Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patents and pills, power and procedure: The North-South politics of public health in the WTO

  • Articles
  • Published:
Studies in Comparative International Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Developing countries have limited control over the distributional and substantive dimensions of international institutions, but they retain an important stake in a rule-based international order that can reduce uncertainty and stabilize expectations. Because international institutions can provide small states with a potential mechanism to bind more powerful states to mutually recognized rules, developing countries may seek to strengthen the procedural dimensions of multilateral institutions. Clear and strong multilateral rules cannot substitute for weakness, but they can help ameliorate some of the vulnerability that is a product of developing countries’ position in the international system. This article uses the contemporary international politics of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as a lens to examine North-South conflicts over international economic governance and the possibilities of institutional reform. Lacking the power to revise the substance of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), developing countries, allied with a network of international public health activists, subsequently designed strategies to operate within the constraining international political reality they faced. They sought to clarify the rules of international patent law, to affirm the rights established during the TRIPS negotiations, and to minimize vulnerability to opportunism by powerful states. In doing so the developing countries reinforced global governance in IPRs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, Frederick M. 2001. “The TRIPS Agreement, Access to Medicines and the WTO Doha Ministerial Conference.” Quaker United Nations Office, Occasional Paper 7.

  • Abbott, Kenneth W. and Snidal, Duncan. 1998. “Why States Act through Formal International Organizations.Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (February): 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance.”International Organization 54 (Summer): 421–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K. 1992. “The Political Economy of Service Sector Negotiations in the Uruguay Round.”Fletcher Forum 16 (Winter): 35–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amsden, Alice H. and Hikino, Takashi. 2000. “The Bark is Worse Than the Bite: New WTO Law and Late Industrialization.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 570 (July): 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attaran, Amir, and Gillespie-White, Lee. 2001. “Do Patents for Antiretroviral Drugs Constrain Access to AIDS Treatment in Africa?”Journal of the American Medical Association 286 (October 17): 1886–1892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berwick, Donald. 2002. “We all have AIDS’: Case for Reducing the Cost of HIV Drugs to Zero.”British Medical Journal 324 (January 26): 214–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronckers, Marco C.E.J. 1994. “The Impact of TRIPS: Intellectual Property Protection in Developing Countries.”Common Market Law Review 31 (December): 1245–1281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Declan. 2002. “Developing World Gets Patent Aid.”Nature 415 (7 February): 563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaghy, Thomas M. 2001. “Networks and Governance in Africa: Innovation in the Debt Regime.” Pp. 115–49 inIntervention and Transnationalism in Africa: Global-local Networks of Power, eds. T. Callaghy, R. Kassimir, and R. Latham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champ, Paul and Attaran, Amir. 2002. “Patent Rights and Local Working Under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: An Analysis of the U.S.-Brazil Patent Dispute.”Yale Journal of International Law 27 (Summer): 365–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Ha Joon. 2002.Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. London: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIPR. 2002.Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. London: Commission on Intellectual Property Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consumer Project on Technology. 2001. “Comment on Attaran-Gillespie-White and PhRMA surveys of patents on antiretroviral drugs in Africa,” October 16. Available at http://cptech.org/ip/health/africa/dopatentsmatterinafrica.html (accessed December 20, 2001).

  • Correa, Carlos. 2000.Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in the Developing Countries. Geneva: South Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortell, Andrew P. and Davis, `., James W. 1996. “How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms.”International Studies Quarterly 40 (December): 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottier, Thomas, and Mavroidis, Petros C. (Eds). 2003.Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition, and Sustainable Development. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, Peter. 1997. “Thinking Strategically About Intellectual Property Rights.”Telecommunications Policy 21 (April): 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1995. “Global Property Rights in Information: The Story of TRIPS at the GATT.”Prometheus 13 (June): 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, Philip G. 1993. “Intellectual Property: The U.S. Concern.” Pp. 197–201 inThe Pharmaceutical Corporate Presence in Developing Countries, eds. L. Tavis and O. Williams. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, Tyrone. 1988.The Third World and Decision Making in the International Monetary Fund: The Quest for Full and Effective Participation. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson, Jock A. and Zacher, Mark W. 1981. “International Trade Institutions and the North-South Dialogue.”International Journal 36 (Autumn): 732–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1988.Managing International Markets: Developing Countries and the Commodity Trade Regime. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogarty, Edward A. 2003. “Moving Mountains (of Debt): NGOs, the HIPC Initiatives and the Decentralization of Multilateral Debt Governance.” Pp. 229–254 inSovereign Debt: Origins, Crises and Restructuring, eds. V. Aggarwal and B. Granville. London: Royal Institute of International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvão, Jane. 2002. “Access to Antiretroviral Drugs in Brazil.”The Lancet. 5 November 2002.

