從知識經濟到創意經濟，我們看到一個新的產業典範來臨，主導現階段經濟發展的正是創意，並且能不斷生成、運用、及永續發展。 創意經濟時代，創意產業以智慧財產權為核心，是文化與商業的結合，要真正形成產業，進而產生效益並創造產值，在產業價值鏈的建構、智慧財產的創造、保護、流通與運用等面向，需要進一步探討與落實。 電影產業是創意產業的火車頭，是十分複雜的綜合體，談到電影，一般人應該是直接想到好萊塢，最近幾年，印度寶萊塢與韓流可能也映入腦中，後臥虎藏龍時代，華語電影則迅速竄起，吸引各界目光。 惟典型的關於電影討論與研究，多集中於電影發展的歷史、電影類型、電影風格、電影導演或演員的藝術成就、以及電影市場展介紹等。 電影創造的過程是最複雜的創意管理，電影的保護、流通與運用的過程，更是最複雜的智慧財產權管理，透過電影產業價值鏈當中契約交易過程，將可作為經濟財的智慧財產權的價值極大化，並經由多元管道及平台重複運用，是一項繁複的產業化的跨領域整合。 近年來，我國開始逐漸重視智慧財產相關理論研究與實務運作，惟相當程度仍侷限於所謂高科技產業的適用，就型態、內涵、及營運模式迥異的創意產業，由於其本身具有不同邏輯的產業特性，是否或如何適用，或是如何創新，相關研究仍屬缺乏。 從智慧財產權的創造、保護、流通與運用的角度，深入探究創意產業當中的電影產業，必須先了解電影產業的發展歷史、現況、與趨勢，並應同時針對產業特性以及產業價值鏈進行分析，才能夠清楚探討電影產業的智慧財產權管理相關議題。 對於高度變動性、內部價值鍊密切結合、混合複雜的創意團隊或個人的電影產業，實則是由各類型的契約組成，因此，透過交易契約內容之審視，將是分析及了解現代化電影產業結構及發展的重要切入面向之一，也才能真正活化電影產業並促進發展。 具有現代商業概念及操作的管理機制，在電影產業中已經同等重要，這項具有創意性的管理，即是由電影製片所擔綱，電影製片就如同一位新創事業的創業家，要致力於如何將促成一部成功電影的所有必要元素統籌成一份專案事業計畫，促成投資者投資，籌募足夠資金，並協調創意人完成電影專案並推向市場。 面對文化與藝術的體驗性、創意工作者對其作品的高度重視性、創作的不可確定性、成本的變動性、消費者及市場的不可預測性等，本研究從經濟運作及市場交易法則切入，探討電影產業背景、發展趨勢、產業價值鏈、與產業特性，並以製片觀點，分析電影產業的智慧財產權管理與相關實務契約，將商業及管理概念導入文化創意產業當中，以形成具體的產業發展典型。 文末並提出研究與研究建議。 以創意產業中相對複雜的電影產業作為研究對象，本研究希望除了促成並強化電影產業本身商業與藝術結合的健全發展之外，也期望可以作為其他創意產業領域發展的重要典範。 尤其是，創意產業由於具有無體性特質及外溢效果，在流通與應用本即具有多元化面向與特質，不能以傳統意義上的單一產業視之，而是藉由跨越多個產業多樣平台的價值實現過程，將相關產業連結在一起，包括動畫電影、影視與數位內容、數位影音、數位典藏、行動應用、表演藝術、流行音樂、品牌授權、甚至文化創意園區發展、閒置空間再造、文化觀光、城市及國家行銷等，將是跨越領域與界線的融合。 / In the transition from a Knowledge-Based Economy to a Creative Economy, we see the advent of a new industry mode. What dominates present-day economic development is Creativity, which is able to be regenerated, applied and developed in a sustainable fashion. In the age of the creative economy, the creative industries are centered on intellectual property rights, and are a union of culture, art and commerce. In order for them to become real industries, generate profit and create output value, we need to further explore the establishment of an industry value chain, and create, protect, circulate and apply related intellectual property. The film industry is the driving force of all creative industries. Film is an extremely complicated synthesis. The process of making a film involves the most sophisticated creativity management expertise, while the process of protecting, circulating and utilizing a film requires the most complex intellectual property right management skills. Through the contract negotiation process within the film industry’s value chain, the value of intellectual property rights as economic goods are maximized. With multiple channels and repeated use of application platforms, film-making is a complex multidisciplinary integration process. In recent years, Taiwan has begun to pay more attention to the study of the theory and practice of intellectual property. However, this study has so far been limited to applications of the high-tech industries. With regards to the creative industries, whose forms, contents and operating modes are rather different from those of the high-tech industries, little study has been conducted due to their different industry characteristics. To investigate the film industry from the angle of creating, protecting, circulating and applying intellectual property rights, one needs to first understand the history, current status and trends of the film industry as well as analyze the industry’s characteristics and value chain before investigating issues concerning management of the industry’s intellectual property rights and revitalization of the industry. Modern-day business concepts and management mechanisms are equally important to the film industry. The producer is charged with this creative management task. The producer is like the entrepreneur of a newly established business, who endeavors to turn all the elements a successful film contains into a business plan, raise sufficient funds and coordinate efforts to complete the film and release it. From economic and market perspectives, this study examines the film industry’s historical background, trends, value chain and characteristics. In addition, from the producer’s viewpoint, the study analyzes the industry’s management of intellectual property rights and contracts, and introduces business and management concepts into creative industries in order to form a concrete industry development model. At the end of the study, it puts forward its research findings and suggestions for future research. With the film industry, a relatively complicated industry within the creative industries, as the subject, the study hopes to promote integration of commercial and artistic aspects, as well as aspiring to set an example for other creative industries. As a result of their intangible nature and spillover effects, the circulation and application of creative industries possess diverse facets and qualities and therefore cannot be viewed as a single industry from a traditional perspective. Rather, through a value realization process spanning several industries and a variety of platforms, relevant industries that include animated features, visual and digital content, digital videos, digital archives, mobile applications, performing arts, popular music, and brand authorization are linked. Creative industries even include development of cultural parks, rejuvenation of disused spaces, cultural tourism, and city and national marketing. They are a fusion of different fields and boundaries.

