• Report a rights violation:
  • 0800 300 044
  • info@cehurd.org
Search
Close this search box.
UCHD2023
Posted on Categories News

TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Feb12/03) 10 February 2012 Third World Network

Dear All,

In an earlier TWN IP Info., a NGO protest letter addressed to Mr. Francis Gurry was sent around. This protest letter is available at http://www.ghwatch.org/sites/www.ghwatch.org/files/AfricaIPSummit2012_0207.pdf

Below are some NGO views on the Africa IP Summit that will take place in April 2012.

Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network

NGO views on Africa IP Summit:

Catherine Tomlinson, Treatment Action Campaign, South Africa:
“The proposed agenda for the Africa WIPO Summit clearly shows that the summit is being used as a vehicle to drive the agenda of the US, the EU and the pharmaceutical industry to ramp up protection and enforcement of intellectual property. We urge ours and other African governments to reject the proposed agenda, which puts the profits of pharmaceutical companies ahead of the lives and health of people living in Africa. We call on ours and other African governments to take leadership in developing a balanced agenda which seeks to promote and protect development and affordable access to medicine in our countries.”

Mulumba, Moses, Center for Health, Human Rights and Development, Uganda:
“Its a shame that the Africa IP Forum is putting emphasis on IP enforcement agenda. One would expect the continent to be discussing the Development Agenda in light of its social economic challenges in the areas of health, education and agriculture. Over emphasis on IP enforcement is iniquitous of the continent’s population that still badly needs to utilise the policy space provided for by the TRIPS Agreement”

Andrew Rens, South African intellectual property expert and an academic currently carrying on research at Duke University:
“The event is being marketed as the first ever contintent wide Africa Intellectual Property forum so one would expect the topics discussed to be those issues in Intellectual Property which have been of most concern to Africans. In the years since TRIPS the single most important issue involving Intellectual Property for Africans has been gaining access to medicines. There is no track nor even an single session on access to medicines, but there is an entire track on the management and administration of intellectual property.

The South African government which is co-hosting the event has been a strong proponent of a treaty on exceptions to copyright for education. There is no session on educational exceptions but there is an entire track on enforcement.

Although proponents of ever more ambitious enforcement measures may have been temporarily halted in the United States with the rejection by Congress of SOPA and PIPA they continue to push for these measures in other countries including Africa. South Africa and other African countries have urgent problems that involve access to medicines and access to education. Why are these urgent problems that directly concern intellectual property rights not on the agenda?”

Teresa Hackett, Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL):
“It’s as if the last five years didn’t happen – no WIPO Development Agenda, no discussion on copyright limitations and exceptions, no proposals in favour of libraries and archives, education, blind and visually impaired people. But they did happen, and we will work to ensure that delegates attending the African IP Forum hear a diversity of opinion and perspective, and have the opportunity to debate these issues that are critically important to libraries in Africa and around the world”.

Dr. Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International:
“Intellectual property is a highly contested topic in the West, where many feel that governments have been excessively deferential to powerful rights-holder lobby groups, to the detriment of ordinary consumers. But in Africa, there are even bigger questions around the appropriateness the intellectual property paradigm to meet the continent’s health, education, and social and economic development needs. Therefore Consumers International was alarmed that the draft programme for the African Intellectual Property Forum entirely ignores these important questions. Such a forum will be seen by all not as a bona fide attempt at open discussion on the pros and cons of robust intellectual property protection in the African context, but rather as a cynical effort by foreign governments and multinational corporations to control the framing of these issues for African policy-makers.”

James Love, Knowledge Ecology International:
“The world community should be supportive to the development concerns of persons living in Africa whose population is largely comprised of poor persons and avoid unfair exploitation.

By organizing a high level meeting on intellectual property that is dominated by big corporate right holder interests, the US government is taking a step backwards, to exploit consumers rather than to promote development.

On May 10, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13155, on Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals and Medical Technologies, which was designed to protect African consumers from trade pressures on intellectual property and medicine. The 2012 high level meeting shows no recognition of the policy set out in EO 13155, and would extend anti-consumer trade pressures to other sensitive areas for development, such as agriculture, climate change and access to knowledge and culture. Secretary John Bryson and other Obama Administration officials need to take a step back and change the format of the meeting, or cancel the event.”