  • Granville, Brigitte (Ed.) 2002.The Economics of Essential Medicines. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, Stephan. 1995.Developing Nations and the Politics of Global Integration. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, Stephan, and Beth A. Simmons. 1987. “Theories of International Regimes.”International Organization 41 (Summer): 491–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Jeffrey. 1983.The New International Economic Order. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert. 1982. “The Demand for International Regimes.”International Organization 36 (Spring): 325–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —.After Hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998.Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, Stephen D. 1985.Structural Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, David A. 1987. “Power and the Third World: Toward a Realist Political Economy of North-South Relations.”International Studies Quarterly 31 (June): 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Lisa L., and Beth A. Simmons. 1998. “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions.”International Organization 52 (Autumn): 729–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, Keith E. 2000.Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Christopher. 2000.A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The new enclosures? London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. “Unacceptable Costs: The Consequences of Making Knowledge Property in a Global Society.”Global Society 16 (April): 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mrazek, Monique F. 2002. “Pharmaceutical Pricing in the Developing World: Issues of Access to Medicines.”Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 2: 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, Douglass C. 1981.Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, Robert, Anne Marie Goetz, Jan Aart Scholte, and Marc Williams. 2000.Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostry, Sylvia. 1999. “Intellectual Property Protection in the World Trade Organization: Major Issues in the Millennium Round.” Pp. 193–205 InCompetitive Strategies for the Protection of Intellectual Property, ed. Owen Lippert. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxfam. 2002. “US Bullying on Drug Patents: One Year after Doha.” Oxfam Briefing Paper 33. Available online at http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/health/downloads/bp33_bullying.pdf

  • Poku, Nana K. 2002. “Poverty, Debt, and Africa’s HIV/AIDS Crisis.International Affairs 78: 531–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, Jerome H and Hasenzahl, Catherine. 2003. “Non-voluntary Licensing of Patented Inventions: Historical Perspective, Legal Framework under TRIPS, and an Overview of the Practice in Canada and the USA.” UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 5. Available online at http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/ictsd_series/iprs/CS_reichman_hasenzahl.pdf

  • Rosenberg, Tina. 2001. “Look at Brazil.”The New York Times Sunday Magazine. January 28.

  • Rothstein, Robert L. 1984. “Regime-Creation by a Coalition of the Weak: Lessons from the NIEO and the Integrated Program for Commodities.”International Studies Quarterly 28 (September): 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, John Gerard. 1983. “Political Structure and Change in the International Economic Order: The North-South Dimension.” Pp. 423–487 inThe Antinomies of Interdependence: National Welfare and the International Division of Labor, ed. J. Ruggie. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, Michael P. 1998.Knowledge Diplomacy: Global Competition and the Politics of Intellectual Property. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell, Susan K. 1998.Power and Ideas: North-South Politics of Intellectual Property and Antitrust. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 2003.Private Power Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F.M. 2000. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and World Intellectual Property Standards.”Vanderbilt Law Review 53: 2245–2254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F.M., and Watal, Jayashree. 2001. “Post-Trips Options for Access to Patented Medicines in Developing Countries.” Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) Working Paper No. WG4:1.

  • Schwartlander, B., et al. 2001. “Resource Needs for HIV/AIDS.”Science 292: 2434–2436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadlen, Kenneth C. 2004, forthcoming. “Challenges to Treatment: The Price-Infrastructure Trap and Access to HIV/AIDS Drugs.”Journal of International Development, (December).

  • Sherwood, Robert M. 2000. “The TRIPS Agreement: Benefits and Costs for Developing Countries.”International Journal of Technology Management 19: 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikkink, Kathryn. 2002. “Transnational Advocacy Networks and the Social Construction of Legal Rules.” Pp. 37–64 inGlobal Prescriptions: The Production, Exportation, and Importation of a New Legal Orthodoxy, eds. Y. Dezalay and B. Garth. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivas, K. Ravi. 2003. “Interpreting Para 6: Deal on Patents and Access to Drugs.”Economic and Political Weekly. 20 September 2003.

  • Subramanian, Arvind. 1990. “TRIPs and the Paradigm of the GATT: A Tropical, Temperate View.”World Economy 13 (December): 509–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • `t Hoen, Ellen. 2002. “TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and Access to Essential Medicines: A Long Way from Seattle to Doha.”Chicago Journal of International Law 3 (Spring): 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNAIDS/WHO. 2000. “Patent Situation of HIV/AIDS-related Drugs in 80 Countries.” Available at http://www.who.int/medicines/library/par/hivrelateddocs/patentshivdrugs.pdf.

  • UNAIDS. 2002a.AIDS Epidemic Update: December 2002. UNAIDS/02/58E.

  • UNAIDS. 2002b.Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic. Available at http://www.unaids.org/barcelona/presskit/barcelona%20report/contents.html

  • UNAIDS. 2003.Progress Report on the Global Respones to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic, 2003. Available at http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/Topics/UNGASS2003/UNGASS_Report_2003_en_pdf.pdf (accessed 7 October 2003).

  • USTR. 1995. “USTR Announces Two Decisions: Title VII and Special 301.” Press Release 95-32, April 29. Available at http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1995/04/95-32 (accessed December 20, 2001).

  • USTR. 1996. “‘Special 301’ on Intellectual Property Rights: Fact Sheet.” Press Release 96-39, May 2, 1996. Available at http://www.ustr.gov/html/factsheets.html (accessed November 19, 2001).

  • USTR. 1997. “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Annual Review.” Press Release 97-37, April 30 1997. Available at http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1997/04/97-37.pdf (accessed November 19, 2001).

  • USTR. 1998. “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Annual Review.” Press Release 98-44, May 1, 1998. Available at http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1998/05/98-44.pdf (accessed November 19, 2001).

  • USTR. 1999. “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Annual Review.” Press Release 99-41, April 30, 1999. Available at http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1999/04/99-41.html (accessed November 19, 2001).

  • USTR. “2000 Special 301 Report.” USTR Press Release 00–30. Available at http://www.ustr.gov/html/special.html (accessed May 6, 2001).

  • USTR. 2001a. “2001 Special 301 Report.” Press Release, April 30, 2001. Available at http://www.ustr.gov (accessed May 6, 2001).

  • USTR. 2001b. “TRIPs and Health Emergencies.” Background Paper for Doha Ministerial, 10 November 2001. Available at http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/econ/wto/wwwh01111004.html (accessed May 1, 2002).

  • van Bael, Ivo, and Jean François Bellis. 1990.Anti-dumping and other Trade Protection Laws of the EEC, Second Edition. Oxfordshire: CCH Editions Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. 1998.Globalization and Access to Drugs: Perspectives on the WTO/TRIPS Agreement. Health Economics and Drugs, DAP Series No. 7 (Revised), WHO/DAP.98.9. Available online at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1998/WHO_DAP_98.9_revised.pdf

  • WHO. 2001.Globalization, Patents and Drugs: An Annotated Bibliography. Health Economics and Drugs, EDM Series No. 10, WHO/EDM/PAR/2001.1.

  • WHO. 2002.Network for Monitoring the Impact of Globalization and TRIPS on Access to Medicines. Health Economics and Drugs. EDM Series No. 11, WHO/EDM/PAR/2002.1.

  • World Bank. 2001.Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries: 2002. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO. 2001. “TRIPS and Pharmaceutical Patents.” WTO Fact Sheet (April). Available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm.

  • WTO/WHO 2002.TWO Agreements and Public Health: A joint study by the WHO and WTO Secretariat. (Geneva: WTO Secretariat).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Kenneth C. Shadlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Ken Shadlen is lecturer in development studies at the London School of Economics. He is the author ofDemocratization without Representation: The Politics of Small Industry in Mexico (Penn State University Press, 2004). His work on the politics of intellectual property has appeared inWorld Economy, and is forthcoming inInternational Studies Quarterly, Journal of International Development, andReview of International Political Economy.

In preparing this paper I have benefited from discussions of the material with a number of people, including Tom Callaghy, Meghnad Desai, Tim Dyson, Christopher Garrison, Marcus Kurtz, Susan Martin, Christopher May, Monique Mrazek, Andrew Schrank, and Robert Wade. I also wish to thank the journal’s reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. Financial support was provided by STICERD, LSE.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shadlen, K.C. Patents and pills, power and procedure: The North-South politics of public health in the WTO. St Comp Int Dev 39, 76–108 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686283

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686283

Keywords

Search

Navigation