EU trade agreements and external differentiation: a large language model approach

Preferential trade agreements are growing in number and deepening in content by incorporating disciplines that go beyond market access. They increasingly encompass non-trade-related disciplines as diverse as intellectual property rights, environment laws, or labor market regulations. Moreover, because investment is complementary to trade, preferential trade agreements provide relevant institutional frameworks to partner countries that wish to regulate their foreign investments. This paper studies the impact of deep trade agreements on foreign direct investment and examines three sub-questions. First, is the impact of trade agreements on foreign direct investment heterogeneous across types of business activity Second, is this impact heterogeneous across disciplines covered in the agreements Third, does the level of development of home and host countries matter for this impact The analysis exploits the World Bank’s data set on the content of preferential trade agreement and data on announcements of bilateral greenfield investment at the activity level. The findings show that deep trade agreements matter for investment: every additional discipline in a preferential trade agreement increases foreign direct investment by 1.4 percent, on average. Deep agreements do not impact foreign direct investment in natural resources and extractive activities and have heterogeneous effects across manufacturing- and services-related activities. The results also reveal that disciplines that go beyond the mandate the World Trade Organization matter more for foreign direct investment. Disciplines related to investment liberalization and protection, intellectual property rights, or migration increase foreign direct investment, whereas disciplines on labor market regulations reduce investment. The results are mostly driven by investment between developed and developing countries.

The most remarkable evolution in the field of international investment law is undoubtedly the massive proliferation of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), either in the form of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) of Custom Unions (CUs). PTAs increasingly, as will be pointed out, contain provisions on the liberalization and/or protection of foreign investment, and may then be referred to as Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements (PTIAs). PTAs differ substantially in terms of the extent to which they cover investment. Agreements in the area of trade and investment either contain explicit provisions on the protection, and possibly the liberalization of foreign investment, or are aimed essentially at the regulation of trade in services and/or goods, in which case the provisions on investment are usually less extensive than in the former or even completely absent. BITs and modern PTAs which include investment protection (and liberalization) provisions, which may then be categorized as PTIAs, follow the first approach, and thus contain extensive provisions on both the liberalization and the protection of foreign investment (PTIAs), while the majority of the traditional PTAs follow the second approach, containing only a framework or framework provisions committing to further liberalization, protection and promotion of investment. This contribution aims to analyze the interrelationship between the network of bilateral investment treaties and PTIAs with respect to the protection of foreign investment. In doing so, this contribution will examine the differences in the content and rationale of PTIAs as compared to BITs, and in particular how substantive investment protection and investment dispute settlement are dealt with in PTIAs and BITs. Finally, this contribution will address whether conflicts between PTIAs and BITs are possible, and if so, how these conflicts may be addressed.

The extent to which intellectual property rights (IPRs) are regulated varies strongly across preferential trade agreements (PTAs). What explains this variation? We argue that deep IPRs are mainly found in PTAs characterized by large differences in power and innovative capacity across member states. Computational text analysis on the IPR sections included in 467 PTAs signed between 1994 and 2020 allows us to test our expectation. The results show that, indeed, power asymmetries combined with asymmetries in innovative capacity drive deep IPR provisions. Our account adjusts the conventional wisdom that sees the developed North forcing IPRs on the developing South in a subtle but important way. In fact, we find that the internationalization of IPR regulation is not just driven by countries that form part of the traditional Global North.

The Colour of Copyright

While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has made it increasingly difficult to protect and enforce intellectual property (IP) rights in a digital landscape where content can be easily accessed and utilized without clear authorization. First, we explain why LLMs make it uniquely difficult to protect and enforce IP, creating a ‘tragedy of the commons.’ Second, drawing on theories of polycentric governance, we argue that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) could be effective tools for addressing the complexities of digital IP rights. Third, we provide an illustrative case study that shows how NFTs can facilitate dispute resolution of IP on the blockchain.

