The Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa act: Patent law and humanitarian aid

This article evaluates the implementation of the WTO General Council Decision in 2003, which resolved that developed nations could export patented pharmaceutical drugs to member states in order to address public health issues - such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics. The Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act 2004 (Canada) provides authorisation for the export of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada to developing countries to address public health epidemics. The European Union has issued draft regulations governing the export of pharmaceutical drugs. A number of European countries - including Norway, the Netherlands, France, and Switzerland - are seeking to pass domestic legislation to give force to the WTO General Council Decision. Australia has shown little initiative in seeking to implement such international agreements dealing with access to essential medicines. It is argued that Australia should implement humanitarian legislation to embody the WTO General Council Decision, emulating models in Canada, Norway, and the European Union. Ideally, there should be no right of first refusal; the list of pharmaceutical drugs should be open-ended; and the eligible importing countries should not be limited to members of the WTO.

Will the Pacific Rim become a gasland? Dirty fracking and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

There has been much debate about the relationship between international trade, and intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity protection, and climate change. The Obama Administration has pushed such issues into sharp relief, with its advocacy for sweeping international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There has been much public concern about the impact of the Pacific Rim Treaty upon the protection of the environment. In particular, there has been a debate about whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership will promote dirty fracking...

The impact of international potentials, entrepreneurial motivations and firm stages on new venture internationalisation

Past research on early internationalising firms often examined factors and motivations potentially influencing internationalisation activities separately. The purpose of this paper was to investigate a set of indicators and their interplay with each other. Firstly, the impact of (a) international potential in the form of the depth and diversity of international experience and network contacts was investigated. Secondly, it was examined to what extent (b) motivational factors and (c) firm stages affect the relationship between international potential and internationalisation activities. This paper used longitudinal data from the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE). Results suggest that the international potential of a new venture as a whole is a significant determinant of subsequent internationalisation activities. However, having a diverse international experience from a variety of foreign countries appears to be more beneficial than a long-lasting experience from only a limited number of foreign countries. Furthermore, analyses showed that the interplay of high growth ambitions and the depth of international experience positively affect internationalisation activities. Opportunity or necessity driven entrepreneurship, however, neither exaggerate nor weaken the positive relationship between international potentials and internationalisation activities. Similarly, no moderation by firm stages was found.

Generating benefits and negotiating tensions through an international doctoral forum: A sociological analysis

Workshops and seminars are widely-used forms of doctoral training. However, research with a particular focus on these forms of doctoral training is sporadic in the literature. There is no, if any, such research concerning the international context and participants’ own voices. Mindful of these lacunae in the literature, we write the current paper as a group of participants in one of a series of doctoral forums co-organised annually by Beijing Normal University, China and Queensland University of Technology, Australia. The paper voices our own experiences of participation in the doctoral forum. Data were drawn from reflections, journals, and group discussions of all 12 student and academic participants. These qualitative data were organised and analysed through Bourdieu’s notions of capital and field. Findings indicate that the doctoral forum created enabling and challenging social fields where participants accrued and exchanged various forms of capital and negotiated transient and complex power relations. In this respect, the sociological framework used provides a distinctive theoretical tool to conceptualise and analyse the benefits and tensions of participation in the doctoral forum. Knowledge built and lessons learned through our paper will provide implications and recommendations for future planning of, and participation in, the doctoral forum series and similar activities elsewhere.

Land grabs, bio-piracy and the inversion of justice in Colombia

The possibility of commercially exploiting plant, animal and human genetic resources unlocked by biotechnology has given rise to a wide range of cultural, environmental, ethical and economic conflicts. While supporters describe this activity as bioprospecting, critics refer to it as biopiracy. According to this latter view, international legal agreements and treaties have disregarded opposition and legalized the possibility of appropriating genetic resources and their derivative products through the use of patents. The legal framework that permits the appropriation of natural genetic products in Colombia also criminalizes aspects of traditional ways of life and enables a legally approved but socially harmful land-grabbing process. The article describes these processes and impact in terms of the inversion of justice and the erosion of environmental sustainability.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Medicalising Prohibition : Harm reduction in Finnish and International Drug Policy

The increase in drug use and related harms in the late 1990s in Finland has come to be referred to as the second drug wave. In addition to using criminal justice as a basis of drug policy, new kinds of drug regulation were introduced. Some of the new regulation strategies were referred to as "harm reduction". The most widely known practices of harm reduction include needle and syringe exchange programmes for intravenous drug users and medicinal substitution and maintenance treatment programmes for opiate users. The purpose of the study is to examine the change of drug policy in Finland and particularly the political struggle surrounding harm reduction in the context of this change. The aim is, first, to analyse the content of harm reduction policy and the dynamics of its emergence and, second, to assess to what extent harm reduction undermines or threatens traditional drug policy. The concept of harm reduction is typically associated with a drug policy strategy that employs the public health approach and where the principal focus of regulation is on drug-related health harms and risks. On the other hand, harm reduction policy has also been given other interpretations, relating, in particular, to human rights and social equality. In Finland, harm reduction can also be seen to have its roots in criminal policy. The general conclusion of the study is that rather than posing a threat to a prohibitionist drug policy, harm reduction has come to form part of it. The implementation of harm reduction by setting up health counselling centres for drug users with the main focus on needle exchange and by extending substitution treatment has implied the creation of specialised services based on medical expertise and an increasing involvement of the medical profession in addressing drug problems. At the same time the criminal justice control of drug use has been intensified. Accordingly, harm reduction has not entailed a shift to a more liberal drug policy nor has it undermined the traditional policy with its emphasis on total drug prohibition. Instead, harm reduction in combination with a prohibitionist penal policy constitutes a new dual-track drug policy paradigm. The study draws on the constructionist tradition of research on social problems and movements, where the analysis centres on claims made about social problems, claim-makers, ways of making claims and related social mobilisation. The research material mainly consists of administrative documents and interviews with key stakeholders. The doctoral study consists of five original articles and a summary article. The first article gives an overview of the strained process of change of drug policy and policy trends around the turn of the millennium. The second article focuses on the concept of harm reduction and the international organisations and groupings involved in defining it. The third article describes the process that in 1996 97 led to the creation of the first Finnish national drug policy strategy by reconciling mutually contradictory views of addressing the drug problem, at the same as the way was paved for harm reduction measures. The fourth article seeks to explain the relatively rapid diffusion of needle exchange programmes after 1996. The fifth article assesses substitution treatment as a harm reduction measure from the viewpoint of the associations of opioid users and their family members.

