1932

Abstract

International agreements on Intellectual Property (IP) have proven to be a good example to study global lawmaking. Beginning by looking at the 1990s Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and into the negotiation and implementation of regional and national trade agreements, this article reflects on the intricate relationship between international IP agreements and public health. The comprehensive analysis of these international rules and their effect provides valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between domestic and international factors in shaping health policies. Building upon the IP case, we categorize existing scholarship on global lawmaking into three methodological approaches: () methodological internationalism, () methodological nationalism, and () the interplay between domestic and international factors. We close with a call for researchers to advocate and integrate into their methods a co-constitutive approach that considers the simultaneous shaping of domestic and international elements.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-091304
2023-10-05
2024-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-091304.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-091304&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott FM. 2002. The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health: lighting a dark corner at the WTO. J. Int. Econ. Law 5:469–505
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbott FM, Reichman JH. 2007. The Doha Round's public health legacy: strategies for the production and diffusion of patented medicines under the amended TRIPS provisions. J. Int. Econ. Law 10:921–87
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aginam O, Harrington J, Yu PK, eds. 2013. The Global Governance of HIV/AIDS: Intellectual Property and Access to Essential Medicines Elgar Intell. Prop. Glob. Dev. Ser Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
  4. Andia T 2011. The invisible threat: trade, intellectual property, and pharmaceutical regulations in Colombia. Intellectual Property, Pharmaceuticals, and Public Health: Access to Drugs in Developing KC Shadlen, S Guennif, A Guzmán, N Lalitha 77–109. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Andia T. 2015. The inverse boomerang pattern: the global Kaletra campaign and access to antiretroviral drugs in Colombia and Ecuador. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 50:203–27
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Andia T. 2016. Bureaucrats against the state: the making of pharmaceutical policy in Latin America PhD Diss. Brown Univ. Providence, RI:
  7. Araujo BA. 2013. Intellectual property and the EU's deep trade agenda. J. Int. Econ. Law 16:439–74
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arora A, Branstetter L, Chatterjee C. 2008. Strong medicine: patent reform and the emergence of a research-driven pharmaceutical industry in India. Presented at Location of Biopharmaceutical Activity, H John Heinz III School of Public Policy Management, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA: http://conference.nber.org/confer/2008/si2008/IPPI/branstetter.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Athreye S, Piscitello L, Shadlen KC. 2020. Twenty-five years since TRIPS: patent policy and international business. J. Int. Bus. Policy 3:315–28
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Attaran A, Gillespie-White L. 2001. Do patents for antiretroviral drugs constrain access to AIDS treatment in Africa?. JAMA 286:1886–92
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Banik N, Chakraborty D, Dash S. 2021. IPR waiver in vaccines and opportunities for India: What does the data show? Work. Pap. Asia-Pac. Res. Train. Netw. Trade Bangkok:
  12. Barnard D. 2002. In the High Court of South Africa, Case No. 4138/98: the global politics of access to low-cost AIDS drugs in poor countries. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 12:159–74
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bartley T. 2007. Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: the rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. Am. J. Sociol. 113:297–351
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Barton JH. 2004. TRIPS and the global pharmaceutical market. Health Aff. 23:146–54
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Biehl JG. 2004. The activist state: global pharmaceuticals, AIDS, and citizenship in Brazil. Soc. Text 22:105–32
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Biehl J. 2007. Will to Live: AIDS Therapies and the Politics of Survival Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  17. Biehl J. 2008. Drugs for all: the future of global AIDS treatment. Med. Anthropol. 27:99–105
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Blakeney M. 2013. Covert international intellectual property legislation: the ignoble origins of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Mich. State Int. Law Rev. 21:87–114
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bond P. 1999. Globalization, pharmaceutical pricing, and South African health policy: managing confrontation with U.S. firms and politicians. Int. J. Health Serv. 29:765–92
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bond P. 2003. Against Global Apartheid: South Africa Meets the World Bank, IMF, and International Finance London: Zed Books. , 2nd ed..
