مجله حقوقی بین المللی

مجله حقوقی بین المللی

سَهلِ مُمتنع: تبیین مفهوم سرمایه فکری در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی با تأکید بر رویه داوری ایکسید

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری رشته حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
چکیده
گذر از مفاهیم کلاسیک سرمایه‌گذاری،‌ و توسعه آن به مواردی ازجمله حقوق مالکیت فکری و سرمایه‌قلمدادکردن این حق‌ها، مسیر پر فراز و نشیبی است که همواره با چالش‌هایی همراه بوده است. در همین راستا، مدخل ورود به مباحث دیگر در گرو تبیین چیستی سرمایه فکری در حقوق ‌بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی است. در پژوهش حاضر، پس از ارزیابی‌های مقدماتی، به تحلیل مفهوم سرمایه فکری پرداخته خواهد شد. در این پژوهش سعی شده است که با امعان‌­نظر به پرونده‌­های چند سال اخیر نزد دیوان ایکسید، در ابتدا مفهوم سرمایه فکری با توجه به موافقت‌نامه‌­های دوجانبه و بین‌­المللی و مطابقت آن با ماده ۲۵ کنوانسیون ایکسید راستی‌­آزمایی، و سپس مفهوم سرمایه فکری و جایگاه آن در حوزه داوری سرمایه‌­گذاری خارجی تبیین شود. در جایی که دیوان داوری نتواند از تطابق موافقت‌نامه­‌های دوجانبه و چندجانبه بین‌­المللی با معیارهای ماده ۲۵ کنوانسیون ایکسید بهره‌­مند شود، با درنظرگرفتن وابستگی متقابل سرمایه با حقوق مالکیت فکری مرتبط با آن و با امعان‌نظر به تأثیرگذاری سرمایه فکری در هدف اقتصادی سرمایه‌گذاری، سعی در تفسیر موسع از مفهوم سرمایه‌گذاری و سرمایه‌قلمدادکردن حقوق مالکیت فکری دارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Deceptively Simple: Explanation of the Concept of Intellectual Investment in Foreign Investment Law, With an Emphasis on the ICSID Arbitration Procedure

نویسندگان English

Amin Motamedi 1
Pouria Askari 2
1 Ph.D Candidate of Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Prof. Department of International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabataba’i, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