Incomplete Harmonization Contracts in International Economic Law: Report of the Panel, China - Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Wt/Ds362/R, Adopted 20 March 2009

Intellectual property rights are legal rights that protect intellectual assets, which hold signifi cant value for individuals and even greater importance for the economy and society as a whole. Liability insurance against the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights is becoming increasingly relevant as a mechanism for managing unforeseen risks arising from third-party proprietary claims and from unauthorized use of intellectual property rights. This paper fi rst examines the nature and scope of various intellectual property rights, alongside the advantages of liability insurance in cases of infringement of such rights. It then explores what may constitute the subject-matter of insurance coverage, based on the nature of intellectual property rights, general insurance principles, and contractual frameworks. The aim is to distinguish this specifi c type of liability insurance within the broader context of IP protection. Finally, the paper examines the scope of insurance coverage in relation to specifi c costs incurred when the insured appears as a defendant in legal proceedings, as well as when the insured takes actions to protect and enforce their intellectual property rights.

From a legal perspective, analyze the connotation and logical relationship of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, point out the Legal dilemma in protecting Emei martial arts intellectual property rights, and then propose solu-tions to the problems. The study believes that the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts refer to the intellectual property rights based on the intellec-tual achievements and commercial logos of Emei martial arts. The legal dilemma in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts mainly manifests as follows: the identity of the rights subject of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts and the intangible cultural heritage of Emei martial arts is the root cause of the conflict between public and private interests; to some extent, the sports nature of the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts has influenced the legal recognition of this part of Emei martial arts intel-lectual property rights in the academic community; the inadequacy of the legal system is the fundamental reason why the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts are difficult to obtain comprehensive protection. Based on this, the study proposes that technological innovation is a logical prerequisite for the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. It can be achieved by extracting the classic techniques of Emei martial arts, constructing repre-sentative martial arts routines, and creating Emei martial arts competition pro-jects; The improvement of the legal system is the legal foundation for the pro-tection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. In this process, it is necessary to particularly strengthen the important position and role of the Sports Law in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, and improve the basic position and auxiliary function of relevant intellectual property laws in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts; The enrichment of theory is a powerful argument for the protection of in-tellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. Strengthening theory must be combined with the characteristics of sports, in order to build a solid legal foun-dation for the protection of the object of rights. In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts should focus on benefits, which requires balancing public and private interests and promoting the realization of public welfare through private rights protection

Dominance in the market gives businesses many advantages, enabling them to change business dynamics and influence customer choices. This dominance, while used improperly, can damage clients via way of means of stifling competition and innovation. The distinct rights that intellectual property rights deliver authors and inventors over their works, on the alternative hand, lead them to critical equipment for selling innovation. Abuse of dominance and Intellectual Property rights are associated while dominant corporations make the most of their intellectual property rights to stifle competition. This article attempts to examines the feasible reasons of the subject matter, which includes inflated licensing charges, unwarranted litigation, and patent hold-up tactics. The interplay among abuse of dominance with intellectual property rights (IPR) marks a pivotal factor withinside the improvement of competition law. This article captures the essence of this complicated connection and affords a window into its complicated dynamics. It further attempts to emphasise the critical factor of convergence among those fields: the sensitive stability among selling innovation and retaining marketplace opposition receives disenchanted while dominant groups use their intellectual property rights to impede competition. Such abuse of IPR might also additionally take many unique forms, from extortionate licensing charges to pointless court cases meant to save your competition from coming into the marketplace. Case studies that function an examples from across the globe provide important insights into the rational consequences of intellectual property rights violations. The difficulties in finding the appropriate stability are demonstrated by notable instances such as the legal actions related to Qualcomm's SEP and Microsoft's antitrust actions in the EU. Emerging technologies in the virtual age, like as biotechnology and artificial intelligence, raises new concerns about supremacy and intellectual property rights. One example of an increasing burden in 5G technology is Standard-essential patents (SEPs). Using well-known case studies and international regulatory reactions, this article also attempts to provide a brief discussion of the issues and headaches associated with the abuse of dominance within the framework of intellectual property rights. Strict regulatory scrutiny is necessary to prevent dominant marketplace contributors from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The conflict between preventing anti-competitive behaviour and promoting innovation through intellectual property rights safety is a fundamental dilemma. Finding a balance between the two needs is essential if one is to sell innovation and keep markets competitive. In this regard, the author attempts to highlight how crucial it is to handle the junction between rights to intellectual property and abuse of dominance in an appropriate manner. It draws attention to the necessity of prudent legislation that preserves innovative incentives while maintaining sincere competition. In order to fully utilize intellectual property rights for the goodness of society, it is imperative to achieve this delicate balance. In a global economic system that is rapidly changing, legislators, lawyers, corporations, and students must all comprehend and navigate the intricate relationship between abuse of power and intellectual property rights. This article lays the groundwork for additional investigation and debate in the article by offering a concise yet comprehensive synopsis of the key traits and problems in this intricate field.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning of the concepts "intellectual property" (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and "intellectual property right" is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determined on the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc.; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept "object of intellectual property rights" is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights. The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statuses and roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept "intellectual property" as identical with the concept “intellectual property right” is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.