Sangeeta Shashikant, Legal Advisor Third World Network:
“The US is well known for pressuring developing countries to adopt TRIPS plus standards. The Africa IP Summit is another attempt by the US to advance its aggressive agenda on IP protection and enforcement such as Anti-Counterfeit Agreement (ACTA), that favours the interests of certain powerful multinational companies. The US concept paper and programme totally disregards the numerous developmental and socio-economic challenges facing Africa. Issues of access to affordable medicines, access to knowledge, misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, farmers’ rights are totally disregarded. Equally absent is a discussion on the value of public interest flexibilities in the IP system to achieve developmental objectives and address social needs. The US agenda is clear. It is about not about development. It is about protecting the interests of its companies, many of which are sponsoring the meeting, proliferating IP propaganda and misinformation. Unless steps are taken to fully reflect development and public interest considerations, and to eliminate actors only interested in an anti-development agenda, the event should not go ahead.”

Professor Brook K. Baker, Health GAP (Global Access Project) Northeastern U. School of Law
“It is deeply problematic that the Obama administration continues to pursue efforts to strengthen, widen, and lengthen patent, data, and copyright monopolies in African countries that desperately need expanded access to medicines, educational materials, and climate control technologies and that it simultaneously seeks even stronger enforcement of IP protections than what is currently required under international law. Carrying the policy portfolio of Big Pharma and other IP-based multinationals under the guise of addressing Africa’s needs, the proposed African IP Summit is a chilling example of US duplicity and conflict of interest at its worst. However, it is equally problematic if Africa leaders and policy makers, some of whom are already complicit with the US agenda, continue to drink the IP coolaid as they’ve done with proposed anti-counterfeiting legislation and with their long-lasting lethargy in amending their IP laws to take full advantage of TRIPS flexibilities and thereafter to use those flexibilities to access medicines and other essential technologies. Africa needs to develop innovative capacity focused on its unique needs, but it also needs to remain vigilant to guard against uncritical acceptance of IP fundamentalism that will ultimately increase foreign monopoly power and decrease Africa’s ability to compete in the global economy and secure the interests of its students, patients, and consumers.”

Posted on Categories News

No Trade-Offs on Access to Medicines

February 7, 2012 | by Els Torreele

This week, in a global week of action, health activists worldwide are out on the streets in an eleventh-hour effort to push back on EU pressure to lure India into trading away access to medicines. On February 10, a new and possible final round in the four-year negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the EU is starting in Delhi. And the stakes are high. Last September, the EU threatened to break off the negotiations for lack of flexibility—read concessions—on the Indian side. And India wants the trade agreement as badly as the EU.

The EU-India FTA is expected to help India’s rapidly growing companies, in particular in the service industries, expand into the wealthy EU market, while Europe wants access to a vast, young, vibrant market of 1.3 billion potential customers. Looking at who’s going to be at the table next week, there’s no doubt the pressure to deliver is high: Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, and India’s Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

While negotiators have allegedly reached a broad agreement on most issues, “last-mile” give and take still remains. And that is where the danger for unhealthy trade-offs lies, especially as the negotiations are largely shrouded in secrecy, a conduct for which the EU has been taken to court by transparency activists.

So what do we need to be afraid of?

The key issue is this: Europe is keen to include a variety of measures favoring the business interests of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of millions of people in developing countries whose lives depend on India’s supply of cheap generic medicines. And while the EU representatives keep repeating that this agreement will not hamper people’s access to medicines, the fragments of the negotiating text that have been leaked clearly indicate otherwise. I have previously described some of the potential threats of this FTA to access to medicines—in particular patent extensions and data exclusivity. As explained further in this video, the ultimate effect of these measures would be a delay in the availability of cheaper generics. In the case of lifesaving drugs, this means that many more people will die while waiting for affordable medicines.

In the past decade, India—often referred to as “the pharmacy of the developing world”—has played a pivotal role as the main producer and supplier of cheap generic drugs for HIV/AIDS and many other diseases, including cancer, diabetes, and asthma. In 2005, India was required to adapt its patent legislation to comply with the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement that set minimal standards for intellectual property rights, including 20-year pharmaceutical patents. As a consequence, India’s capacity to continue producing low-cost generics, particularly for new and better treatments that are under patent, has been seriously curtailed. However, the Indian legislation still contains a number of public health safeguards, which health activists helped to secure, including a strict definition of the patentability criteria to forbid evergreening of patents (watch this fun video) and other provisions to facilitate the timely and widespread availability of generic medicines. And these are now under threat.

While India has so far resisted the EU’s request for more intellectual property protection and enforcement, it remains to be seen whether the world’s health interests will prevail over business interests once the secret horse-trading begins. Because this much is clear: recent statements from the European Commission reveal a vision on development policy that continues to emphasize serving European corporate interests ahead of combating poverty.

