Performance requirements act as policy instruments for achieving broadly-defined economic and developmental objectives of States, especially industrial and technological development objectives. Many States consider that performance requirements distort trade and investment flows, negatively impact global and national welfare and disrupt investment decisions compared to business-as-usual scenarios. As a result, a number of States have committed to prohibiting performance requirements in international investment agreements (“IIAs.”). Performance requirement prohibitions (“PRPs”) are meant to eliminate trade-distorting performance requirements and performance requirements which replace investor decision-making by State decision-making. This thesis focuses on providing answers to two research questions: first, how do States prohibit performance requirements in IIAs? And second, how should PRPs in IIAs be interpreted and applied? For the first time, this thesis: proposes a comprehensive understanding of PRPs in IIAs by drawing notably on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) Uruguay Round of negotiations and on the United States Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) Programme; develops a detailed typology and analysis of PRPs in IIAs through the identification of systematically reproduced drafting patterns; conducts the first critical and in-depth analysis of all arbitral awards which have decided claims based on PRPs in IIAs; analyses interpretation and application issues related to provisions that exempt government procurement from PRPs and to reservations that shield sensitive non-conforming measures or strategically important sectors from PRPs; and anticipates the application of most-favoured nation (“MFN”) treatment clauses to PRPs in the future. Finally, this thesis formulates proposals that can help interpret and apply existing PRPs and draft future PRPs in a more deliberate and informed way.

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.

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.