  21. Brennan H, Kapczynski A, Monahan CH, Rizvi Z. 2016. A prescription for excessive drug pricing: leveraging government patent use for health. Yale J. Law Technol. 15:275–354
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Buse K, Walt G 2000. Global public-private partnerships: part I—a new development in health?. Bull. World Health Organ. 78:549–61
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cassier M 2013. Pharmaceutical patent law in-the-making: opposition and legal action by states, citizens, and generics laboratories in Brazil and India. Ways of Regulating Drugs in the 19th and 20th Centuries J-P Gaudillière, V Hess 287–317 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cassier M, Marilena C 2003. Patents, innovation and public health: Brazilian public-sector laboratories’ experience in copying AIDS drugs. Economics of AIDS and Access to HIV/AIDS Care in Developing Countries: Issues and Challenges JP Moatti, B Coriat, Y Souteyrand, T Barnett, J Dumoulin, J Flori 89–108. Paris: ANRS
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Castro A, Westerhaus M. 2007. Access to generic antiretrovirals: inequality, intellectual property law, and international trade agreements. Cad Saúde Pública 23:S85–S96
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chander A, Sunder M. 2018. The battle to define Asia's intellectual property law: TPP to RCEP. UC Irvine Law Rev. 8:331–62
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chaudhuri S. 2005. TRIPS and changes in pharmaceutical patent regime in India Work. Pap. 535 Indian Inst. Manag. Calcutta Joka, India:
  28. Chaudhuri S, Mackintosh M, Mujinja PGM. 2010. Indian generics producers, access to essential medicines and local production in Africa: an argument with reference to Tanzania. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 22:451–68
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Chaves GC, Vieira MF, Reis R. 2008. Access to medicines and intellectual property in Brazil: reflections and strategies of civil society. Sur Int. J. Hum. Rights 5:170–98
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Chorev N. 2005. The institutional project of neo-liberal globalism: the case of the WTO. Theory Soc. 34:317–55
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chorev N. 2007a. Remaking US Trade Policy: From Protectionism to Globalization Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  32. Chorev N. 2007b. A fluid divide: domestic and international factors in US trade policy formation. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 14:653–89
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Chorev N. 2012a. The World Health Organization between North and South Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  34. Chorev N. 2012b. Changing global norms through reactive diffusion: the case of intellectual property protection of AIDS drugs. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:831–53
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Chorev N. 2013. Restructuring neoliberalism at the World Health Organization. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 20:627–66
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Chorev N. 2015. Narrowing the gaps in global disputes: the case of counterfeits in Kenya. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 50:157–86
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Chorev N. 2020. Give and Take: Developmental Foreign Aid and the Pharmaceutical Industry in East Africa. Princeton Stud. Glob. Comp. Sociol Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  38. Chorev N, Andia T, Ciplet D. 2011. The state of states in international organizations: from the WHO to the Global Fund. Review 34:285–310
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Chorev N, Shadlen KC. 2015. Intellectual property, access to medicines, and health: new research horizons. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 50:143–56
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Cohen JC, Lybecker KM. 2005. AIDS policy and pharmaceutical patents: Brazil's strategy to safeguard public health. World Econ. 28:211–30
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Conti JA. 2021. Relational sociology and comparative law. Am. J. Comp. Law 69:4636–63
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Coriat B 2008. The Political Economy of HIV/AIDS in Developing Countries: TRIPS, Public Health Systems, and Free Access Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
  43. Coriat B, Orsi F, d'Almeida C. 2006. TRIPS and the international public health controversies: issues and challenges. Ind. Corp. Change 15:1033–62
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Correa CM. 2006. Implications of bilateral free trade agreements on access to medicines. Bull. World Health Organ. 84:399–404
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Demortain D. 2015. The tools of globalization: ways of regulating and the structure of the international regime for pharmaceuticals. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 22:1249–75
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Dontje A. 2015. Rethinking trips: the future of pharmaceutical patents. Wis. Int. Law J. 33:380–409