International Climate Finance and its Influence on Fairness and Policy

27 p.

The use of role-play games in teaching: The International Climate Negotiation Game

This paper presents a role-play game designed by the authors, which focuses on international climate negotiations. The game has been used at a university with students all drawn from the same course and at summer schools with students from different levels (undergraduate, master’s and doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers) and different knowledge areas (economics, law, engineering, architecture, biology and others). We discuss how the game fits into the process of competence-based learning, and what benefits games, and role-play games in particular, have for teaching. In the game, students take on the role of representatives of national institutions and experience at first hand a detailed process of international negotiation concerned with climate change.

"They Come, They Fish, and They Go:” EC Fisheries Agreements with Cape Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe

Fisheries agreements with the European Community (EC) are an important component of the fisheries sector in Cape Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe, constituting today a key source of income for the respective fisheries administration. In spite of this, and of the fact that these agreements have been renewed several times over the past decades, challenges remain in domains such as control and communication of fishing activities, follow-up of financial counterparts, and integration of European fleets’ operations with the Cape Verdean and Santomean economies. This paper analyzes the EC fisheries agreements with Cape Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe in terms of those domains, considering both the contents of the agreements and their practical implementation. The fisheries sector in each of these countries is reviewed, as are some of the fundamentals and criticisms of EC fisheries agreements. It is argued that the agreements with Cape Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe will not live up to the stated objectives of sustainability and responsibility in fisheries until improvements are made to the control of EC vessels, the follow-up of funds paid by the EC, and the size and diversity of benefits accruing to the fisheries and related sectors in the two countries

The Federal Fisheries Service, 1871–1940: Its Origins, Organization, and Accomplishments

The U.S. Fish Commission was initiated in 1871 with Spencer Fullerton Baird as the first U.S. Fish Commissioner as an independent entity. In 1903 it became a part of the new U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor and was renamed the Bureau of Fisheries, a name it retained when the Departments of Commerce and Labor were separated in 1912. The Bureau remained in the Commerce Department until 1941 when it was merged with the Biological Survey and placed in the Department of Interior as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It was a scientific agency with well conceived programs of action, and it provided knowledge, advice, and example to state governments and individuals with fisheries interests and needs. Its efforts were supported by timely international agreements which constituted the precedent for Federal interest in fishery matters. The Fisheries Service earned stature as an advisor through heavy emphasis on basic biological research. The lack of such knowledge was marked and universal in the 1870’s, but toward the end of that decade, strong steps had been taken to address those needs under Baird’s leadership. USFC research activities were conducted cooperatively with other prominent scientists in the United States and abroad. Biological stations were established, and the world’s first and most productive deepsea research vessel, the Albatross, was constructed, and its 40-year career gave a strong stimulus to the science of oceanography. Together, the agency’s scientists and facilities made important additions to the sum of human knowledge, derived principles of conservation which were the vital bases for effective regulatory legislation, conducted extensive fish cultural work, collected and disseminated fisheries statistics, and began important research in methods of fish harvesting, preservation, transportation, and marketing.

Mesophotic coral ecosystems research strategy: international workshop to prioritize research and management needs for mesophotic coral ecosystems, Jupiter, Florida, 12-15 July 2008

On July 12-15, 2008, researchers and resource managers met in Jupiter, Florida to discuss and review the state of knowledge regarding mesophotic coral ecosystems, develop a working definition for these ecosystems, identify critical resource management information needs, and develop a Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems Research Strategy to assist the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other agencies and institutions in their research prioritization and strategic planning for mesophotic coral ecosystems. Workshop participants included representatives from international, Federal, and state governments; academia; and nongovernmental organizations. The Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems Workshop was hosted by the Perry Institute for Marine Science (PIMS) and organized by NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The workshop goals, objectives, schedule, and products were governed by a Steering Committee consisting of members from NOAA (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science’s Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, the Office of Ocean Exploration and Research’s NOAA Undersea Research Program, and the National Marine Fisheries Service), USGS, PIMS, the Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, and the Bishop Museum.

Why Ideas Matter in International Relations : Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics

Williams, Mike, 'Why ideas matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics', International Organization (2004) 58(4) pp.633-665 RAE2008