Between July and September, 2013, we surveyed members of the Global Congress community to learn more about their projects and priorities. We invited participation through email lists and solicited anyone who had either been to a Global Congress, been invited to one, or expressed interest in coming. We received around 90 responses.
Rather than create an agenda document, we’ve decided to let the responses speak mostly for themselves. We’ve split them into two parts: a searchable, sortable database for Current Projects (below) and a series of posts on Research Priorities (forthcoming on Infojustice) that compile perspectives on research opportunities and its relationship to policymaking in the next several years.
Here are the caveats: The responses are drawn from–but do not exhaustively reproduce–the responses we received. Responses have been cherry picked, edited, and loosely organized under primary themes. We favored detailed responses over lists of projects or statements of general interests or concerns. The list is also quite limited: it attributes projects to the person or persons who reported it–not necessarily to all contributors to a project. We can, of course, make adjustments where the attribution is clearly inadequate (let us know if that’s the case). But we are not aiming for a rigorous accounting of the research field, just a useful one given the usual constraints on time and resources. If this proves popular, we can discuss expanding it as part of future Global Congresses.
Priorities for Future Research
Want to Contribute 2-3 Paragraphs on Research Priorities?
|Primary Investigator(s) and/or Person Who Reported It||Research Venue||Project Title||Topic(s)||Geographical Focus||Description|
|Susan Sell||George Washington University, USA||Cat and Mouse: The Battle over Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement||Governance|
|Global||"Cat and Mouse" is a book project that addresses both the proliferation of negotiating forums and the strategic shifting of forums (both horizontally and vertically) that have characterized global IP policy debates.|
|Sunil Abraham||Centre for Internet and Society, India||Analyzing the Indo-EU Free Trade Agreement for IPR Issues||Trade Agreements||India|
|This is an ongoing project, running parallel to the negotiations around the Indo-EU FTA. The various provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the IP issues identified therein will be studied with the ultimate goal to ensure that there are no adverse changes proposed to India's IP regime, as it is generally seen as more favorable to the public interest than many EU regimes.|
|Sunil Abraham||Centre for Internet and Society, India||India's Obligations under Bilateral Investment Treaties||Trade Agreements||India||An ongoing effort to understand and address the challenges that India's Bilateral Investment Treaties may pose to the establishment of patent pools in the country, with a particular focus on the compulsory licensing of information and communication technology.|
|American University Washington College of Law, USA||Public Interest IP & Trade Advocacy at PIJIP||Trade Agreements|
|Global||PIJIP, at American University, is involved in ongoing efforts to engage with IP negotiators involved in the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations, including organizing side meetings, stakeholder presentations, and analyses of the leaked provisions (infojustice.org/tpp). We also provide legal and technical assistance to public health organizations on the impact of trade agreement provisions on pharmaceutical pricing programs.|
|Andrew Bridges||Fenwick & West LLP, USA||Trade Agreements||Global||I normally conduct litigation and engage in strategic business plan advice for commercial clients, so my work often reacts to client demand. But I am also independently studying a variety of issues including the relationship between foreign trade policy and domestic legislation regarding intellectual property, specifically copyright law and trademark law. One area of inquiry is what room international trade policy gives individual countries for the use of intellectual property law to express their own particular cultural values, given the "black letter law" statement that intellectual property laws are purely national. In whose interest is it for international trade agreements to harmonize the regulatory frameworks the express national cultural values? What is the purpose for conducting secret treaty and trade agreement negotiations that may either require or restrict national legislation, when the legislative process is normally public and (relatively) transparent? In whose interest is it for the creation of new intellectual property norms to be opaque or transparent?|
|J. Carlos Lara||Derechos Digitales, Chile||Trade Agreements||Global||I have been conduct research in order to provide two-page documents regarding TPP issues, mostly concerning copyright provisions, TPMs, exceptions and limitations, enforcement, parallel importation, neighboring rights, intermediary liability. The aim was to provide national and foreign negotiators with further information concerning (leaked) TPP proposals; and also to provide tppabierto.net with updated information. While seemingly small-scale, these efforts go hand in hand with regular advocacy among politicians and civil society aiming at the rejection TPP, ensuring safeguards against its worst provisions, or at the very least opening up the process. The hoped-for impact is rejection of IP clauses in TPP.|