Droit et économie - Droit et économie de la propriété intellectuelle - 42

La propriété intellectuelle à l'heure de la mondialisation

§ 2. - Bilateral agreements
Secondly, it has concluded several generations of bilateral agreements - a first
one following the adoption of the TRIPS Agreement, and a second one that
aimed at establishing the standards of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty in third countries.18 By the means
of bilateral treaties, the USA have been most successful, because they could first
target the countries with the highest levels of piracy; they had a stronger
bargaining position and thus could much easier and more efficiently reach their
aims even in terms of the obligations of the foreign countries.19
In the framework of bilateral agreements, there has usually been a certain way
of ensuring a continuing influence of the USA on the enforcement of these
treaties: a common committee has to scrutinize the implementation of the
bilateral agreement into national law. By this means, the US even has a concrete
influence on national legislation. In respect of the bilateral agreement between
the USA and Australia, this raised a lot of anger in Australia, when the implementation by Australia of the bilateral agreement did not please the USA and
it required a modification of that implementation according to the wishes of the
USA before the agreement could enter into force.20
§ 3. - Unilateral measures
Thirdly, the USA have applied unilateral measures on the basis of the domestic
provisions called 'Special 301' already mentioned by Mr. Morin,21 which
provided for a number of steps economically to force third countries to behave
in a certain way, and steps to strengthen the threat by possible economic
sanctions.22 Even if after the entry into force in the TRIPS Agreement, such
measures must no longer be applied in the same way in this field of law,23 the
ongoing accusations of third countries in 'Special 301'-lists may still have an
intimidating effect on these countries, which usually have a weak position
towards the USA and feel threatened by the accusation of not properly protecting
American works.24 Indeed, since these provisions have been quite efficient, the
USTR, according to its own statement, wanted to continue applying them as
18. S. von Lewinski, ibid., 12.09-12.16.
19. S. von Lewinski, ibid., 12.08
20. S. von Lewinski, ibid., 12.40-12.41.
21. See supra, J.-F. Morin, « L'adhésion des pays en développement au droit de la propriété intellectuelle :
entre maréchaux, marchands et missionnaires ».
22. For more detail on the functioning of these provisions, see, eg, S. von Lewinski, International Copyright
Law and Policy, op. cit., 13.02 ff; S. von Lewinski, « Américanisation de la propriété intellectuelle », Propriétés
intellectuelles 2004, p. 482, 485.
23. S. von Lewinski, International Copyright Law and Policy, op. cit., 13.07-13.09.
24. S. von Lewinski, ibid., 13.10.

Droit et économie - Droit et économie de la propriété intellectuelle

Table des matières de la publication Droit et économie - Droit et économie de la propriété intellectuelle