During the last two decades, there have been a number of policy and legislative changes in respect of South Africa’s intellectual property (IP) and the national system of innovation (NSI). In 2012, a Ministerial Review of the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) landscape in South Africa made recommendations to improve the STI landscape and effectively the national system of innovation. The study provides a critical review of drafts of the national IP policy published in 2013 as well as the IP Framework released in 2016 for public comment. The review of the IP and the NSI are within the context of the National Development Plan (NDP), which outlines South Africa’s desired developmental goals. South Africa is part of the BRICS group of countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The South African economy is characterised by a desire to move away from being dependent on resources and commodities, to becoming a more knowledge based and innovation driven economy. It is hoped that such a move would assist the country to address some of the social and economic development challenges facing South Africa, as captured in the NDP. South Africa has a functioning IP system, but its relationship with South Africa’s development trajectory is not established. More particularly, the extent to which the IP system relates to the innovation system and how these two systems must be aligned to enable South Africa to transition successfully from a country based on the production of primary resources and associated commodity-based industries to a viable knowledge-based economy is unclear. The Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) provides that IP must contribute to innovation and to transfer of technology and knowledge in a manner that is conducive to social and economic welfare. Certain provisions set out the foundations of intellectual property systems within the context of each member state. This study has thus explored the complex, complementary and sometimes contested relationships between IP and innovation, with particular emphasis on the potential of an intellectual property system to stimulate innovation and foster social and economic development. The study has also analysed the interconnectivity of IP and innovation with other WTO legal instruments, taking into account South Africa’s positioning within the globalised economy and in particular the BRICS group of countries. The research involved a critical review of South Africa’s IP and innovation policies, as well as relevant legislation, instruments, infrastructure, IP and innovation landscape, and relationship with international WTO legal instruments, in addition to its performance, given the developmental priorities and the globalised economy. The research documents patenting trends by South Africans using European Patent Office (EPO), Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) databases over the period 1996-2015. A comparative analysis of patenting trends amongst BRICS group of countries has also been documented. The study also documents new findings, observations and insights regarding South Africa’s IP and innovation systems. Some of these, particularly in relation to higher education and research institutions, are directly attributable to the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Act. More particularly, the public institutions are becoming relevant players in the NSI and are responsible for growth of certain technology clusters, in particular, biotechnology. At the same time, the study makes findings of a decline of private sector participation in patenting as well as R&D investment over the 20-year period. Recommendations are included regarding specific interventions to ensure coherence between the IP and innovation systems. Such coherence and alignment should strengthen the systems’ ability to stimulate innovation and foster inclusive development and competitiveness, which are relevant for addressing South Africa’s socio-economic development priorities. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

