International Economic Law

On March 20, 2009, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report of the dispute settlement panel in China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (China – IPR).[1] The report addressed three claims brought by the United States alleging that certain Chinese measures are inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

On August 28, 2008, the United Kingdom’s National Contact Point (UK-NCP) issued its decision in Global Witness v. Afrimex Ltd.[1] In this case, Global Witness, a non-governmental organization,[2] alleged that Afrimex Ltd.

Introduction

I. Introduction

The United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises,[1] John Ruggie, submitted his final Report to the Human Rights Council on June 3, 2008.[2] The Report and its attendant documents

On March 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court announced its judgment in Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc.,[1] a case involving the exclusivity of the grounds for vacating arbitral awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As explained below, the decision holds that the disputing parties may not agree to expand the grounds for vacatur beyond those listed in 9 U.S.C. § 10.

Introduction

Update: The Appellate Body Has Reversed the Panel's Departure from the Zeroing Jurisprudence (June 6, 2008)

Introduction

Introduction

On July 17, 2007, Rwanda notified the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) that it plans to import the HIV-drug TriAvir from the Canadian company Apotex and will not enforce any patents granted in that respect in Rwanda.[1] Two months later, Canada issued a compulsory license allowing Apotex to use nine patented inventions for manufacturing and exporting TriAvir to Rwanda.