Intellectual Property in Investor-State Arbitration: Do Sweden's BIT Model (2002) and CETA Provide Clear Standards for Indirect Expropriation of IP?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thesis analyzes the legal framework regarding the indirect expropriation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) under two distinct international investment agreements (IIAs): The Sweden’s 2002 Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union. The primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of these instruments in providing coherent legal standards and protection for IPRs as qualifying investments against indirect expropriation measures by host states. This analysis incorporates the interpretative role of Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), with a particular focus on their guidance in comprehending and application of indirect expropriation provisions in the 2002 BIT and CETA. The inclusion of IPRs within the scope of protected investments in many IIAs reflects their rising economic significance1, and yet this expansion necessitates a close examination of whether these instruments provide predictable and coherent protection against indirect expropriation measures that may substantially impair the economic value of IP. The primary research question guiding this thesis is: “To what extent do Sweden’s 2002 Model BIT and CETA establish clear, predictable, and effective legal standards for identifying and compensating indirect expropriation of intellectual property rights?” In order to provide an answer to this central question, the thesis examines several key dimensions of the legal framework. It analyzes how the definitions of “investment” and “intellectual property rights” in the 2002 BIT and CETA reflect the distinctive features of IPRs. The study delves further into the legal and textual distinctions between their indirect expropriation clauses. It focuses in particular on the legal and textual differences between these clauses, incorporating public interest carve-outs and exploring the scope of the “right to regulate”. The role of interpretative frameworks is 1 John Olusegun, Moses Blessing and Moses Blessings, ‘The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Shaping Investment Flows and Economic Growth in Emerging Markets’ (2024) . Accessed 3 May 2025. 3also addressed, with particular attention to the relevance of TRIPS principles and the treaty interpretation rules under Article 31 of the VCLT in clarifying the line between lawful regulation and compensable taking. The choice to examine an older model BIT along with modern, comprehensive trade agreement like CETA enables implicit investigation into the evolution of treaty practice. Recent agreements, such as CETA, aims to clarify and address critiques leveled at earlier BITs, particularly which is pertaining to the balance between investor protection and the State’s right to regulate. This comparative aspect is key to comprehend the shifts in the legal landscape for IPR protection. Furthermore, this research addresses the tension between incentivizing innovation and attracting foreign investment through robust IPR protection, and the need for states to pursue their interests, a balance that the TRIPS Agreement itself acknowledges.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».