Digital rights activism constitutes an exemplary case of how internet affordances can be mobilised to engender political change. The values and principles stemming from the hacker imaginaire, and free and open source software practices, underpin digital rights activism, which uses the internet as a tool, object and platform for the protection of rights in the digital realm. The analysis focuses on how digital rights activists use and adapt the political affordances of the internet to intervene in European Union policy-making. Two original case studies of internet-based campaigning at the European level (the “No Software Patents” and the “Telecoms package” campaigns) provide in-depth insight into the campaigning processes and their impact upon parliamentary politics. The cases highlight the complementarity of online and offline collective action, by examining processes of open collaboration, information disclosure and internet-assisted lobbying. The success of the “Telecoms package” campaign is then assessed, along with the perspective of the targets: members and staff of the European Parliament.<p><p>The belief in values of freedom, decentralisation, openness, creativity and progress inspires a particular type of activism, which promotes autonomy, participation and efficiency. The empirical evidence suggests that this set of principles can, at times, conflict with practices observed in the field. This has to do with the particular opportunity structure of the European Union and the characteristics of the movement. The EU favours functional integration of civil society actors who are expected to contribute technical and/or legal expertise. This configuration challenges internet-based protest networks that rely on highly independent and fluctuating engagement, and suffer from a lack of diversity and cohesion. The internet does not solve all obstacles to collective action. It provides, however, a networked infrastructure and tools for organising, coordinating and campaigning. Online and offline actions are not only supportive of each other. Internet-based campaigning can be successful once it reaches out beyond the internet, and penetrates the corridors of political institutions.<p> / Doctorat en Information et communication / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

In 2001 the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (‘Doha Declaration’), affirmed the right of member states of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) to interpret and implement the TRIPS Agreement as supportive of the protection of public health and, in particular, access to medicines. While initially well-received, consternation soon arose over the interpretation of a specific paragraph in the Doha Declaration dealing with compulsory licensing. After a further two years of deliberation, the WTO Decision on the Interpretation of Paragraph 6 (‘Paragraph-6 Decision’) was announced in August 2003 specifying when countries can import drugs produced elsewhere under compulsory licence. With one third of the world's population is still denied access to essential medicines - a figure which rises to over 50 per cent in Asia and Africa - the problems facing the public health community are two-fold. The first is the capacity of developing countries (‘DCs’) actually to use the flexibilities afforded under the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration, and the Paragraph- 6 Decision amid stark inequalities in health resources and the world trading system as a whole. These include provisions for compulsory licensing, parallel importation, and addressing imbalances in research and development (‘R&D’). The pending ratification of the Paragraph-6 Decision, from an interim solution to a permanent amendment, is accompanied by considerable uncertainty: will the protections be accessible under the system currently proposed? The second problem concerns the undermining of the above hard-won flexibilities by provisions adopted under various bilateral and regional trade agreements. Known as ‘TRIPS-plus’- or ‘WTO-plus’- measures, the level of intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’) rights protection being negotiated and even adopted under other trade agreements are more restrictive as regards public health protection. These two sources of concern have led to an increase in rather than a lessening of tensions between the public health and trade policy communities. The thesis opens with a brief analysis of the interplay between patents and medicines. This includes an overview of the human rights framework and the right of access to medicines as a manifestation of human rights. The historical development of the TRIPS Agreement, its legitimacy, and the effect of the introduction of patents for pharmaceuticals are critically analysed. The terms of the Doha Declaration as it relates to public health, the Paragraph-6 Decision and its system, the December 2005 Amendment, and the progress made to date on the public health protections available under the TRIPS Agreement are reviewed and discussed in detail. The thesis describes how, despite these important clarifications, concerns as to the capacity of DCs to implement specific measures persist. This thesis further addresses the development of compulsory licensing in India and South Africa, and the legal framework for compulsory licensing in these countries. The role of competition law and constraints faced by DCs in implementing the flexibilities offered by the TRIPS Agreement and Doha Declaration are considered before turning to the threat posed by TRIPS-plus measures and calls for their critical reassessment. The thesis considers the role of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), the WHO Commission on IPRs, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), Patent Pools, and international and multilateral donors in access to medicines. The thesis concludes by reviewing potential ways forward to ensure that access to medicines by the poor living in DCs is secured in all trade agreements. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

