本文選題：TPP協(xié)定 + TRIPS協(xié)定�。� 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：近些年,雙邊和多邊自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定的興起反映了發(fā)達國家意圖制定新的規(guī)則來實現(xiàn)它們在新時期下國際貿(mào)易和投資環(huán)境中的國家利益。在這種背景下,《跨太平洋伙伴關(guān)系協(xié)定》(TPP)逐漸形成并成為一個典型的自貿(mào)協(xié)定,而這個協(xié)定比起一般的自貿(mào)協(xié)定來說,包含了更廣泛的領(lǐng)域、具有更高的國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并囊括了更多的國家。TPP協(xié)定的內(nèi)容遠遠超出了世界貿(mào)易組織所規(guī)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),其中的新規(guī)定涉及到電子商務(wù)、對外國投資者的待遇、對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的更全面的保護、勞工法以及有關(guān)國有企業(yè)的中立協(xié)議。在這些領(lǐng)域中,TPP的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)章節(jié)試圖將知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護程度提升到一個比《與貿(mào)易有關(guān)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)議》(TRIPS)更嚴(yán)格的水平,進而引發(fā)了 TPP成員國之間在談判中的爭議,這些爭議又?jǐn)U散到整個國際范圍之中并引起了國際社會廣泛的重視。TPP中的這些條款之所以被稱為超TRIPS條款是因為它們削弱了 TRIPS中保障發(fā)展中國家和最不發(fā)達國家利益而實施的"靈活性"以及"特殊和差別待遇"原則的作用。這些超TRIPS條款的出現(xiàn)持續(xù)引發(fā)了關(guān)于是否應(yīng)該擴大專利范圍和延長專利保護期來加強藥品專利保護的討論。在某種程度上,TPP通過規(guī)定高水平的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護條款確實可以促進藥品行業(yè)的研究和發(fā)展。然而,更多的數(shù)據(jù)專有權(quán)利、產(chǎn)生"長青"專利可能性的提升以及專利授予和市場許可過程中的不合理延遲等規(guī)定都遭受到了廣泛的批判。因此,TPP協(xié)定被認(rèn)為通過拖延仿制藥的市場競爭從而剝奪人們得到充分治療的機會,特別是在那些主要依賴仿制藥來治療病人的發(fā)展中國家。本文基于TPP協(xié)定與TRIPS協(xié)定法律文本的比較、各種政策與策略的解釋分析、不同國家制藥行業(yè)的案例研究、成功的國家經(jīng)驗以及不同國家制定的對抗措施,來解釋TPP知識產(chǎn)權(quán)章節(jié)中的這些規(guī)定為什么會與TRIPS協(xié)定和《多哈宣言》中關(guān)于平衡藥品專利權(quán)和公共健康的規(guī)定不一致。本文也會通過一些有關(guān)文化、倫理以及哲學(xué)的新視角來重新審視知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護,以期尋找處理藥品專利權(quán)與公共健康沖突的新途徑。本文共通過七個部分來說明TPP協(xié)定對公共健康的影響以及處理這些問題的潛在方法。第一部分簡要介紹了 TPP協(xié)定的形成背景、論文研究的相關(guān)方法和總體框架。第二部分是關(guān)于TPP協(xié)定的評價以及對其負(fù)面影響不同解決途徑的學(xué)術(shù)研究現(xiàn)狀。第三部分闡述了關(guān)于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)、健康權(quán)、人權(quán)、藥品專利、制藥行業(yè)以及藥物可獲得性等方面的重要內(nèi)容。第四部分通過對TPP協(xié)定的文本解釋和政策分析來研究它的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)條款,并與TRIPS協(xié)定中的相關(guān)規(guī)定進行了比較。第五部分重點介紹了有關(guān)TRIPS協(xié)定和藥品專利領(lǐng)域的最重要的并具有代表性的爭議的案例研究,以及一些解決國內(nèi)制藥行業(yè)壟斷和藥品可獲得性問題的國內(nèi)經(jīng)驗和成果。第六部分討論了解決藥品專利保護與公共健康沖突的現(xiàn)有途徑和新途徑。第七部分基于之前部分的研究與分析最后得出有關(guān)TPP對于公共健康影響的綜合建議,以及關(guān)于解決此問題的未來的關(guān)注點與展望。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the rise of bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements reflects the intention of developed countries to formulate new rules to achieve their national interests in the international trade and investment environment in the new era. In this context, the trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is gradually formed and become a typical free trade agreement, and the agreement is compared. In general, the FTA includes a wider range of areas, with higher international standards and encompassing more national.TPP agreements far beyond the standards set by the world trade organization, which are related to e-commerce, foreign investors, more comprehensive protection of intellectual property, and labour law. In these areas, TPP's intellectual property chapter attempts to upgrade the protection of intellectual property to a more stringent level than the trade related intellectual property agreement (TRIPS), which has led to a dispute over the negotiations between the members of the TPP, which spread to the entire international scope. It has also led to the extensive attention of the international community to the fact that these clauses in.TPP are called super TRIPS terms because they weaken the "flexibility" and the "special and differential treatment" principle in the protection of the interests of the developing countries and the least developed countries in TRIPS. Whether the scope of the patent should be expanded and the duration of the patent protection should be extended to strengthen the discussion on the protection of drug patents. To some extent, TPP can indeed promote the research and development of the pharmaceutical industry through the provision of a high level of intellectual property protection provisions. However, more proprietary rights of the data, the promotion of the possibility of "Changqing" patent and the granting of patents The TPP agreement is considered to deprive people of full treatment by delaying the market competition of generic drugs, especially in the developing countries that are mainly dependent on generic drugs to treat patients. This article is based on the TPP agreement and the TRIPS agreement. The comparison of legal texts, the interpretation of various policies and strategies, case studies of the pharmaceutical industry in different countries, successful national experience and the countermeasures made by different countries to explain why these provisions in the TPP intellectual property chapter are related to the balance of drug patents and public health in the TRIPS agreement and the Doha declaration. This article will also review intellectual property protection through a number of new perspectives on culture, ethics and philosophy, with a view to finding new ways to deal with the conflict between patent rights and public health. This paper, through seven parts, illustrates the impact of the TPP agreement on public health and the potential ways to deal with these problems. The part briefly introduces the background of the TPP agreement, the relevant methods and the overall framework of the study. The second part is about the evaluation of the TPP agreement and the current status of academic research on its negative effects on different solutions. The third part expounds the availability of intellectual property, health rights, human rights, drug patents, pharmaceutical industries and drug availability. The fourth part studies its intellectual property terms through the text interpretation and policy analysis of the TPP agreement, and compares it with the relevant provisions in the TRIPS agreement. The fifth part focuses on the case studies on the most important and representative disputes in the field of TRIPS agreements and drug patents, and Some domestic experiences and achievements in solving the problem of monopoly and drug availability in the domestic pharmaceutical industry. The sixth part discussed the existing ways and new ways to solve the conflict between drug patent protection and public health. The seventh part, based on the previous part of the study and analysis, finally drew a comprehensive suggestion about the impact of TPP on public health, and Future concerns and prospects for solving this problem.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D996.1
，

本文編號：1973779