International instruments. On 21 November 1995, the Council for TRIPS adopted a Decision on “Procedures for Notification of, and Possible Establishment of a Common Register of National Laws and Regulations Under Article 63.2.”34 This Decision basically establishes rules in respect of two categories of national laws and regulations: first, those dedicated to IPRs as such; and second, inter alia those “not dedicated to intellectual property rights as such but which nonetheless pertain to the availability, scope, acquisition, enforcement and prevention of abuse of intellectual property rights (notably laws and regulations in the areas of enforcement and the prevention of abusive practices).”35 In respect of the latter category, the Council also adopted a Decision setting up a format (i.e., a model) for their listing.36 Finally, the Council agreed on a Decision establishing a checklist of issues on enforcement of IPRs.37
International instruments. Possible ways of interpreting the Doha Declaration with respect to non-violation complaints are analyzed in Section 3, above. With respect to the attempts to reform the DSU provisions in general, see Section 6.4, below.
International instruments. The cooperation referred to in the present Agreement shall not affect the rights and duties which the Parties have acquired regarding other international instruments.
International instruments. 6.2.1 The WIPO-WTO agreement on technical cooperation In 1996 the WTO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) en- tered into a technical cooperation agreement. Of particular relevance to the pro- visions under discussion is Article 4 of that Agreement, which deals with “Legal- Technical Assistance and Technical Cooperation”:
International instruments. Article 70 is a transitional mechanism under TRIPS. It has not been the subject of other international instruments.158
International instruments. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,93 which contain a Chap- ter IX on Competition, and which have been revised and adopted in 2000, remain general and non-binding. The outcome of ongoing work within the WTO on competition is difficult to predict.94 For the time being, WTO Members do not agree on a common ap- proach to the possible inclusion of competition rules in the WTO legal framework. The “Working Group on the Interaction Between Trade and Competition Policy”, which was established by the WTO Ministerial Conference in December 1996, has discussed the interrelationship between the trade-related aspects of intellec- tual property and competition policy quite extensively.95 However, it has only a preparatory role of gathering and defining the issues, not of suggesting solutions or rules.
International instruments. All ships delegated by means of Annex VII to the Agreement, shall be constructed, built and equipped according to the relevant rules and regulations of a classification society authorized by Norway and the applicable and relevant statutory requirements contained in international instruments such as SOLAS, MARPOL, ICLL and AFS or requirements in applicable and relevant legislation adopted by competent EU- regulators and promulgated by the foreign flag state of the ship.
International instruments. 6.2.1 The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health The Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health adopted by Minis- ters at Doha on 14 November 2001 includes important statements regarding the objectives and principles of TRIPS.291 291 See WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2 of 14 November 2001.
International instruments. As opposed to TRIPS, the WCT does address the issue of encryption: Article 11 WCT (Obligations concerning Technological Measures) provides that: “Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.” The language employed in this provision offers quite a bit of flexibility as to im- plementation. What is “adequate” legal protection is to be determined by national legislation, according to national preferences. It is important to note that this provision does not obligate countries to protect encryption technologies in any given case. The last part of Article 11 makes clear that the case of unauthorized use (i.e. without agreement from the author) is not the only one in which encryp- tion may be supported by national copyright law. Instead, countries may limit such support to cases where the use of the protected material is not permitted by law, irrespective of the will of the author. It is thus up to the domestic legis- lator and national preferences to judge in which degree encryption technologies are justified, and to which extent cases of fair use should prevail.89 Countries may opt for quasi-absolute copyright protection by condoning encryption technologies whenever the author does not wish to provide free access to certain works. Alter- natively, they may deny the support of encryption technologies through copyright law if circumvention serves certain public policy objectives such as education and technology transfer.
International instruments. 1. The Parties note:
