Legal and Economic Principles of World Trade Law: National Treatment

Concentración del mercado digital: condiciones políticas y jurídicas en la actual economía de la información

“…Desde un punto de vista económico, Benkler (2006) manifiesta que el pago por uso de propiedad intelectual para la creación de nuevos bienes desestimula la creatividad y retiene la innovación; como consecuencia, un sistema proteccionista discrimina en favor de quienes ostentan los medios de producción. Un sistema jurídico ideal encontrará un equilibrio entre la retribución y el uso social justificado (Grossman, Horn y Mavroidis, 2012). Planiol y Ripert(1946) expresan que el reconocimiento perpetuo 16 niega que sus titulares utilizaron ideas ajenas en la estructuración del derecho reconocido y subestiman la relevancia que tiene el conocimiento y uso por terceros del objeto protegido.…”

Taking Stock: What Do We Know, and Do not Know, about the National Treatment Obligation in the gatt/wto Legal System?

“…Thus, a technical regulation that has a detrimental impact on imports would be permitted if such detrimental stems from a legitimate regulatory distinction, while, under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, the same technical regulation would be prohibited if the objective that it pursues does not fall within the subparagraphs of Article XX.96 Therefore, if WTO panels were to confine purpose inquiries to Article XX, then the policy space that members want to retain with regard to the use of domestic measures in GATT 1994 may be severely restricted and the legitimacy of the multilateral trading system may be undermined. 97 Clearly, the AB did not share such concerns.98 The AB emphasized that the balance between trade liberalization and Members' right to regulate in the TBT Agreement is not, in principle, different from the balance set out in the GATT 1994.99 If so, then the fact that this balance is expressed in different forms in different Agreement should not result in inconsistent rulings. This may imply that the AB may interpretation the legitimate regulatory objectives in the subparagraphs of Article XX more liberally in future disputes.…”