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Drahos P. 1995. Global property rights in information: the story of TRIPS at the GATT. Prometheus 13:6–19
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Drahos P. 2001. BITs and BIPs: bilateralism in intellectual property. J. World Intellect. Prop. 4:791–808
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Drahos P. 2007. Four lessons for developing countries from the trade negotiations over access to medicines. Liverp. Law Rev. 28:11–39
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Drahos P. 2008.. “ Trust me”: patent offices in developing countries. Am. J. Law Med. 34:151–74
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Drahos P. 2010. The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and Their Clients Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  52. Dreyfuss RC, Rodríguez-Garavito C, eds. 2014. Balancing Wealth and Health: Global Administrative Law and the Battle over Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines in Latin America Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  53. Eren-Vural I. 2006. Domestic contours of global regulation: understanding the policy changes on pharmaceutical patents in India and Turkey. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 14:105–42
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Flynn M. 2013. Origins and limitations of state-based advocacy: Brazil's AIDS treatment program and global power dynamics. Politics Soc. 41:3–28
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Flynn S, Nkrumah E, Schirru L. 2021. Non-patent intellectual property barriers to COVID-19 vaccines, treatment and containment Res. Pap. 71 PIJIP/TLS Res. Pap. Ser.
  56. Ford N. 2004. Patents, access to medicines and the role of non-governmental organisations. J. Generic Med. 1:137–45
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ford N, Wilson D, Chaves GC, Lotrowska M, Kijtiwatchakul K. 2007. Sustaining access to antiretroviral therapy in the less-developed world: lessons from Brazil and Thailand. AIDS 21:S21–S29
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Friedman S, Mottiar S. 2005. A rewarding engagement? The Treatment Action Campaign and the politics of HIV/AIDS. Politics Soc. 33:511–65
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gathii JT. 2011. The neoliberal turn in regional trade agreements. Wash. Law Rev. 86:421–74
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gaudillière J-P. 2014. Herbalised Ayurveda?. Asian Med. 9:171–205
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Go J. 2016. Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  62. Go J. 2020. Race, empire, and epistemic exclusion: or the structures of sociological thought. Sociol. Theory 38:79–100
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Godoy AS. 2015. Market myths and assumptions: examining the transnational politics of access to medicines campaigning in Central America. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 50:187–202
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Guan W. 2016. IPRs, public health, and international trade: an international law perspective on the TRIPS amendment. Leiden J. Int. Law 29:411–40
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Halliday TC, Carruthers BG. 2009. Bankrupt: Global Lawmaking and Systemic Financial Crisis Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  66. Hammer R, White AIR. 2018. Toward a sociology of colonial subjectivity: political agency in Haiti and Liberia. Sociol. Race Ethn. 5:215–28
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Harris D. 2011. TRIPs after fifteen years: success or failure, as measured by compulsory licensing. J. Intellect. Prop. Law 18:367–400
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Helfer LR. 2004. Regime shifting: the TRIPs Agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale J. Int. Law 29:1–83
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Helfer LR, Alter KJ. 2014. The influence of the Andean intellectual property regime on access to medicines in Latin America. See Dreyfuss & Rodríguez-Garavito 2014 247–62
  70. Hodges S, Garnett E. 2020. The ghost in the data: evidence gaps and the problem of fake drugs in global health research. Glob. Public Health 15:1103–18
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Hopewell K. 2015a. Different paths to power: the rise of Brazil, India and China at the World Trade Organization. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 22:311–38
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Hopewell K. 2015b. Multilateral trade governance as social field: global civil society and the WTO. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 22:1128–58
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Horner R. 2014. The impact of patents on innovation, technology transfer and health: a pre- and post-TRIPs analysis of India's pharmaceutical industry. New Political Econ. 19:384–406
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Itzigsohn J, Brown K. 2015. Sociology and the theory of double consciousness: W.E.B. Du Bois's phenomenology of racialized subjectivity. Du Bois Rev. 12:231–48
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Itzigsohn J, Brown K. 2020. The Sociology of W.E.B. Du Bois: Racialized Modernity and the Global Color Line New York: NYU Press
  76. Kaminski M. 2014. The capture of international intellectual property law through the U.S. trade regime. South. Calif. Law Rev. 87:977–1052
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kapczynski A. 2009. Harmonization and its discontents: a case study of TRIPS implementation in India's pharmaceutical sector. Calif. Law Rev. 97:1571–649
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Kapczynski A. 2023. The political economy of market power in pharmaceuticals. J. Health Politics Policy Law 48:215–39
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Kapczynski A, Krikorian G, eds. 2010. Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property New York: Zone Books
  80. Kapstein EB, Busby JW. 2016. Social movements and market transformations: lessons from HIV/AIDS and climate change. Int. Stud. Q. 60:317–29
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Keck ME, Sikkink K. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  82. Klug H. 2005. Campaigning for life: building a new transnational solidarity in the face of HIV/AIDS and TRIPS. Law and Globalization from Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality B de Sousa Santos, CA Rodríguez-Garavito 118–39. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Klug H. 2008. Law, politics, and access to essential medicines in developing countries. Politics Soc. 36:207–45
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Klug H. 2012. Access to medicines and the transformation of the South African state: exploring the interactions of legal and policy changes in health, intellectual property, trade, and competition law in the context of South Africa's HIV/AIDS pandemic. Law Soc. Inq. 37:297–329
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kyle MK, McGahan AM. 2012. Investments in pharmaceuticals before and after TRIPS. Rev. Econ. Stat. 94:1157–72
    [Google Scholar]
  86. La Croix S, Ming L. 2008. The effect of GDP growth on pharmaceutical patent protection, 1945–2005. Bruss. Econ. Rev. 52:355–75
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Lanjouw J. 1998. The introduction of pharmaceutical product patents in India: “Heartless exploitation of the poor and suffering”? NBER Work. Pap. 6366
  88. Lanjouw J. 2002. A new global patent regime for diseases: U.S. and international legal issues. Harvard J. Law Technol. 16:85–124
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Lanoszka A. 2003. The global politics of intellectual property rights and pharmaceutical drug policies in developing countries. Int. Political Sci. Rev. 24:181–97
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Le VA, Samson L. 2021. Are IPRs and patents the real barriers to COVID-19 vaccine supplies?. Manch. J. Int. Econ. Law 18:192–204
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Löfgren H, Williams OD. 2013. New Political Economy of Pharmaceuticals: Production, Innovation and Trips in the Global South London: Palgrave Macmillan
  92. Mackintosh M, Banda G, Tibandebage P, Wamae W, eds. 2016. Introduction: African industrial development, values and health care. Making Medicines in Africa: The Political Economy of Industrializing for Local Health1–4. Int. Political Econ. Ser. London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Malbon J, Lawson C, eds. 2008.. Interpreting and Implementing the TRIPS Agreement: Is It Fair? Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
  94. Matthews D, Munoz-Tellez V. 2006. Bilateral technical assistance and TRIPS: the United States, Japan and the European communities in comparative perspective. J. World Intellect. Prop. 9:629–53
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Matthews DN. 2002. Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights: Will the Uruguay round consensus hold? Work. Pap. 99/02 Cent. Stud. Glob. Reg. Coventry, UK:
  96. Mitchell RB. 2003. International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation, and effects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28:429–61
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Morin J-F. 2010. The two-level game of transnational networks: the case of the access to medicines campaign. Int. Interact. 36:309–34
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Morin J-F, Gold ER. 2014. An integrated model of legal transplantation: the diffusion of intellectual property law in developing countries. Int. Stud. Q. 58:781–92
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Muzaka V 2009. Dealing with public health and intellectual property for pharmaceuticals at the World Trade Organization. Health for Some: The Political Economy of Global Health Governance SJ MacLean, SA Brown, P Fourie 183–95. London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Nichols S. 2018. Expanding property rights under investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): class struggle in the era of transnational capital. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 25:243–69
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Oliveira MA, Bermudez JAZ, Chaves GC, Velásquez G. 2004. Has the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean produced intellectual property legislation that favours public health?. Bull. World Health Organ. 82:815–21
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Orsi F, Sevilla C, Coriat B 2006. Upstream patents and public health: the case of genetic testing for breast cancer. Knowledge Accumulation and Industry Evolution: The Case of Pharma-Biotech M Mazzucato, G Dosi 327–45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Ostry S 2000. Convergence and sovereignty. Coping with Globalization JA Hart, A Prakash 52–76. London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Paine L, Santoro M. 1992. Pfizer: global protection of intellectual property Case 392-073 Harvard Bus. School Cambridge, MA:
  105. Parra-Salas LE. 2013. Propiedad intelectual, competencia y aspectos regulatorios del medicamento: determinantes internacionales y política pública. Rev. Gerencia Políticas Salud 13:26159–61
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Pedraza-Fariña LG. 2013. Patent law and the sociology of innovation. Wis. Rev. 2013:813–73
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Pogge T. 2012. The Health Impact Fund: enhancing justice and efficiency in global health. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 13:537–59
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Pordié L, Gaudillière J-P. 2014. The reformulation regime in drug discovery: revisiting polyherbals and property rights in the Ayurvedic industry. East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. Int. J. 8:57–79
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Postigo A. 2016. Institutional spillovers from the negotiation and formulation of East Asian free trade agreements: government-business relations in the policymaking of bilateral free trade agreements. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 23:379–417
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Pugatch MP. 2004. The International Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights New Horiz. Intell. Prop Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
  111. Quisumbing King K. 2019. Recentering US empire: a structural perspective on the color line. Sociol. Race Ethn. 5:11–25
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Rao CN. 2006. Para 6 of WTO Doha Declaration: non-solution of TRIPS problem. Econ. Political Wkly. 41:301–3
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Reichman JH. 2009. Comment: compulsory licensing of patented pharmaceutical inventions: evaluating the options. J. Law. Med. Ethics 37:247–63
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Reichman JH, Dreyfuss C. 2007. Harmonization without consensus: critical reflections on drafting a substantive patent law treaty. Duke Law J. 57:85–130
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Roemer-Mahler A. 2013. Business conflict and global politics: the pharmaceutical industry and the global protection of intellectual property rights. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 20:121–52
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Roffe P, Spennemann C. 2006. The impact of FTAs on public health policies and TRIPS flexibilities. Int. J. Intellect. Prop. Manag. 1:75–93
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Ryan MP. 1998. The function-specific and linkage-bargain diplomacy of international intellectual property lawmaking. Univ. Pa. J. Int. Econ. Law 19:535–43
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Ryan MP. 2010. Patent incentives, technology markets, and public-private bio-medical innovation networks in Brazil. World Dev. 38:1082–93
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Sampat BN, Shadlen KC. 2015. TRIPS implementation and secondary pharmaceutical patenting in Brazil and India. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 50:228–57
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sampat BN, Shadlen KC, Amin TM. 2012. Challenges to India's pharmaceutical patent laws. Science 337:414–15
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Schüren V. 2013. What a difference a state makes: pharmaceutical innovation after the TRIPs agreement. Bus. Politics 15:217–43
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Sell SK. 2003. Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge Stud. Int. Relat Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  123. Sell SK. 2007. TRIPS-Plus free trade agreements and access to medicines. Liverp. Law Rev. 28:41–75
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Sell SK. 2010. The global IP upward ratchet, anti-counterfeiting and piracy enforcement efforts: the state of play PIJIP Res. Pap. 15 Am. Univ. Wash. Coll. Law Washington, DC:
  125. Sell SK. 2011a. TRIPS: fifteen years later. J. Intellect. Prop. Law 18:21–29
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Sell SK 2011b. TRIPS was never enough: vertical forum shifting, FTAS, ACTA, and TTP. J. Intellect. Prop. Law 18:447–78
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Sell SK, Prakash A. 2004. Using ideas strategically: the contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. Int. Stud. Q. 48:143–75
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Shadlen KC. 2004. Patents and pills, power and procedure: the North-South politics of public health in the WTO. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 39:76–108
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Shadlen KC. 2007. The political economy of AIDS treatment: intellectual property and the transformation of generic supply. Int. Stud. Q. 51:559–81
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Shadlen KC. 2009. The politics of patents and drugs in Brazil and Mexico: the industrial bases of health policies. Comp. Politics 42:41–58
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Shadlen KC. 2011. The political contradictions of incremental innovation: lessons from pharmaceutical patent examination in Brazil. Politics Soc. 39:143–74
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Shadlen KC. 2017. Coalitions and Compliance: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Patents in Latin America Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  133. Shadlen KC, da Fonseca EM. 2013. Health policy as industrial policy: Brazil in comparative perspective. Politics Soc. 41:561–87
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Shadlen KC, Sampat BN, Kapczynski A. 2020. Patents, trade and medicines: past, present and future. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 27:75–97
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Slade A. 2016. The objectives and principles of the WTO TRIPS agreement: a detailed anatomy. Osgoode Hall Law J. 53:948–98
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Sweet CM. 2013. The political economy of pharmaceutical production in Brazil. The New Political Economy of Pharmaceuticals H Löfgren, OD Williams 29–47. London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  137. ’t Hoen E. 2002. TRIPS, pharmaceutical patents, and access to essential medicines: a long way from Seattle to Doha. Chicago J. Int. Law 3:27–46
    [Google Scholar]
  138. ’t Hoen E, Berger J, Calmy A, Moon S. 2011. Driving a decade of change: HIV/AIDS, patents and access to medicines for all. J. Int. AIDS Soc. 14:15
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Thomas C. 2002. Trade policy and the politics of access to drugs. Third World Q. 23:251–64
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Townsend B, Gleeson D, Lopert R. 2018. Japan's emerging role in the global pharmaceutical intellectual property regime: a tale of two trade agreements. J. World Intellect. Prop. 21:88–103
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Verger A, van Paassen B. 2013. Human development vis-à-vis free trade: understanding developing countries’ positions in trade negotiations on education and intellectual property rights. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 20:712–39
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Wade RH. 2003. What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of “development space. .” Rev. Int. Political Econ. 10:621–44
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Walker N. 2015. Intimations of Global Law Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  144. Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM 2003. Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation. Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy WM Cohen, SA Merrill 285–340. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Watal J, Taubman A, eds. 2015. The Making of the Trips Agreement: Personal Insights from the Uruguay Round Negotiations Geneva: World Trade Organ.
  146. Weiss L. 2005. Global governance, national strategies: how industrialized states make room to move under the WTO. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 12:723–49
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Weissman R. 2004. Long, strange trips: the pharmaceutical industry drive to harmonize global intellectual property rules, and the remaining WTO legal alternatives available to third world countries. Univ. Pa. J. Int. Econ. Law 25:1079–132
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Williams OD, Löfgren H 2013. The new political economy of pharmaceuticals: conformity and resistance in the Global South. The New Political Economy of Pharmaceuticals H Löfgren, OD Williams 1–28. London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Wimmer A, Glick Schiller N. 2002. Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Glob. Netw. 2:301–34
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Yu PK. 2012. Intellectual property and human rights in the nonmultilateral era. Fla. Law Rev. 64:1045–100
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Zeller C. 2007. From the gene to the globe: extracting rents based on intellectual property monopolies. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 15:86–115
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Zuberi T 2004. W.E.B. Du Bois's sociology: The Philadelphia Negro and social science. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 595:146–56
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-091304
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error