This paper offers a novel explanation for the inclusion of labour and environmental provisions in the European Union’s (EU) preferential trade agreements, highlighting the impact of politicisation and place on this form of institutionalisation. It critiques existing theories for projecting ex officio preferences onto DG Trade and builds an alternative explanation based on the notion that preferences are produced endogenously through interactions. The inclusion of labour and environmental provisions in trade agreements, from this perspective, is an attempt by DG Trade to anticipate the reservations of potential veto players, notably within the Council and the European Parliament, by aligning with the demands of mobilised constituencies. Crucially, it suggests that place serves an important role in this signalling mechanism, serving as a heuristic identifying the problems that should be addressed with each trade partner. The argument is tested using a multiple regression analysis on all EU trade agreements from 2004 to 2022. The findings show that labour and environmental provisions are clustered regionally, defying existing explanations and corroborating the argument that DG Trade buys in potential veto players by addressing problems attributed to trade partners based on their geographic regions. This is especially true for developing economies, demonstrating the scalar aspect of this regional heuristic. The paper contributes to the existing literature on the design of trade agreements by demonstrating and explaining the variation which exists within EU PTAs. It also contributes to the literature on politicisation, emphasising how the strategic appropriation of salient issues leads to mitigation, but also institutionalisation.

When Policy Coherence Matters: Are EU Trade Agreements on Intellectual Property Rights Undermining Access to Affordable Medicines?

This study comprehensively analyses the legal and regulatory frameworks governing intellectual property rights (IPRs) in Sri Lanka, with a particular focus on the Sri Lankan Intellectual Property Act, No. 36 of 2003. This Act is the primary legislation governing the acquisition, management and enforcement of intellectual property. The analysis elucidates the foundational elements of this Act, including its alignment with international conventions such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Previous studies identify several critical deficiencies within the current legal landscape, especially when compared to the more dynamic intellectual property regimes of developed nations. These shortcomings encompass challenges in enforcement, ambiguities in patentability standards, and an urgent need for adaptation to address the complexities introduced by emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence-generated content. The discussion underscores that the Act, while robust for its time, faces increasing pressure to evolve to remain effective in a rapidly changing global technological environment. This study proposes necessary amendments and strategic adjustments to enhance the safeguarding of intellectual property rights against infringement and intellectual theft, ensuring Sri Lanka's framework remains relevant and equitable in the digital era.

The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanisms for regulating and protecting intellectual property rights in the context of the production of personal protective equipment in the context of a threat to national security. To this end, the study analysed Ukrainian legislation and international regulations governing intellectual property rights, particularly those of manufacturers of personal protective equipment. Thus, in the context of a threat to national security, the intellectual property rights of Ukrainian manufacturers of personal protective equipment were found to be crucial due to the military conflict and the need to protect both the population and the armed forces. The state must guarantee access to vital technologies while respecting the rights of producers, which makes the issue of intellectual property particularly relevant considering the growing demand for the latest developments in the personal protective equipment sector. Cooperation with international partners in the field of technology and intellectual property protection can help develop national production of personal protective equipment and reduce dependence on imported supplies. Government agencies should focus on developing policies that promote the protection of intellectual property rights and provide mechanisms to support manufacturers in critical situations. Raising awareness of producers about their rights and opportunities to protect intellectual property is a crucial step in strengthening their market position. It is essential to strike a balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the needs of society in the context of a threat to national security. Governments should consider temporary relaxation of rights in times of crisis to ensure overall security