The EU is also proposing investment rules that would allow foreign companies to take the Indian government to court over domestic health policies, such as price regulation of medicines or other pro-health policies. We have already seen how such rules can lead to absurd situations, for instance when Philip Morris threatened to sue the Australian government over its plans to ban branded cigarette packaging to reduce the attractiveness of smoking.

And the EU is not the only governmental body negotiating trade agreements that could seriously hamper access to medicines for people in developing countries. The U.S. is currently pushing for similar intellectual property and investment rules in its negotiations for a Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement with eight Pacific countries including Malaysia, Vietnam, Chile, and Peru.

Meanwhile, as if in a concerted effort to weaken India’s pro-public health approach to pharmaceutical patents—even if it remains well within the boundaries set by the WTO— the pharmaceutical giant Novartis has taken the Indian government to court over its refusal to grant evergreening patents. The case has reached the Supreme Court, in which hearings are expected to start late February.

In the coming negotiations, it will be critical for India to stand strong against relentless pressures from the EU and U.S.—and the pharmaceutical giants—and remain committed to its laws protecting public health. We need to raise more voices of support to ensure the Indian government retains its prime role as generics supplier for the developing world. Sign on to this petition, join the campaign Facebook page, and get involved in protest actions all over the world.

source: http://blog.soros.org/2012/02/no-trade-offs-on-access-to-medicines/

Posted on Categories General News

New woes for developing nations

Global Trends
By MARTIN KHOR
A South Centre conference last week warned that developing countries could be badly hit by the new global downturn, and also discussed the state of WTO negotiations.
THE global economic downturn and the international negotiations on trade and climate change were the topics of a South Centre conference last week.

It provided an interesting discussion on the state of the world from the perspective of developing countries at the start of this year.

The conference, attended by over a hundred policy makers, diplomats and experts, was held on Feb 2-3 at the United Nations building in Geneva.

In a session on instability and downturn in the world economy, the South Centre’s chief economist Dr Yilmaz Akyuz warned that the South’s concept of decoupling its growth from the developed economies could lead to complacency.

While in the past decade the growth rates of developing countries stood at about 5 percentage points higher than those of developed countries, this was largely due to favourable external conditions that are no longer sustainable.

Among the conditions were the US acting as locomotive to export-dependent developing countries, a surge in private capital flows to developing countries and massive rises in commodity prices as well remittances to developing countries.

As these factors fade, or even reverse in the current global downturn, developing countries have to deal with emerging problems while devising longer term development strategies such as reducing dependence on Western markets and finance and upgrading investment (for those which are under-investing) or consumption (for those which are under-consuming) and boosting industry.

International Labour Organisation director-general Juan Somavia urged developing countries to safeguard their space to implement their own policies and to use this space well in this period of crisis.

He advocated switching to a growth pattern that is job-intensive and income-led.

Growth should be designed to generate jobs and raise wages, increase social protection and put a higher value to work.

Charles Soludo, former Central Bank governor of Nigeria, warned that the downturn would force many developing countries into a new debt crisis.

This time, there was little hope of external help. And in Africa, the situation may be worsened by the economic partnership agreements being foisted by the European Union that would further constrain Africa’s policy space.

Nagesh Kumar, chief economist of Escap (the UN commission for Asia), said the downturn would affect Asia through the trade and finance channels, warning that many of the remedies used in the 2009 crisis were no longer available.

Malaysian economist Lim Mah Hui analysed three major imbalances (including income inequality) and stressed the role of the state in industrial policy and to regulate finance to serve the real economy instead of speculation.

The conference discussed the impasse in the Doha Round and the future of the World Trade Organisation.

A panel of ambassadors from China, India, Nigeria, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Bolivia, and South Africa seemed to have similar opinions.

They agreed that the Doha Round impasse would continue for some time.

While attempts are made to revive the Round, developing countries should resist attempts by developed countries to introduce new issues such as investment, new plurilateral agreements inside WTO, or to re-examine the status of developing countries.

Meanwhile, the members should make WTO more development-centred by resolving issues of interest to least developed countries by improving special and differential treatment for developing countries and tackling agricultural protection in developed countries.

Rubens Ricupero, former Unctad secretary general, recalled his warning a decade ago that the Doha Round was one Round too many and too early, as WTO members should have focused instead on digesting the Uruguay Round and its unfinished business.

WTO would survive as it had a useful role. It should focus on the unfinished business of agriculture, tariff peaks, anti-dumping and issues that would link trade and development.

Trade expert Chakravarthi Raghavan said the Doha Round was introduced by developed countries to evade their commitment made during the Uruguay Round to cut their agriculture subsidies and tariffs.