When it comes to investments involving Intellectual Property Law, investment arbitration tribunals need to carefully determine if such rights, such as a drug patent, qualify as investment under international foreign investment law. Such analysis necessitates a thorough examination. To clarify the concept of intellectual investment, an intertextual analysis of Intellectual Property Law and international foreign investment law is essential. This analysis also needs to consider the protective mechanisms in place for investment arbitration involving intellectual investment, addressing any potential questions and ambiguities. Researchers face numerous challenges at the intersection of Intellectual Property Law and International Investment Law. One major challenge is the initial legal assessment within the framework of domestic law, given the inherent nature of intellectual property categories. This underscores the importance of registering intellectual property. Therefore, finding a common legal ground between these two fields requires deep analysis and insight.
This research addresses several key questions: What specific characteristics of the investment definition, particularly concerning Intellectual Property Law, need to be considered? Additionally, how does the registration of such rights, or lack thereof, in the host country, like a patent, impact the protection or risk to intellectual investment? Using an analytical-qualitative approach, this study will first conduct preliminary evaluations before analyzing the concept of intellectual investment. The research aims to validate the concept of intellectual investment by referencing bilateral and multilateral agreements and assessing its alignment with Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, based on recent ICSID tribunal cases. Subsequently, the study will elucidate the concept of intellectual investment and its role in the realm of foreign investment arbitration.
The key findings of this research indicate that in situations where an arbitration tribunal cannot rely on the alignment of bilateral and multilateral agreements with the criteria of Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, it then considers the interdependence of investment with related Intellectual Property Law, and the impact of intellectual investment on the investment’s economic objective. This leads to a broader interpretation of the concept of investment, treating Intellectual Property Law as an investment. Additionally, the Salini Test, which serves as an indicator of the investment concept, does not legally bind arbitration authorities. Arbitration tribunals often exercise discretion and do not always consider all criteria, depending on the case. For instance, in the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case, the main issue was whether Uruguay’s restrictions on the use of Philip Morris trademarks on tobacco products violated the bilateral agreement standards. Uruguay argued that Philip Morris’s interests did not constitute a protected investment under foreign investment law. The argument made was not that trademarks are not to be considered as investment; rather, they did not specifically meet the host State’s development criterion according to the Salini Test.
This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by examining the characteristics and fundamental nature of intellectual investment within the context of international foreign investment law. It also explores the core definition of intellectual investment and the approach taken by ICSID arbitration tribunals in handling this concept. By tackling these elements, the study not only enhances current understanding but also fills existing gaps in the literature, thereby enriching it.
In conclusion, this research examines the concept of investment, particularly within ICSID arbitration practice. On the one hand, it is evaluated through asset and economic categories, while on the other, technological advancements make it a complex concept. In the realm of international foreign investment law, a realistic and broader perspective reveals that an activity underlying an investment, which directly impacts its value and economic productivity, can be considered as a protected investment. Intellectual Property Law is crucial for ensuring fundamental creative activities, including foreign investments. Consequently, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property, which require substantial financial resources for their creation, development, protection, and exploitation, are regarded as investment in international investment arbitration.
In the context of International Investment Law where protection relies on Intellectual Property Law, these rights enhance the economic value of the investment, leading to a monopoly. As a result of considering the intellectual property within such investment, a significantly higher economic and investment values are gained. It is important to note that despite the lack of a consistent and organized approach in the practice of international investment arbitration panels, which leads to divergent opinions, future interpretations of the concept of investment under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention are likely to be broader and more diverse. Investment arbitration tribunals are expected to move away from classical concepts and align the notion of investment with technological advancements and intellectual categories, including recognizing intellectual property as investment.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Bilateral Investment Treaty
Intellectual Property Law
ICSID
Investment Arbitration
International Foreign Investment Law
  1. الف. فارسی

    ـ کتاب

    1. عسکری، پوریا. حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در رویة داوری بین‌المللی. تهران: انتشارات شهر دانش، ۱۳۹۴.
    2. میرحسینی، سیدحسن. مقدمه‌ای بر حقوق مالکیت معنوی. تهران: نشر میزان، ۱۴۰۱.

     

    ـ مقاله

    1. ابراهیمی، سیدنصرالله و سجاد سلطان­زاده، «مفهوم سرمایه‌گذاری در رویة داوری مرکز حل و فصل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی (ایکسید)»، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی 31، شمارة ۵۰(۱۳۹۳).
    2. اسدلو، مرتضی، «توسعه در مفهوم سرمایه: نقطة عزیمت تعاملات معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری با حقوق مالکیت فکری»، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی 36، شمارة ۶۱(۱۳۹۸).
    3. ضیایی، سید‌یاسر و سعیده جوادی، «حمایت از مالکیت فکری در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی»، مطالعات حقوقی 11، شمارة ۲(۱۳۹۸).
    4. فلاحتی، سروش و میرقاسم جعفرزاده، «آموزه‌های پروندة فیلیپ موریس علیه اروگوئه، در زمینة ضرورت تغییر رویکرد معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری ایران، نسبت به سلب مالکیت از صاحبان اموال فکری»، فصلنامة علمی پژوهش حقوق عمومی 25، شمارة 80(۱۴۰۲).
    5. کسنوی، شادی، «حل و فصل دعاوی دولت ـ سرمایه‌گذار در موارد نقض حقوق مالکیت فکری»، فصلنامة پژوهشنامة بازرگانی 24، شمارة 93(۱۳۹۸).

