and the substantive law method are explored and applied to the rule relations assessed throughout prior chapters. The chapter then offers a birds-eye perspective on the relations within the international intellectual property (IP) system, those to alternative systems for protecting IP assets in international law, and to other global legal orders that interface the protection of IP. This perspective cannot claim to be objective and of course does not offer any sort of absolute truth. However, the chapter attempts to present this perspective as one that goes beyond the traditional realm of ‘international intellectual property law’ and truly engages with other rule systems in international law.

This article discusses atypical acts of the European Union (EU) concerning intellectual property (IP) protection within the EU's internal legal order and its external relations. Internally, atypical acts are used in IP for flexible pre-and post-regulation purposes or for soft guidance and steering. Yet in IP and elsewhere, those flexibilities come at the cost of deficits in democratic legitimacy, legality, and legal certainty. Atypical acts are also common in the external trade relations of the EU. Like more formal conduct of trade relations by means of international agreements, they focus on the enforcement of IP rights. The less formal (and legal) character of these acts often allows them to be more policy-driven and so makes it easier to address key political concerns relevant for EU external trade relations in a more flexible and current manner. Some of these policies are subsequently turned into 'hard' lawfor example in the course of the negotiations over the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Based on the comparative analysis of the role of atypical acts in the EU's internal legislation for IP vis-à-vis their role in external action, this article explores possibilities of limiting the drawbacks while preserving the benefits of a use of atypical acts in external policies.

This book examines intellectual property (IP) protection in the broader context of international law. Against the background of the debate about norm relations within and between different rule systems in international law, it constructs a holistic view of international IP law as an integral part of the international legal system. The first part considers norm relations within the international IP law system. It analyses the relationship of the two main unilateral IP conventions to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as the relationship between TRIPS and subsequent Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The second part discusses alternative rule systems for the protection of IP. The third part identifies important intersections and links between the traditional system of IP protection and other areas of international law related to environmental, social, and economic concerns. These include free trade in goods; biological diversity, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge; multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) on climate change; and access to medicines and food. This analysis provides significant insights into the nature and quality of international law as a legal system. The fourth part identifies appropriate norms within the international IP system that can respond to these complexities and linkages.