The Doha negotiating agenda had been loaded with so many other issues and now could not be completed, thus allowing developed countries not to undertake their agriculture commitments.

This was bad faith on their part and developing countries should respond, for example, by not implementing the intellectual property agreement.

The conference ended with a session discussing the current climate change negotiations.

A panel of experts and negotiators analysed the process and outcome of the Durban climate conference and made suggestions on how developing countries should interpret the mandate for new negotiations so that the equity principle and concerns of developing countries could be successfully addressed.

source:http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=globaltrends&file=/2012/2/6/columnists/globaltrends/10684367&sec=Global%20Trends

Posted on Categories Featured

Is ACTA treaty worse than SOPA and PIPA ?

As ACTA treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, gains more and more government support, the internet world is revolting against it. This agreement is set to establish a new ruling body that would be responsible for targeting online piracy and was drafted/signed by a variety of countries.

As of October 1, 2011 there have been 31 various countries that have signed the agreement including the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and many others. Those supporting the agreement state that it is necessitated due to the massive increase in the trade and production of counterfeit goods and copyrighted content.

With SOPA and PIPA now out of the way (hopefully) the attention of the Internet protesting masses have turned towards this Act but why? Here we will examine the reasons behind the negativity against ACTA and also see if the protesting is justified or if it is merely due to thousands of uninformed individuals “jumping the protest band wagon”.

Why are people protesting the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?

1) Secrecy
A big issue with ACTA treaty is the fact that those involved in its negotiations are being incredibly secretive about it. Many people rightfully believe that if an agreement is being worked on that will affect EVERYONE then they have a right to know what is being proposed and discussed. The shroud of secrecy cloaking ACTA treaty was almost impenetrable until secret documents were leaked on WikiLeaks.

Michael Geist, who writes for Copyright News, stated that: “reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty’s provisions leaking to the public.”

2) Infringing on human rights
The freedom of expression is one that everyone holds dear. It is something that defines freedom and when that right is infringed upon, people rightfully get angry. Unfortunately it is incredibly profitable for both governments and businesses to make it so that this right is restricted which is what they are doing in the ACTA agreement.

There was a letter signed by a variety of prominent European organizations (27+ actually) that stated how ACTA infringed on the fundamental rights of European citizens because of its restrictions on freedom of expression and communication. Additionally the Act, as the letter stated, would allow undue and harsh legal standards to be placed and these standards don’t “reflect contemporary principles”

3) Generic medicine
One of the big issues that ACTA is covering is the issue of intellectual property. They are fighting against all violations of intellectual property which acutally poses a huge threat to a number of common household items mainly generic medicine. Since ACTA would give god-like powers to the ruling members it would allow them to stop generic drugs since they are “counterfeit”. This would make it so that drugs would not be shipped to developing countries and that the medications can even be destroyed. Unfortunately developing companies simply do not have the funds to pay for such expensive medication which is why they turned to cheaper versions of the drugs to help the sick and needy.

4) Similarities to SOPA/PIPA
Lastly, the similarity of this act to both SOPA and PIPA is surprisingly close when you take a deeper look at it. The fact that the piracy and sale of counterfeit materials is at the heart of the matter is obvious. Unfortunately the big issues are that the punishments for violations of these laws are severe and unjust in almost every sense.

Are The Protests Justified?

When you closely look at all of the possibilities that ruling body created by ACTA treaty can do then you can see that they are given too much freedoms, too many exceptions, and are able to operate in secrecy. The right to expression and freedom of speech should never be undermined and when a ruling body is enacted to do just that then it should be fought.

The fact that ACTA would ban generic drugs -drugs made cheaper so that everyone could afford them and drugs responsible for saving lives – is outrageous to say the least. Additionally “there is a provision on ACTA specifically exempting travellers from checks if the infringing goods are of a non-commercial nature and not part of large-scale trafficking”.

If the government officials constructing this treaty had nothing to fear and nothing to hide then there would be no reason for such secrecy as to have others sign a nondisclosure agreement. Hopefully the overwhelming amount of pressure both offline and online will overturn the decision for this act before it’s too late!

Source: http://www.itsagadget.com/2012/02/acta-treaty-sopa-and-pipa.html

Posted on Categories General News

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multi-nation trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property laws across the globe.