In 2001 the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (‘Doha Declaration’), affirmed the right of member states of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) to interpret and implement the TRIPS Agreement as supportive of the protection of public health and, in particular, access to medicines. While initially well-received, consternation soon arose over the interpretation of a specific paragraph in the Doha Declaration dealing with compulsory licensing. After a further two years of deliberation, the WTO Decision on the Interpretation of Paragraph 6 (‘Paragraph-6 Decision’) was announced in August 2003 specifying when countries can import drugs produced elsewhere under compulsory licence. With one third of the world's population is still denied access to essential medicines - a figure which rises to over 50 per cent in Asia and Africa - the problems facing the public health community are two-fold. The first is the capacity of developing countries (‘DCs’) actually to use the flexibilities afforded under the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration, and the Paragraph- 6 Decision amid stark inequalities in health resources and the world trading system as a whole. These include provisions for compulsory licensing, parallel importation, and addressing imbalances in research and development (‘R&D’). The pending ratification of the Paragraph-6 Decision, from an interim solution to a permanent amendment, is accompanied by considerable uncertainty: will the protections be accessible under the system currently proposed? The second problem concerns the undermining of the above hard-won flexibilities by provisions adopted under various bilateral and regional trade agreements. Known as ‘TRIPS-plus’- or ‘WTO-plus’- measures, the level of intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’) rights protection being negotiated and even adopted under other trade agreements are more restrictive as regards public health protection. These two sources of concern have led to an increase in rather than a lessening of tensions between the public health and trade policy communities. The thesis opens with a brief analysis of the interplay between patents and medicines. This includes an overview of the human rights framework and the right of access to medicines as a manifestation of human rights. The historical development of the TRIPS Agreement, its legitimacy, and the effect of the introduction of patents for pharmaceuticals are critically analysed. The terms of the Doha Declaration as it relates to public health, the Paragraph-6 Decision and its system, the December 2005 Amendment, and the progress made to date on the public health protections available under the TRIPS Agreement are reviewed and discussed in detail. The thesis describes how, despite these important clarifications, concerns as to the capacity of DCs to implement specific measures persist. This thesis further addresses the development of compulsory licensing in India and South Africa, and the legal framework for compulsory licensing in these countries. The role of competition law and constraints faced by DCs in implementing the flexibilities offered by the TRIPS Agreement and Doha Declaration are considered before turning to the threat posed by TRIPS-plus measures and calls for their critical reassessment. The thesis considers the role of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), the WHO Commission on IPRs, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), Patent Pools, and international and multilateral donors in access to medicines. The thesis concludes by reviewing potential ways forward to ensure that access to medicines by the poor living in DCs is secured in all trade agreements. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

L’internationalisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, initiée à la fin du XIXe siècle, a pris depuis la fin du XXe siècle une toute nouvelle tournure avec son inclusion dans le champ des disciplines commerciales multilatérales. La signature de l’accord ADPIC marque en effet l’émergence d’une véritable gouvernance mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle : l’ambition affichée par l’OMC est d’encadrer, substantiellement parlant, la marge de manœuvre des membres dans la mise en place de leurs politiques de protection. Bien qu’initié plus tardivement, la communautarisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle revêt désormais une portée considérable : outre une conciliation effective des régimes nationaux de protection avec les principes cardinaux du traité, d’importantes directives d’harmonisation ont été édictées, et des titres européens de protection ont même été créés dans certains secteurs. Notre étude a pour vocation de montrer comment la