WTO上诉机构停摆背景下国际知识产权纠纷解决的出路——基于ISDS实践的分析  

The Way out of International Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution under the Background of the Suspension of the Appellate Body of WTO——Analysis Based on ISDS Practice

作　　者：张惠彬[1] 何易平 Zhang Huibin;He Yiping

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学知识产权研究院

出　　处：《国际经济法学刊》2023年第3期127-142,共16页Journal of International Economic Law

基　　金：2022年教育部重大攻关课题《我国海外利益保护体系构建研究》(22JZD015);重庆市教委人文社科重点项目《从WTO到CPTPP:中国参与知识产权全球治理的战略研究》(22SKGH007);重庆知识产权保护协同创新中心知识产权专项研究项目《WTO上诉机构停摆背景下国际知识产权纠纷解决的出路》(22IP006)的研究成果。

摘　　要：WTO争端解决机构的停摆与TRIPS-Plus标准的兴起使得国际投资仲裁在解决国际知识产权争端方面越发重要。国际投资协定中宽泛的投资定义让知识产权纠纷得以遁入国际投资仲裁机制。但知识产权的公共政策性使其有别于一般财产权,以投资仲裁解决知识产权纠纷面临损害东道国知识产权公共政策自主性、减损《TRIPS协定》赋予的弹性空间的问题,部分现有投资协定所采取的限制措施也存在破坏DSB专属管辖、证明责任分配不当的问题。为避免知识产权投资仲裁的负面影响,应改革仲裁员指派机制,缩减仲裁庭自由解释、适用条约的空间,并重视替代性纠纷解决机制的建设。The suspension of the WTO dispute settlement body(DSB)and the rise of the TRIPS-Plus standard have made international investment arbitration increasingly important in the resolution of international IP disputes.The broad definition of investment in investment agreements has allowed IPR disputes to escape into the international investment arbitration regime.However,the public policy nature of IPRs makes them different from general property rights,and the settlement of IPR disputes by investment arbitration faces the problems of undermining the autonomy of IPR public policy of host countries and diminishing the flexibility granted by TRIPs agreements,and the restrictive measures adopted by some existing investment agreements also have the problems of undermining the exclusive jurisdiction of DSB and improper allocation of the burden of proof.In order to avoid the negative impact of IPR investment arbitration,the mechanism for appointing arbitrators should be reformed;the scope for arbitral tribunals to freely interpret and apply treaties should be reduced;and the construction of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should be emphasized.

关 键 词：ISDS改革 知识产权国际保护 知识产权博弈 国际投资协定 

分 类 号：D996.1[政治法律—经济法学] D997.1[政治法律—国际法学]