The nine nations currently negotiating the TPP are the U.S., Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, and Brunei Darussalam. Expected to be finalized in November 2011, the TPP will contain a chapter on Intellectual Property (copyright, trademarks, patents and perhaps geographical indications) that will have a broad impact on citizens’ rights, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and innovation across the world. A leaked version of the February 2011 draft U.S. TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter indicates that U.S. negotiators are pushing for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The TPP will rewrite the global rules on IP enforcement. All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the U.S. this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s broad ban on circumventing digital locks and frequently disproprotionate statutory damages for copyright infringement) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked U.S. IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current U.S. law. This raises significant concerns for citizens’ due process, privacy and freedom of expression rights.

The leaked U.S. IP chapter includes many detailed requirements that are more restrictive than current international standards, and would require significant changes to other countries’ copyright laws. These include obligations for countries to:

Treat temporary reproductions of copyrighted works without copyright holders’ authorization as copyright infringement. This was discussed but rejected at the intergovernmental diplomatic conference that created two key 1996 international copyright treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
Ban parallel importation of genuine goods acquired from other countries without the authorization of copyright owners.

Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of IP. Life + 70 years for works created by individuals, and following the U.S.- Oman Free Trade Agreement, either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation for corporate owned works (such as Mickey Mouse).

Adopt laws banning circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs) that mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offence, even when no copyright infringement is involved. This would require countries like New Zealand to completely rewrite its innovative 2008 copyright law. It would also override Australia’s carefully-crafted 2007 technological protection measure regime exclusions for region-coding on movies on DVDs, videogames, and players, and for embedded software in devices that restrict access to goods and services for the device — a thoughtful effort by Australian policy makers to avoid the pitfalls experienced with the U.S. digital locks provisions. In the U.S., business competitors have used the DMCA to try to block printer cartridge refill services, competing garage door openers, and to lock mobile phones to particular network providers.
Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation, based on the provisions of the 1997 U.S. No Electronic Theft Act.

Adopt the U.S. DMCA Internet Intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. This would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently provides for a judicial notice and takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the DMCA’s copyright safe harbor regime.

In short, countries would have to abandon any efforts to learn from the mistakes of the U.S. experience over the last 12 years, and adopt many of the most controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law in their entirety. At the same time, the U.S. IP chapter does not export the limitations and exceptions in the U.S. copyright regime like fair use, which have enabled freedom of expression and technological innovation to flourish in the U.S. It includes only a placeholder for exceptions and limitations. This raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities.

Non-Transparent and On The Fast Track

Despite the broad scope and far-reaching implications of the TPP, negotiations for the agreement have taken place behind closed doors and outside of the checks and balances that operate at traditional multilateral treaty-making organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization.

Like ACTA, the TPP is being negotiated rapidly with little transparency. Since 2009 when United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified the U.S. Congress that President Obama intended to begin talks on TPP, there have been five formal rounds of TPP negotiations in Melbourne, Australia (March 2010), San Francisco, USA (June, 2010), Brunei (October 2010), Auckland, New Zealand (December 2010), and Santiago, Chile (February 2011). The negotiating countries hope to complete the TPP agreement by the 19th meeting of the Economic Leaders of APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to be held in Hawaii in November, 2011.

In the meantime, further negotiations are planned for March 24 – April 1 (round 6, Singapore), 20 – 24 June (round 7, Vietnam), 6 – 11 September (round 8, San Francisco, USA), and 24 – 28 October (round 9, Lima, Peru).

During the TPP negotiation round in Chile in February 2011, negotiators received strong messages from prominent civil society groups demanding an end to the secrecy that has shielded TPP negotiations from the scrutiny of national lawmakers and the public. Letters addressed to government representatives in Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand and the U.S. emphasized that both the process and effect of the proposed TPP agreement is deeply undemocratic. TPP negotiators apparently discussed the requests for greater public disclosure during the February 2011 negotiations, but took no action.

Why You Should Care

TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ privacy, freedom of expression and due process rights, innovation and the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities and enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the U.S. entertainment and pharmaceutical industries, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.

The TPP will affect countries beyond the nine that are currently involved in negotiations. The new TPP agreement will build upon a 2005 agreement between New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam (the P4 agreement) but will include more extensive provisions on intellectual property and other issues. The TPP will set rules that will likely be adopted initially by the 21 member economies in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. The TPP is being negotiated by 9 members of APEC, and negotiators plan to finalize the “TPP concept” at the APEC Economic Leaders meeting in November 2011.

Like ACTA, the TPP Agreement is a plurilateral agreement that will be used to create new heightened global IP enforcement norms. Countries that are not parties to the negotiation will likely be asked to accede to the TPP as a condition of bilateral trade agreements with the U.S. and other TPP members, or evaluated against the TPP’s standards in the annual Special 301 process administered by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Source:https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

1 … 112 113 114 115 116 … 125
Close