communautarisation, au-delà de son rôle traditionnel de source du droit, officie comme un indispensable vecteur de structuration de la position européenne vis-à-vis de la mondialisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle. Dans son versant ascendant tout d’abord – du local au global –, le vecteur communautarisation joue un rôle de mutualisation des objectifs à promouvoir sur la scène internationale. L’enjeu n’est autre que celui de façonner une gouvernance mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle qui corresponde au système d’intérêts et de valeurs de l’Union, conformément aux objectifs ambitieux assignés par le Traité. Ce processus de mutualisation n’a toutefois rien d’automatique : d’importantes contraintes institutionnelles – malgré plusieurs révisions du Traité et la progression graduelle de l’harmonisation en interne – contrarient l’émergence d’une véritable politique européenne extérieure intégrée. Mais c’est précisément à l’aune de ces contraintes qu’il convient d’apprécier la portée des accomplissements de l’UE, qui a su s’imposer comme un acteur central de la gouvernance mondiale du droit de la propriété intellectuelle. Dans son versant descendant ensuite – du global au local –, le vecteur communautarisation s’accompagne d’une montée en puissance du juge de Luxembourg dans l’arbitrage des situations d’interactions normatives fréquentes et complexes entre le droit de l’Union et le droit international de la propriété intellectuelle. L’étude systématique de la résolution par la Cour de ces interactions normatives montre combien celle-ci s’attache à préserver l’autonomie de l’ordre juridique de l’Union, en ménageant une marge d’appréciation significative dans la mise en œuvre des obligations découlant de la mondialisation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle. Cette marge d’appréciation est mise à profit pour assurer la défense d’un modèle européen original en construction, tirant parti des flexibilités du cadre normatif mondial. / The internationalization of IP Law, initiated at the end of the 19th century, has taken since the end of the 20th century a brand new twist with its inclusion in the field of multilateral trade disciplines. The signing of the TRIPS agreement marks the emergence of a global IP governance. Indeed, the ambition displayed by the WTO is to supervise the margin of maneuver of its Members in implementing their policies. Although Communitization of IP law started much later, it now has a considerable scope: national protection regimes have been conciliated with the cardinal principles of the Treaty, some important harmonization directives have been enacted, and various European titles of protection have even been created. Our study is designed to show how Communitization, beyond its traditional role of source of law, officiates as a necessary and efficient vector for structuring the European position towards the Globalization of IP Law. In its ascendant side first -- from Local to Global, the Communitization vector plays a role of merging the objectives to be promoted on the international scene. The issue at stake is to shape an IP global framework that corresponds to the system of interests and values of the EU, in accordance with the far-reaching objectives assigned by the Treaty. This merging process is, however, not automatic. In spite of several amendments to the Treaty and of the progress of internal harmonization, various institutional constraints thwart the emergence of a fully integrated external European policy in the field of IP. But it is precisely in light of these constraints that the scope of the achievements of the EU, which in now recognized as a central actor in the global IP governance, must be appreciated. In its down side then -- from Global to Local, the Communitization vector is accompanied by a rise of the European Court of Justice in arbitrating complex normative interactions between national, EU and International IP Laws. A systematic analysis of the resolution by the ECJ of these normative interactions reveals its determination to safeguard the autonomy of the EU legal order, by arranging for significant discretion in implementing international commitments. This margin of appreciation is used to defend an original European model under construction, taking advantage of the flexibilities of the global normative framework