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Gaillard, Emmanuel. International Investment Law for the 21st Century. ‘Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in ICSID Practice’ in Christina Binder, Ursula Kriebaum, August Reinisch, and Stephan Wittic (eds), International Investment Law for the 21st Century—Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer. London: Oxford Press, 2009.
    2. Geiger, Christophe, Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Investment Law, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2020.
    3. Klopschinski, Simon s, and Gibson, Christopher, and Grosse Ruse-khan. The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights under International Investment Law, First Edition, England: Oxford International Arbitration Series, 2021.
    4. Schreuer, Christoph. The ICSID Convention: A Commentary. 3rd England: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
    5. Vanhonnaeker, Lukas. Intellectual Property Investments and International Agreements—Territoriality Requirement and Applicable Law. Elgar International Investment Law series, Canada: McGill University, 2015.

     

    - Articles

    1. Correa, Carlos, “Bilateral Investment Agreements: Agents of New Global Standards for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights?”. Transnational Dispute Management, (2004).
    2. Julian Davis, Mortenson, “Intellectual Property as Transnational Investment: Some Preliminary Observations”, Intellectual Property Rights and Investment Disputes, (2009).
    3. Klopschinski, Simon, “Public Policy Considerations in Intellectual Property-Related International Investment Arbitration”, Elgar Online, (2020).
    4. Lavery, Rachel A. “Coverage of Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: An Empirical Analysis of Definitions in a Sample of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Free Trade Agreements”. Transnational Dispute Management, no. 6 (2009).
    5. Lentner, Gabriel, Fina, Siegfried, “The European Union’s New Generation of International Investment Agreements and Its Implications for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights”. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, no. 18(2) (2017).
    6. Mortenson, Julian Davis, “The Meaning of “Investment”: ICSID’s Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law”. Harvard International Law Journal, no. 257 (2010).
    7. Reinisch, August “Putting the Pieces Together . . . an EU Model Bit?”. Journal of World Investment & Trade 679, no. 686 (2014).
    8. Tekeste Biadgleng, Ermias, “IP Rights under Investment Agreements: The TRIPS-Plus Implications for Enforcement and Protection of Public Interest”. Research Paper No. 8, South Centre, no. 3 (2006).
    9. Viñuales, Jorge, Correa, Carlos “Intellectual Property Rights as Protected Investment: How Open are the Gates?”, Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, no. 19 (2015).

     

    - Report

    1. European Commission, ‘Final Report from the Expert Group on Intellectual Property Valuation’ 8 November 2013.

    - Treaties and Agreements

    1. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Dispute Between States and National of other States, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Washington, USA, (2006).
    2. Intellectual Property Provisions in International Investment Agreements, UNCTAD, (2006).
    3. The Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement, (2016).
    4. The North American Free Trade Agreement (1992).
    5. Treaty between the United States of America and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, UNCTAD Navigator, (2005).
    6. U.S. - Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (2012).

     

    - Cases

    National Courts Cases

    1. Canada Petroleum Resources Act, RSC 1985, c. 36 (second Supp) (CPRA).
    2. Geophysical Service Inc. v. Encana Corp., 2016 ABQB 230.

     

    - ICSID

    1. Alpha Projektholding GMBH v. Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, (2010).
    2. Bridgestone Licensing v. Panama Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, and Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/34 (2017).
    3. Consorzio Groupement LESI—Dipenta (Italy) v. Algeria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/08 (2005).
    4. Joy Mining Machinery Ltd v. Egypt, Award on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11 (2004).
    5. Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd v. Malaysia, Award on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10 (2007).
    6. Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products SA (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos SA (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Award on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, (2013).
    7. Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4), (2004).
    8. Sàrl v. Republic of Uruguay (PMI v. Uruguay), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 (2016).
    9. Theodore David Einarsson, Harold Paul Einarsson and Russell John Einarsson v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/6. (2019).
    10. Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2 (2008).

     

     

     

    - Website

    1. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/ treaty files/2865/download (Last visited Aug 17, 2024).
    2. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and regions/canada/eu-canada-agreement/ceta-chapter-chapter_en (Last Visited August 17, 2024).
    3. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/10/09/einarsson-v-canada-and-data-as-asset-in-investor-state-dispute-settlement/ (Last visited Dec 21, 2023).
    4. https://www.italaw.com/cases/8154 (Last visited Dec 21, 2023).

  • تاریخ دریافت 21 فروردین 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 02 مهر 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 15 مهر 1403