Competing Norms and Norm Change: Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health in the World Trade Organization

  • Eero Palmujoki
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations book series (PSIR)


The chapter develops the argument that change in the primary institution of trade comes about through political bargaining by reference to the WTO’s intellectual property rights agreement (TRIPS) and interpretations regarding public health in developing countries. The argument of the chapter is threefold: First, trade is shaped by a complex, rule-laden order based on different primary institutions. Second, changes in the trade institution take place through bargaining processes in a trade regime. Third, political bargaining in a regime may create new norms. However, new norms do not replace prevailing norms. Rather, political processes can initiate the emergence of new norms alongside older norms, changing the institution but also producing tensions and contradictions.


  1. Abbott, Frederick M. 2005. The WTO Medicines Decision: World Pharmaceutical Trade and the Protection of Public Health. The American Journal of International Law 99: 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 2011. Intellectual Property and Public Health: Meeting the Challenge of Sustainability (Global Health Programme Working Paper No. 7). Geneva: Graduate Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Abbott, Frederick M., and Jerome H. Reichman. 2007. The Doha Round Public Health Legacy: Strategies for the Production and Diffusion of Patented Medicines Under the Amended TRIPS Provisions. Journal of International Economic Law 10 (4): 921–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod, Robert. 1986. An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. The American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1095–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benvenisti, Eyal, and George W. Downs. 2007. The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law. Stanford Law Review 60 (2): 595–631.Google Scholar
  6. Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press LTD.Google Scholar
  7. Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations. The Societal Approach. Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cann, Wesley A., Jr. 2004. On the Relationship Between Intellectual Property Rights and the Need of Less-Developed Countries for Access to Pharmaceuticals: Creating a Legal Duty to Supply Under a Theory of Progressive Global Constitutionalism. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 25 (3): 755–944.Google Scholar
  10. CETA. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) Between Canada, of the One Part and the European Union. Accessed 15 Mar 2016.
  11. Drezner, Daniel W. 2006. The Viscosity of Global Governance: When Is Forum-Shopping Expensive? November. Accessed 21 Mar 2016.
  12. ———. 2007. All Politics Is Global. Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eckersley, Robyn. 2004. The Big Chill: The WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Global Environmental Politics 4 (2): 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EPRS Briefing 25/04/2014, European Parliamentary Research Service. Controversial Issues in EU-India Trade Disputes at WTO Level.Google Scholar
  15. EU Trade Commission, EU-India FTA Negotiations and Access to Medicines – Questions and Answers. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.
  16. Florini, Ann. 1996. The Evolution of International Norms. International Studies Quarterly 40: 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forman, Lisa, Ooms Gorik, and Claire E. Brolan. 2015. Rights Language in the Sustainable Development Agenda: Has Right to Health Discourse and Norms Shaped Health Goals? International Journal of Health Policy and Management 4 (12): 799–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallagher, Peter, and Andrew Stoler. 2009. Critical Mass as an Alternative Framework for Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Global Governance 15 (3): 375–392.Google Scholar
  19. Gathii, James T. 2002. The Legal Status of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health Under the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 15 (2): 292–317.Google Scholar
  20. Gill, Stephen. 1998. New Constitutionalism, Democratisation and Global Political Economy. Pacifica Review 10 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldstein, Judith. 1993. Creating the GATT Rules: Politics, Institutions, and American Policy. In Multilateralism Matters. The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, ed. John G. Ruggie, 201–232. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gonzalez-Pelaez, Ana. 2005. Human Rights and World Trade: Hunger in International Society. Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Government of India. India EU Reach an Understanding on Issue of Seizure of Indian Generic Drugs in Transit. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, 28 July. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.