Les négociations internationales concernant la protection des indications géographiques connaissent, depuis près de deux décennies, un blocage au sein de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce opposant des pays défenseurs des indications géographiques, à des pays plus sceptiques. Résultant d’un compromis entre l’approche des pays de l’Union Européenne et celle des Etats-Unis, les standards minimum de protection des indications géographiques de l’ADPIC ont mis en lumière la diversité des approches juridiques en la matière et fait émerger un débat quasi-passionnel sur les moyens appropriés que l’Etat doit mettre en œuvre pour protéger les noms géographiques. L’histoire renseigne sur le fait que le plaidoyer pour ou le réquisitoire contre l’un ou l’autre camp ont toujours tourné autour des philosophies de la protection des indications géographiques : d’une part, les pays défenseurs des indications géographiques prônent à travers leur mise en œuvre, la protection d’industries plus vulnérables à la concurrence ; d’autre part, les pays sceptiques privilégient le plus possible, la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie et par ricochet, la libre exploitation des signes. Pour ces derniers, seule la reconnaissance par le consommateur d’une association qualité-origine du produit justifie une réservation du nom. Le régime multilatéral des IG issu de l’Accord sur les aspects de la propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce résulte donc d’un compromis entre ces deux philosophies de la protection. D’aucuns ont souligné le caractère insatisfaisant d’un tel compromis qui ne rend pas nécessairement compte de la nature réelle de ces signes géographiques. Ce travail tente de le transcender. Il est fondé sur le pari que, dans une perspective juridique, tout n’a peut-être pas été essayé. Dans un effort pour trouver un dénominateur commun et pour proposer une solution à l’impasse actuelle, cette recherche repose sur le rapprochement du régime de protection des indications géographiques, au régime de protection des droits de l’Homme. Non pas dans une perspective moralisatrice mais bien dans un effort pour déduire des solutions concrètes quant à la portée de la protection internationale des IG et du rôle des Etats dans la mise en œuvre de ces outils de propriété intellectuelle. L’article 15.1 c) du Pacte sur les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels prévoit : « Chacun a droit à la protection de ses intérêts moraux et matériels découlant de toute production scientifique, littéraire ou artistique dont il est l’auteur ». L’activation de cet article pourrait permettre de voir en les détenteurs d’IG non pas seulement les sujets bénéficiaires de la protection mais les sujets destinataires de politiques publiques. Il y aurait un donc un « droit de » bénéficier d’une certaine protection des IG et un « droit à » certaines prestations publiques. Au-delà de ce cadre en apparence rigide, le recours au droit international des droits de l’Homme rend la recherche d’un équilibre entre les droits de détenteurs IG et les droits du public plus intégratrice d’enjeux multiples et indispensable à la légitimité du régime multilatéral de protection des IG. / Since two decades, the international protection of geographical indications is characterized by a “blockage” in the negotiations at the World Trade Organization opposing the countries favorable to the protection of geographical indications to countries more skeptical in this regard. Deriving from a compromise between the European conception of the protection of GIs and the American one, the minimum standards of TRIPS have revealed the different legal options in this field and have resulted in a passionate debate over the appropriate role of the State. History shows that the advocacy for, or indictment against one or the other way of protecting GIs focuses essentially on the philosophy of protection in one or the other territories. As a reminder, the European Union “culture” is to protect industries far too exposed to competition while the American “culture” is to preserve economic freedom of operators and to grant monopoly on a geographical name only where such name has been tested on the market and is recognized by the “public” as having a geographical anchorage. Equally compelling, neither of these philosophies has allowed reaching the most acceptable balance for GI regime. This work seeks to transcend them. It bets that everything has not been tried yet, at least from a legal perspective. In order to find a common solution and a way forward to multilateral protection of geographical indications, the paper relies on the culture of “human rights”, not really with a view to “moralize” the field of study but more to deduct practical answers deriving from the international human rights law. As a matter of fact, article 15.1 c) of the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides that “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone […] to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”. The activation of this article could allow approaching geographical indications operators, not only as beneficiaries of certain rights but also as beneficiaries of public policies. By virtue of article 15.1 c), there shall be a right to benefit from the GI protection (“right-liberty”) but also, a right to claim certain public policies (“right-debt”) in this regard. Beyond this seemingly strict framework for GIs, the reference to international human rights law proves to beneficial to the necessary balance between the rights of GI operators and the rights of the public. Incidentally, this balance is inclusive of multiple issues which is essential to the legitimacy of the multilateral regime of protection of GIs.