Immaterialgüterrecht und Entwicklung

Der Beitrag stellt im Überblick dar, welche Bedeutung das Immaterialgüterrecht (IP) für die Entwicklung einzelner Volkswirtschaften und die globale Wissensgesellschaft hat. In einem ersten Abschnitt wird erläutert, dass in der Geschichte des Immaterialgüterrechts die Vorstellung dominierte, dass Immaterialgüterrechte technologischem und sonstigem Fortschritt zuträglich sind. Im zweiten Abschnitt wird gezeigt, dass dieses lineare Expansions-Narrativ aus ökonomischer und wirtschaftshistorischer Sicht als widerlegt gelten muss. Dazu werden die Argumente der IP-Optimisten und die Gegenargumente der IP-Pessimisten anhand empirischer Studien bewertet. Der Beitrag schließt mit sozialwissenschaftlichen und normativen Schlussfolgerungen im Hinblick auf die künftige Ausgestaltung des internationalen Immaterialgüterrechts.The article gives an overview of the relationship between intellectual property (IP) and development. The first section shows that the dominant assumption in the history of IP was that IP rights are generally favorable to socio-economic progress. The second section explains that economic and historical research has proven this linear expansionist narrative to be untenable. In doing so, the article compares the arguments of IP optimists with counterarguments of IP pessimists in light of empirical studies. The final section addresses the consequences of these findings for the future of the international IP system

RISK ASSESSMENT, COUNTER-TERRORISM LAW & POLICY; A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED ANALYSIS: Assessing the UK’s Pre-emptive and Preventative Measures of Countering Terrorism, Interaction with Article 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Potential Role of Risk Assessment

The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 had a significant impact upon how governments counter terrorism. The UK introduced and implemented an array of measures, each taking a pre-emptive and preventative approach, to tackle terrorism. The change in counter-terrorism law and policy post-9/11 has, as this thesis will show, increasingly become reliant upon fear-based risk and uncertainty rather than evidence-based guilt. This thesis will examine some of those UK measures used post-9/11, which were seen as some of the more controversial measures. When analysing each measure there will be an assessment of the human rights issues associated with those measures, specifically under Article’s 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The assessment of these rights with each measure will provide a legal understanding of the wider academic and legal implication of those measures, these include the right to a fair trial. Having assessed the human rights implications of each measure, a risk assessment is undertaken. This enables further analysis of each measure and holistically identifies the wider risk implications of such counter terrorism measures. Such risks may include negative perceptions of the police, the UK or provide indirect support for the radicalisation of new terrorists. This process is developed within the thesis and becomes known as the ‘tri-relationship'. Throughout, the measures examined will be seen to erode those human rights principles ordinarily guaranteed by the criminal justice system, for example liberty. Instead, the measures give way to a new counter-terrorism justice system which has become increasingly normalised by the measures introduced and accepted by the courts. This is despite the implications on human rights and risks involved. This thesis will show that the measures introduced by the UK to achieve securitization, fail to achieve the long-term protective aims of the UK Counter-Terrorism Strategy