  24. Hermann-Pillath, Carsten. 2006. Reciprocity and Hidden Constitution of World Trade. Constitutional Political Economy 17: 133–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ’t Hoen, Ellen F. M. 2009. The Global Politics of Pharmaceutical Monopoly Power. Drug Patents, Access, Innovation and the Application of the WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. Diemen: AMB Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Holsti, Kalevi J. 2004. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Changes in International Politics. West Nyak: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howse, Robert. 2010. Climate Mitigation Subsidies and the WTO Legal Framework: A Policy Analysis, Trade, Investment and Climate Change Series. Winnipeg: IISD.Google Scholar
  28. Keohane, Robert O. 1986. Reciprocity in International Relations. International Organization 40 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knudsen, Tonny Brems. 2016. Solidarism, Pluralism and Fundamental Institution Change. Cooperation and Conflict 51 (1): 102–109.Google Scholar
  30. Kumar, Shashank P. 2009. European Border Measures and Trade in Generic Pharmaceuticals: Issues of TRIPS, Doha Declaration and Public Health. International Trade Law & Regulation 15 (6): 176–184.Google Scholar
  31. May, Christopher. 2004. Capacity Building and the (Re)production of Intellectual Property Rights. Third World Quarterly 25 (5): 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell, Andrew D., and Tania Voon. 2009. Operationalizing Special and Differential Treatment in the World Trade Organization: Game Over? Global Governance 15 (3): 343–357.Google Scholar
  33. Morin, Jean-Fréderic. 2009. Multilateralizing TRIPS-Plus Agreements: Is the US Strategy a Failure? The Journal of World Intellectual Property 12 (3): 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morin, Jean-Fréderic, and Richard E. Gold. 2010. Consensus-seeking, Distrust and Rhetorical Entrapment: The WTO Decision on Access to Medicines. European Journal of International Relations 16 (4): 563–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Navari, Cornelia. 2016. Primary and Secondary Institutions: Qua vadit? Cooperation and Conflict 51 (1): 121–127.Google Scholar
  36. Odell, John S. 2009. Breaking Deadlocks in International Institutional Negotiations: The WTO, Seattle, and Doha. International Studies Quarterly 53: 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Qureshi, Asif H. 2006. Interpreting WTO Agreements: Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reichman, J.H. 2000. The TRIPS Agreement Comes of Age: Conflict or Cooperation with the Developing Countries? Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 32 (357): 441–470.Google Scholar
  39. Risse, Thomas, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: Introduction. In The Power of Human Rights. International Norms and Domestic Change, ed. Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, 1–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruggie, John G. 1982. International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization 36 (2): 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandholtz, Wayne. 2008. Dynamics of International Norm Change: Rules Against Wartime Plunder. European Journal of International Relations 14 (1): 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaffer, Gregory. 2005. Power, Governance, and the WTO: A Comparative Institutional Approach. In Power in Global Governance, ed. Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, 130–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schouenborg, Laust. 2014. The English School and Institutions. British Institutionalists? In Guide to the English School in International Studies, ed. Cornelia Navari and Daniel M. Green, 77–89. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sell, Susan K., and Aseem Prakash. 2004. Using Ideas Strategically: The Contest Between Business and NGO Networks in Intellectual Property Rights. International Studies Quarterly 48: 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snyder, Richard C. 1940. The Most Favored Nation Clause and Recent Trade Practices. Political Science Quarterly 55 (1): 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sørensen, Georg. 1999. Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution. Political Studies XLVII: 590–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steinberg, Richard H. 2002. In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization 56 (2): 339–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership. http://USTR.GOV/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Intellectual-Property.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2016.
  49. Vincent, John. 1986. Human Rights and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. WTO. 2001. Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, Adopted 14 November 2001, WT/Min(01/DEC/2 20 November. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.
  51. ———. 2003. Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Decision of the General Council of 30 August 2003, WT/L/540 and Corr.1 1 September 2003. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.
  52. ———. 2005. Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement. Decision of 6 December 2005. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.
  53. ———. 2014. Index of Disputes Issues. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.
  54. WTO DISPUTE DS 408. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eero Palmujoki
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations