Pharmaceutical Patents and Human Development in Sub-Saharan Africa

Adusei, Poku

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32515-1_7

Poku Adusei²

665 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

The analyses in the preceding chapters have shown that law is integral to development. Yet laws do not themselves give rise to development unless they are properly situated within their social context and realities. Fuller once observed that, “for a given social context one form of law may be more appropriate than another, and that the attempt to force a form of law upon a social environment uncongenial to it may miscarry with damaging results.” This idea that laws must reflect social realities is equally germane in the implementation of international norms on patents in SSA. The patent system is the most widely used form of juridical control of pharmaceuticals in the global marketplace. As Oguamanam aptly explains, “of all the regimes of IP, patent is the most relevant to pharmaceutical research both in terms of the subject matter of pharmaceutical innovation and in consideration of the imperative in that industry for a stronger and more exclusive protective regime.” And private pharmaceutical companies employ the globalized patent regime and its domestic prototypes to regulate the prices of medicines on the market. This private regulation of pharmaceuticals reduces the availability of and/or access to medicines to alleviate human suffering, which in turn affects human survival and development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Fuller (1969) at 27.
2.
Oguamanam (2010) at 558 [Oguamanam, “Patents and Pharmaceutical R&D”].
3.
Barbosa et al. (2007) at 72 [Barbosa et al., “Slouching towards Development”].
4.
Fisher and Syed (2007) at 589.
5.
See Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3; Chon (2006) [Chon, “IP and the Development Divide”].
6.
Robinson (2001) at 210.
7.
See e.g. Preamble to the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, UN DoC A/RES/41/128 (1986); World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN DoCA/CONF.157/23, Vienna, 25 June 1993, para 10; African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 27 June 1981, 21 ILM 58 (entered into force on 21 October 1986), Article 22. The right to development is increasingly being recognized as ius cogens, a peremptory norm of international law.
8.
Cann (2004) at 924.
9.
UNDP (2000) at 2.
10.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 77.
11.
On this point see Bush (2007); Barbosa et al. (2007), ibid at 77; Sen (1999) at 1; de Beer (2009a) at 5 [De Beer, “Defining WIPO’s Development Agenda”].
12.
See Meier (1989) at 6.
13.
See Gyekye (1994) at 49.
14.
UNDP (1996) at 86.
15.
Boutros-Ghali (1994).
16.
Sen (1999), supra note 11 at 14.
17.
UNDP (1996), supra note 14 at 1.
18.
Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2832.
19.
See Oppong (2006).
20.
Gyekye (1994), supra note 13 at 46.
21.
The three Bretton Woods Institutions comprise: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.
22.
Oppong (2006), supra note 19 at 124, citing UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report (2004).
23.
See Bush (2007), supra note 11 at 28.
24.
See UNDP (2009). The 24 ‘low human development’ countries are: Togo, Malawi, Benin, Timor-Leste, Cote d’Ivoire, Zambia, Eritrea, Senegal, Rwanda, Gambia, Liberia, Guinea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, Chad, DR Congo, Burkina Faso, Mali, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Niger. This classification comes against the backdrop of the vast mineral and biological resources in SSA.
25.
Jeffrey Sachs, quoted in Stewart (2004) at 117.
26.
See generally Sheerwood (1990), Idris (2003), Fink and Maskus (2005), and Maskus (2005, 2008).
27.
Okediji (2007) at 357.
28.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 97.
29.
See Idris (2003), supra note 26 at 133.
30.
Idris (2003), ibid at 6.
31.
Idris (2003), ibid at 133.
32.
Oguamanam (2010), supra note 2 at 559 & 561, citing 2006 WHO report and 2008 Oxfam report.
33.
Oxfam (2008) at 1.
34.
Roose-Snyder and Doyle (2009) at 282.
35.
See Paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
36.
See Gold and Morin (2009) at 59.
37.
See De Beer (2009a), supra note 11 at 4; Haugen (2010) at 698.
38.
Article 1, Agreement between the UN and the WIPO, 1974, online: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/agreement/index.html.
39.
See the WIPO Development Agenda (2007).
40.
WIPO, Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO, DoCWO/GA/31/11. The initial proposal for this development agenda was made by Argentina and Brazil, and joined by Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and VenezuelA The above countries formed the Group of Friends of Development.
41.
See Part II, the Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO, DoCWO/GA/31/11.
42.
Khor and Shashikant (2009) at 1.
43.
Recommendation 15 of the WIPO Development Agenda, 2007.
44.
De Beer (2009a), supra note 11 at 10–11.
45.
Kwakwa (2002) at 187.
46.
Helfer (2004) at 77.
47.
It is worth noting that 19 out of the 45 recommendations have been identified by the WIPO General Assembly for immediate implementation.
48.
De Beer (2009a), supra note 11 at 6.
49.
See also recommendation 22 of the WIPO Development Agenda.
50.
See recommendation 17 of the WIPO Development Agend.
51.
See recommendation 42 of the WIPO Development Agenda.
52.
For commentaries on the implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda see de Beer (2009b).
53.
De Beer (2009a), supra note 11 at 3.
54.
De Beer (2009a), ibid at 9–16.
55.
De Beer (2009a), ibid at 17; Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3; Chon (2006), supra note 5.
56.
Haugen (2010), supra note 37 at 702.
57.
Khor and Shashikant (2009), supra note 42 at 14.
58.
Cho (2005) at 646–647.
59.
See Paragraph 4 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
60.
See paragraph 6 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
61.
Paragraph 3 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
62.
Paragraph 6 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
63.
Paragraph 17 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
64.
See Paragraph 4 of the Doha Declaration.
65.
Mey (2010) at 412.
66.
See Paragraph 5(b) of the Doha Declaration.
67.
See Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement.
68.
See Paragraph 5(d) of the Doha Declaration.
69.
’t Hoen (2009) at xvi.
70.
See Gold et al. (2008) at 13.
71.
Gold et al. (2008), ibid at 7.
72.
See e.g., Elliot (2007) and Sell (2003) at 161–162.
73.
See Article 31(f) of the TRIPS Agreement.
74.
Srivastava and Satyanarayana (2008) at 86.
75.
Padmashree Sampath (2006) at 696.
76.
Hoen (2009), supra note 69 at 37.
77.
For a discussion of the obstacles associated with Canada’s Access to Medicines regime see Goodwin (2008).
78.
See Government of Canada (2007).
79.
See Goodwin (2008), supra note 77 at 580–583.
80.
Chon (2007) at 490 [Chon, “Substantive Equality in International IP”].
81.
Mgbeoji (2007) at 274.
82.
Mgbeoji (2007), ibid at 274–275.
83.
Drahos reports that in Kiribati, a relatively unknown island nation, there are over 20 pharmaceutical patents registered in its patent office. See Drahos (2010) at 1.
84.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 114.
85.
Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2823.
86.
Chon (2007), supra note 80 at 526.
87.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 114–115.
88.
Chon (2007), supra note 80 at 501.
89.
See Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
90.
Chon (2007), supra note 80 at 502.
91.
Stiglitz and Charlton (2005) at 82–83.
92.
Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2841.
93.
Chon (2007), supra note 80 at 475; Chon (2006), ibid
94.
Chon (2006), ibid at 2912.
95.
Chon (2007), supra note 80 at 479.
96.
Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2836, 2885.
97.
Chon (2006), ibid at 2836.
98.
Chon (2006), ibid at 2823.
99.
Chon (2006), ibid at 2835.
100.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 118.
101.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 118.
102.
See Sen (1999), supra note 11; Nussbaum (2000); Nussbaum (1997) at 287. The capabilities here involve being able to live a life of normal length and in good health via access to healthcare services.
103.
See Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2832.
104.
See Sen (1999), supra note 11.
105.
Sen (1999), ibid at 3–4.
106.
Sen (1999), ibid at 3–4.
107.
Sen (1999), ibid at 14.
108.
Sen (1999), ibid at 11.
109.
Nussbaum (1997), supra note 102 at 279.
110.
Nussbaum (1997), ibid at 287.
111.
Nussbaum (2008) at 10.
112.
Nussbaum (2008), ibid at 56.
113.
Nussbaum (2000), supra note 102 at 5, 12.
114.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 76.
115.
See Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2832.
116.
See generally: Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3; Chon (2006), ibid.
117.
See Barbosa et al. (2007), ibid at 76, 119; Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2877.
118.
See UNDP (1999).
119.
UNDP (2000) at 2.
120.
UNDP (2000), ibid.
121.
UNDP (2000), ibid at 17.
122.
UNDP (2003) at 222.
123.
UNDP (2003), ibid.
124.
Stiglitz and Charlton (2005), supra note 91 at 68.
125.
Stiglitz (2002) at 78.
126.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 108.
127.
In the context of Ghana, see section 87 of the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876. This Ordinance has however been repealed since 1960 by the various Courts Acts. Under the current Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), section 55 makes the ascertainment of the content and validity of customary law a question law for the courts. For a discussion of the workings of customary law see Fuller (1969), supra note 1.
128.
Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2890–2891.
129.
Chon (2006), ibid at 2890, citing Rao (1999) at 68.
130.
Stiglitz and Charlton (2005), supra note 91 at 56.
131.
Harris (2006) at 738.
132.
See Paragraph 17 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
133.
WHO (2010) at 7.
134.
Carrier (2004) at 106.
135.
See Carrier (2004), ibid at 110.
136.
UNDP (2000) at 64.
137.
Amani (2009) at 14.
138.
Oguamanam (2010), supra note 2 at 572.
139.
See paragraph 2 of the Doha Declaration; paragraph 6 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
140.
Oguamanam (2006) at 172.
141.
Levin (2011) at 47.
142.
Ruse-Khan (2011) at 199 [Ruse-Khan, “General Public Interest Exception in TRIPS”].
143.
Amani (2009), supra note 137 at 319.
144.
See Ruse-Khan (2011), supra note 142 at 174, 199.
145.
Engelbrekt (2011) at 156.
146.
The suggestion is based on public choice theorization that international institutions act in response to the demands of their constituents. See Oppong (2011) at 75.
147.
UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) at 74.
148.
See Wechsler (2011) at 65–67 [Wechsler, “Spotlight on China: Piracy Enforcement”].
149.
For a discussion of developing countries negotiating strategies, see Abbott (2005).
150.
See Article XX of GATT and Article XIV of GATS. For a detailed analysis of the general exceptions in GATT and GATS see Ruse-Khan (2011), supra note 142.
151.
Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WD/DS114, Report of the Panel (17 March 2000), paras 7.20–7.24; see also Kur (2011) 208.
152.
Panel Report (WT/DS/174R), 15 March 2005, para 7.210.
153.
Cornish (1999) at 6.
154.
See e.g. section 11(2)(a)(i) of Ghana’s Patents Act, 2003 (Act 657).
155.
Ruse-Khan (2011), supra note 142 at 198.
156.
See Oguamanam (2011) at 207.
157.
This resolution is titled “Public health, innovation, essential health research and intellectual property rights: towards a global strategy and plan of action”, online: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA59/A59_R24-en.pdf. See Oguamanam (2010), supra note 2 at 569.
158.
Abbott (2005), supra note 149 at 343–344.
159.
See Oguamanam (2011), supra note 156.
160.
Oguamanam (2011), ibid note at 209.
161.
This project is being spearheaded by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Germany and other institutions in Europe.
162.
Wechsler (2011), supra note 148 at 91.
163.
Wechsler (2011), ibid at 92.
164.
See Article 2(2) of the Communication from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Peru, Tanzania, and Uruguay, Applicability of the Basic Principles of GATT and of Relevant International Intellectual Property Conventions (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/71) 14 May 1990. [In formulating or amending their national laws and regulations on IPRs, Parties have the right to adopt appropriate measures to protect public morality, national security, public health and nutrition or to promote public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development].
165.
Wechsler (2011), supra note 148 at 93.
166.
Pauwelyn (2001) at 536.
167.
Pauwelyn (2001), ibid at 552.
168.
On the issue of human need as the ultimate source of rights, see Woods (2003) at 764.
169.
Chon (2007), supra note 80 at 486.
170.
von Hase (1998).
171.
See Amani (2009), supra note 137 at 323.
172.
These countries comprise: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Tanzania, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe. Instructively, the bulk of these countries also form part of the Group of Friends of Development which initiated and spearheaded the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda.
173.
Chon (2006), supra note 5 at 2887.
174.
See Article 2(2) of the Communication from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Peru, Tanzania, and Uruguay, Applicability of the Basic Principles of GATT and of Relevant International Intellectual Property Conventions (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/71) 14 May 1990. [In formulating or amending their national laws and regulations on IPRs, Parties have the right to adopt appropriate measures to protect public morality, national security, public health and nutrition, or to promote public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development].
175.
See recommendation 45 of the WIPO Development Agenda.
176.
WT/DS114/R (17 March 2000).
177.
See Yu (2008) at 380.
178.
Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of pharmaceutical Products WT/DS114/R (17 March 2000) para 7.26.
179.
Paragraph 5(a) of the Doha Declaration.
180.
Paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
181.
Pauwelyn (2001), supra note 166 at 538.
182.
Pauwelyn (2001), ibid at 552.
183.
See Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement, 1869 UNTS 401, 33 ILM 1226 (1994).
184.
See Pauwelyn (2001), supra note 166 at 542.
185.
See Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 83.
186.
United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Appellate Body Report (WT/DS58/AB/R) 12 October 1998, para 129.
187.
United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R 16–17 (1996).
188.
Hestermeyer (2007) at 223.
189.
Barbosa et al. (2007), supra note 3 at 106.
190.
See Gervais (2009) at 351.

Bibliography

Literature

’t Hoen EFM (2009) The global politics of pharmaceutical monopoly power: drug patents, access, innovation and the application of WTO declaration on TRIPS and public health. AMB, Amsterdam
Google Scholar
Abbott FM (2005) The WTO medicines decision: world pharmaceutical trade and the protection of public. Am J Int Law 99:317
Article Google Scholar
Amani B (2009) State agency and the patenting of life in international law: merchants and missionaries in a global society. Ashgate, Surrey
Google Scholar
Barbosa DB et al (2007) Slouching towards development in international intellectual property. Mich St Law Rev 71
Google Scholar
Boutros-Ghali B (1994) An agenda for development, UN DoC A/48/935 (UN, 6 May 1994). Online: www.un.org/Docs/SG/agdev.html
Bush R (2007) Poverty & neoliberalism: persistence and reproduction in the global south. Pluto Press, London
Google Scholar
Cann WA (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. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 25:755
Google Scholar
Carrier MA (2004) Cabining intellectual property through a property paradigm. Duke Law J 54:1
Google Scholar
Cho S (2005) Linkage of free trade and social regulation: moving beyond the entropic dilemma. Chic J Int Law 625
Google Scholar
Chon M (2006) Intellectual property and the development divide. Cardozo Law Rev 27:2821
Google Scholar
Chon M (2007) Substantive equality in international intellectual property norm setting and interpretation. In: Gervais DJ (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS-plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 475
Google Scholar
Cornish WR (1999) Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
de Beer J (2009a) Defining WIPO’s development agenda. In: de Beer J (ed) Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s development agenda. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Ottawa, p 1
Google Scholar
de Beer J (ed) (2009b) Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s development agenda. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Ottawa
Google Scholar
WIPO Development Agenda (2007) Online: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-development/en/agenda/recommendations.pdf
Drahos P (2010) The global governance of knowledge: patent offices and their clients. Cambridge University Press, New York
Book Google Scholar
Elliot R (2007) Delivering on the pledge: global access to medicines, WTO rules, and reforming Canada’s law on compulsory licensing for export. McGill JSDLP 3:23
Google Scholar
Engelbrekt AB (2011) The WTO dispute settlement system and the evolution of international IP law: an institutional perspective. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system: proposals for reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 106
Google Scholar
Fink C, Maskus KE (eds) (2005) Intellectual property and development: lessons from recent economic research. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Fisher WW, Syed T (2007) Global justice in healthcare: developing drugs for the developing world. UC Davis Law Rev 40:581
Google Scholar
Fuller LL (1969) Human interaction and the law. Am J Juris 14:1
Google Scholar
Gervais DJ (2009) (Re)implementing the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights to Foster innovation. J World Intellect Prop 12:348
Article Google Scholar
Gold ER, Morin J-F (2009) From agenda to implementation: working outside the WIPO box. In: de Beer J (ed) Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s development agenda. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Ottawa, p 57
Google Scholar
Gold R et al (2008) Toward a new era of intellectual property: from confrontation to negotiation. A report from the international expert group on biotechnology, innovation and intellectual property. Online: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/data/ieg/documents/report/TIP_Report_E.pdf
Goodwin PE (2008) Right idea, wrong result – Canada’s access to medicines regime. Am J Law Med 34:567
Google Scholar
Government of Canada (2007) Report of the statutory review of Sections 21.01 to 21.19 of the Patent Act. http://camr-rcam.hc-sCgCca/index_e.html
Gyekye K (1994) Taking development seriously. J Appl Philos 11:45
Article Google Scholar
Harris DP (2006) Carrying a joke too far: TRIPS and treaties of adhesion. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 27:681
Google Scholar
Haugen HM (2010) Access versus incentives: analyzing intellectual property policies in four UN specialized agencies by emphasizing the role of the World Intellectual Property Organization and Human Rights. J World Intellect Prop 13:697
Article Google Scholar
Helfer LR (2004) Regime shifting: the TRIPs agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale J Int Law 29:1
Google Scholar
Hestermeyer H (2007) Human rights and the WTO: the case of patents and access to medicines. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Idris K (2003) Intellectual property: a power tool for economic growth. WIPO, Geneva
Google Scholar
Khor M, Shashikant S (eds) (2009) Negotiating a ‘Development Agenda’ for the World Intellectual Property Organization. TWN, Penang
Google Scholar
Kur A (2011) Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test – how much room to walk the middle ground? In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system: proposals for reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 208
Google Scholar
Kwakwa E (2002) Some comments on rulemaking at the World Intellectual Property Organization. Duke J Comp Int Law 12:179
Google Scholar
Levin M (2011) The pendulum keeps swinging – present discussions on and around the TRIPS agreement. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system: proposals for reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 3
Google Scholar
Maskus KE (2005) Using the International Trading System to Foster Technology transfer for economic development. Mich St Law Rev 2005:219
Google Scholar
Maskus KE (ed) (2008) Intellectual property, growth and trade. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Google Scholar
Meier GM (1989) Leading issues in economic development, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Mey BP (2010) Unfettered consumer access to affordable therapies in the post-TRIPS era: a dead-end journey for patients? Kenya and India case studies. J World Intellect Prop 13:403
Article Google Scholar
Mgbeoji I (2007) TRIPS and TRIPS-plus impacts in Africa. In: Gervais DJ (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS-plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 259
Google Scholar
Nussbaum MC (1997) Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Rev 66:273
Google Scholar
Nussbaum M (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Nussbaum MC (2008) Constitutions and capabilities: ‘perception against lofty formalism. Harv Law Rev 121:4
Google Scholar
Oguamanam C (2006) International law and indigenous knowledge: intellectual property, plant biodiversity, and traditional medicine. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Google Scholar
Oguamanam C (2010) Patents and pharmaceutical R&D: consolidating private–public partnership approach to global public health crises. J World Intellect Prop 13:556
Google Scholar
Oguamanam C (2011) IP in global governance: a venture in critical reflection. WIPO J 2:196
Google Scholar
Okediji RL (2007) The limits of development strategies at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights. In: Gervais DJ (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS-plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 355
Google Scholar
Oppong RF (2006) Trade and human rights: a perspective for agents of trade policy using a rights-based approach to development. Afr Hum Rts Law J 6:123
Google Scholar
Oppong RF (2011) Legal aspects of economic integration in Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Oxfam (2008) Ending the R&D crisis in public health: promoting pro-poor medical innovation, Oxfam International Briefing Paper No. 22, (Oxford, November 2008). Online: http://www.oxfam.org/policy/ending-r-and-d-crisis-public-health
Pauwelyn J (2001) The role of public international law in the WTO: how far can we go? Am J Int Law 95:535
Article Google Scholar
Rao JM (1999) Equity in a global public goods framework. In: Kaul I et al (eds) Global public goods: international cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Robinson M (2001) Making the global economy work for human rights. In: Sampson GP (ed) The role of the World Trade Organization in global governance. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, p 209
Google Scholar
Roose-Snyder B, Doyle MK (2009) The global health licensing program: a new model for humanitarian licensing at the University Level. Am J Law Med 35:281
Google Scholar
Ruse-Khan HG (2011) Assessing the need for a general public interest exception in the TRIPS agreement. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system: proposals for reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 167
Google Scholar
Sampath G (2006) India’s product patent protection regime: less or more of ‘pills for the poor’? J World Intellect Prop 9:694
Article Google Scholar
Sell SK (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New York
Google Scholar
Sheerwood R (1990) Intellectual property and economic development. Westview Press, Boulder
Google Scholar
Srivastava S, Satyanarayana K (2008) Amendment of Article 31(f) is far from a ‘solution’. Indian J Med Res 84
Google Scholar
Stewart J (2004) Stewart’s quotable Africa. Penguin Books, Johannesburg
Google Scholar
Stiglitz JE (2002) Globalization & its discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, New York
Google Scholar
Stiglitz JE, Charlton A (2005) Fair trade for all: how trade can promote development. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
UNDP (1996) Human development REPORT 1996: economic growth and human development. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
UNDP (1999) Human development report 1999: human development in this age of globalization. Online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1999_ch1.pdf
UNDP (2000) Human development report 2000: human rights and human development. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
UNDP (2003) Making global trade work for people, 221. Online: http://www.undp.org/dpa/publications/globaltrade.pdf
UNDP (2009) Human development report: human development index rankings. Available online http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
von Hase M (1998) The application and interpretation of the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. In: Correa CM, Yusuf AA (eds) Intellectual property and international trade: the TRIPS agreement. Kluwer Law International, London, p 137
Google Scholar
Wechsler A (2011) Spotlight on China: piracy, enforcement, and the balance dilemma in intellectual property law. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system: proposals for reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 61
Google Scholar
WHO (2010) Equity social determinants and public health programme. WHO, Geneva, at 7. Online: http://whqlibdoCwho.int/publications/2010/9789241563970_eng.pdf
Woods JM (2003) Justiciable social rights as a critique of the liberal paradigm. Tex Int Law J 38:763
Google Scholar
Yu PK (2008) Access to medicines, BRICS alliances, and collective action. Am J Law Med 34:345
Google Scholar

Treaties and Legislation

UN Declaration on the Right to Development, UN DoC A/RES/41/128 (1986).
Google Scholar
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 21 ILM 58.
Google Scholar
Patents Act, 2003 (Act 657) (Ghana).
Google Scholar
Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) (Ghana).
Google Scholar
Supreme Court Ordinance, 1876 (Ghana).
Google Scholar

Jurisprudence

United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Appellate Body Report (WT/DS58/AB/R) 12 October 1998.
Google Scholar
United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R 16-17 (1996).
Google Scholar

Documents

WIPO Development Agenda (2007).
Google Scholar
WIPO, Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO, DoCWO/GA/31/11.
Google Scholar
Communication from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Peru, Tanzania, and Uruguay, Applicability of the Basic Principles of GATT and of Relevant International Intellectual Property Conventions (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/71).
Google Scholar
WHO, Equity Social Determinants and Public Health Programme (Geneva: WHO, 2010).
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Poku Adusei

Authors

Poku Adusei
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Poku Adusei .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Adusei, P. (2013). Pharmaceutical Patents and Human Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Patenting of Pharmaceuticals and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32515-1_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32515-1_7
Published: 12 September 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32514-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32515-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics