Establishing Conformity Between TRIPS and Human Rights: Hierarchy in International Law, Human Rights Obligations of the WTO and Extraterritorial State Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Klaus D. Beiter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_14
2016-01-01
Abstract:The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in its design and implementation procedures, does not reflect a human rights approach. There is an ever-growing community of critical voices, however, requiring that human rights should serve as a corrective to intellectual property rights and their implementation in the context of TRIPS. The crucial question is, of course, how this goal may be accomplished. Under TRIPS, human rights constitute non-essential exceptions to intellectual property rights. However, obligations under international human rights law (IHRL) can only be a relevant consideration if either the World Trade Organisation (WTO) itself or its members, when acting as such—or both—are bound by IHRL. If this should be the case, the question as to the exact relationship between the norms under TRIPS and those of IHRL will arise. Is IHRL hierarchically superior to WTO law? This chapter will show that both the WTO and its members, as such, are the bearers of obligations under IHRL and that, in many instances, norms of IHRL will have to be held to rank above “international trade law”. This should have consequences in particular for the way the WTO enforces TRIPS within its dispute settlement system. The rules of treaty interpretation under customary international law (as codified in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969) offer substantial scope for human rights considerations to play a role in WTO dispute settlement. Attempts at establishing conformity between TRIPS and IHRL should, moreover, take account of extraterritorial obligations flowing from the various UN human rights treaties, specifically also the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966, and their implications for state conduct. States parties to the ICESCR are not only obliged to observe Covenant provisions where the effects of any of their actions are confined to the domestic level, but also if their conduct, for example within the WTO, affects the economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) of populations in other countries. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the body of independent experts supervising implementation of the ICESCR—which so far has proven highly capable of advancing the cause of ESCR globally—should adopt a more proactive approach in defining extraterritorial obligations under the ICESCR, also in relation to WTO law, and should further be bold enough to adopt a clear stance in cases of conflict between TRIPS and IHRL.