Russia & Legal Harmonization: An Historical Inquiry into IP Reform as Global Convergence and Resistance

This Article examines several waves of intellectual property (IP) regulation reform in Russia, starting with an examination into early Soviet attempts to regulate intellectual property. Historical analysis is useful to illustrate areas of theoretical convergence, divergence, and tension between state ideology, positive law, and law in action. The relevance of these tensions for post-Soviet legal reform may appear tenuous. However, insofar as IP enforcement has emerged as one of the largest hurdles for Russia\u27s prolonged accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), these historical precedents may help explain Russia\u27s apparent theoretical and political disconnect from the WTO. If Russian policymakers and many Western analysts agree that Russia has complied with all necessary structural adjustment reforms for WTO accession (including reforming its IP legislation), then deeper points of contention between Russia and the West must be identified. One point of departure, the Article posits, is Russia\u27s lingering inability to convey adherence to general international law. Thus, this Article re-conceptualizes the link between domestic and international legal orders by connecting the IP debate to broader debates over the nature of international law in the Soviet and post-Soviet space. Specifically, Part I examines how Soviet theorists attempted to reconcile IP regulation with Marxist ideology and socialist international law. Part II surveys the main IP law reform projects in post-Soviet Russia from 1992 to 2006, with particular emphasis on harmonization with global legal standards. The second part also provides a brief comparative analysis of Russia\u27s latest IP law (effective 2008) and copyright protections in U.S. law as well as the 1971 Berne Convention. The Article concludes with an overview of doctrinal debates within Russia over harmonization, WTO accession, and international law. These debates shed light on the development of local resistance to further legal harmonization efforts, an issue of immediate relevance not just for policymakers working with Russia, but for broader law and development debates

Russia & Legal Harmonization: An Historical Inquiry Into IP Reform as Global Convergence and Resistance

This Article examines several waves of intellectual property (IP) regulation reform in Russia, starting with a specific examination into early Soviet attempts to regulate intellectual property. Historical analysis is useful to illustrate areas of theoretical convergence, divergence and tension between state ideology, positive law, and “law in action.” The relevance of these tensions for post-Soviet legal reform may appear tenuous. However, insofar as IP enforcement has been one of the largest hurdles for Russia’s prolonged accession to the WTO, these historical precedents may help to explain the apparent theoretical or political disconnect between the WTO and Russia. If Russian policymakers and many Western analysts agree that Russia has complied with all necessary structural adjustment reforms for WTO accession (including reforming its IP legislation), then we must search for deeper points of contention between Russia and the West. One point of departure, I posit, is Russia’s lingering inability to convey adherence to general international law, broadly conceived. Thus, this Article re-conceptualizes this link between domestic and international legal orders by connecting the IP debate to broader debates over the nature of international law in the Soviet and post-Soviet space. Specifically, part one examines how Soviet theorists were able to reconcile (or not) IP regulation with Marxist ideology and socialist international law. Part two surveys the main IP law reform projects in post-Soviet Russia from 1992 to 2006, with particular emphasis on harmonization with global legal standards. The second part of this Article also provides a brief comparative analysis of Russia’s latest IP law (effective 2008) versus copyright protections in U.S. law and the 1971 Berne Convention. The Article concludes with an overview of doctrinal debates within Russia over harmonization, WTO accession and international law. These debates shed light on the development of local resistance to further legal harmonization efforts, an issue of immediate relevance not just for policymakers working with Russia, but for broader law and development debates

Russia & Legal Harmonization: An Historical Inquiry Into IP Reform as Global Convergence and Resistance

This Article examines several waves of intellectual property (IP) regulation reform in Russia, starting with a specific examination into early Soviet attempts to regulate intellectual property. Historical analysis is useful to illustrate areas of theoretical convergence, divergence and tension between state ideology, positive law, and “law in action.” The relevance of these tensions for post-Soviet legal reform may appear tenuous. However, insofar as IP enforcement has been one of the largest hurdles for Russia’s prolonged accession to the WTO, these historical precedents may help to explain the apparent theoretical or political disconnect between the WTO and Russia. If Russian policymakers and many Western analysts agree that Russia has complied with all necessary structural adjustment reforms for WTO accession (including reforming its IP legislation), then we must search for deeper points of contention between Russia and the West. One point of departure, I posit, is Russia’s lingering inability to convey adherence to general international law, broadly conceived. Thus, this Article re-conceptualizes this link between domestic and international legal orders by connecting the IP debate to broader debates over the nature of international law in the Soviet and post-Soviet space. Specifically, part one examines how Soviet theorists were able to reconcile (or not) IP regulation with Marxist ideology and socialist international law. Part two surveys the main IP law reform projects in post-Soviet Russia from 1992 to 2006, with particular emphasis on harmonization with global legal standards. The second part of this Article also provides a brief comparative analysis of Russia’s latest IP law (effective 2008) versus copyright protections in U.S. law and the 1971 Berne Convention. The Article concludes with an overview of doctrinal debates within Russia over harmonization, WTO accession and international law. These debates shed light on the development of local resistance to further legal harmonization efforts, an issue of immediate relevance not just for policymakers working with Russia, but for broader law and development debates

Russia & Legal Harmonization: An Historical Inquiry into IP Reform as Global Convergence and Resistance

This Article examines several waves of intellectual property (IP) regulation reform in Russia, starting with an examination into early Soviet attempts to regulate intellectual property. Historical analysis is useful to illustrate areas of theoretical convergence, divergence, and tension between state ideology, positive law, and law in action. The relevance of these tensions for post-Soviet legal reform may appear tenuous. However, insofar as IP enforcement has emerged as one of the largest hurdles for Russia\u27s prolonged accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), these historical precedents may help explain Russia\u27s apparent theoretical and political disconnect from the WTO. If Russian policymakers and many Western analysts agree that Russia has complied with all necessary structural adjustment reforms for WTO accession (including reforming its IP legislation), then deeper points of contention between Russia and the West must be identified. One point of departure, the Article posits, is Russia\u27s lingering inability to convey adherence to general international law. Thus, this Article re-conceptualizes the link between domestic and international legal orders by connecting the IP debate to broader debates over the nature of international law in the Soviet and post-Soviet space. Specifically, Part I examines how Soviet theorists attempted to reconcile IP regulation with Marxist ideology and socialist international law. Part II surveys the main IP law reform projects in post-Soviet Russia from 1992 to 2006, with particular emphasis on harmonization with global legal standards. The second part also provides a brief comparative analysis of Russia\u27s latest IP law (effective 2008) and copyright protections in U.S. law as well as the 1971 Berne Convention. The Article concludes with an overview of doctrinal debates within Russia over harmonization, WTO accession, and international law. These debates shed light on the development of local resistance to further legal harmonization efforts, an issue of immediate relevance not just for policymakers working with Russia, but for broader law and development debates

IUC Independent Policy Report: At the End of the End of History

The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin), and composed by Franco Bassanini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”), Guido Calabresi (Yale University), Antoine Garapon (Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, Paris), and Tibor Varady (Central European University, Budapest). Contributors include Eugenio Barcellona (Eastern Piedmont University), Mauro Bussani (University of Trieste), Giuliano G. Castellano (Ecole Polytechnique Preg/CRG), Moussa Djir´e (Bamako University), Liu Guanghua (Lanzhou University), Golnoosh Hakimdavar (University of Turin), John Haskell (SOAS), Jedidiah J. Kroncke (Yale Law School), Andrea Lollini (Bologna University), Alberto Lucarelli (Federico II University), Boris N. Mamlyuk, (University of Turin), Alberto Monti (Bocconi University), Sergio Ariel Muro (Torquato di Tella University), Domenico Nicol`o (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria), and Nicola Sartori (University of Michigan). The IUC Independent Policy Report argues for a radical change of perspective, capable of restoring the supremacy of the law over the economic system. It is not only about finance, nor is it only about economics or policy. In this sense a transnational set of normative principles is needed in order to establish a global legal system capable of controlling economic processes, rather than being controlled by them. Within this framework a series of policy proposals are presented in order to effectively implement a new system of global standards. The current Western standard of living is unsustainable. Should the rest share the model of development of the West, our planet will simply not be capable of resisting the growth in consumption and pollution. Within this fundamental setting of scarcity in resources, using the rhetoric of the end of history as the polar star for growth, development and ultimately happiness of the whole world is simply a cynical lie. We argue here for the beginning of a necessary process aimed at the development of a legal system that is much less about creating an effcient backbone for an exploitive economy and much more about a vision of civilization, justice and respect where the laws of nature and those of humans converge in a sustainable long-term philosophy. Principles of justice, responsibility and long term environmental protection, rather than short term economic contingency and strong interests must set the legal agenda. A new governance and bottom-up inclusive integration of knowledge-based economies (wherever located), which is crucial to the very survival of humankind, cannot happen without defning new terms of a widely accepted standard of long term justice in the transnational context, hence the urgency to conceive legitimate transnational legal structures and possibly some apparatus of “superlegality.” The report is composed of fve sections. After having presented the pitfalls of the prevailing theoretical apparatus, an alternative cultural grid upon which policy actions should be shaped is presented. In this sense several normative proposals - revisiting the key characteristics of the current system - are offered aiming at acquiring a wider perspective over the actual global crisis

IUC Independent Policy Report: At the End of the End of History: Global Legal Standards: Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

This draft was presented at the seminar, Global Standards in the 21st Century, organized by the G8 Presidency in Rome at the Ministry of Economy and Finance and Villa Madama on the 11-12th of May 2009. The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin),The IUC Independent Policy Report prepared by a group of lawyers at the International University College of Turin was presented at the meeting convened by the G8 Presidency in Rome on May 12, 2009.The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin), and composed by Franco Bassanini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”), Guido Calabresi (Yale University), Antoine Garapon (Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, Paris), and Tibor Varady (Central European University, Budapest). Contributors include Eugenio Barcellona (Eastern Piedmont University), Mauro Bussani (University of Trieste), Giuliano G. Castellano (Ecole Polytechnique Preg/CRG), Moussa Djir´e (Bamako University), Liu Guanghua (Lanzhou University), Golnoosh Hakimdavar (University of Turin), John Haskell (SOAS), Jedidiah J. Kroncke (Yale Law School), Andrea Lollini (Bologna University), Alberto Lucarelli (Federico II University), Boris N. Mamlyuk, (University of Turin), Alberto Monti (Bocconi University), Sergio Ariel Muro (Torquato di Tella University), Domenico Nicol`o (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria), and Nicola Sartori (University of Michigan). The IUC Independent Policy Report argues for a radical change of perspective, capable of restoring the supremacy of the law over the economic system. It is not only about finance, nor is it only about economics or policy. In this sense a transnational set of normative principles is needed in order to establish a global legal system capable of controlling economic processes, rather than being controlled by them. Within this framework a series of policy proposals are presented in order to effectively implement a new system of global standards. The current Western standard of living is unsustainable. Should the rest share the model of development of the West, our planet will simply not be capable of resisting the growth in consumption and pollution. Within this fundamental setting of scarcity in resources, using the rhetoric of the end of history as the polar star for growth, development and ultimately happiness of the whole world is simply a cynical lie. We argue here for the beginning of a necessary process aimed at the development of a legal system that is much less about creating an effcient backbone for an exploitive economy and much more about a vision of civilization, justice and respect where the laws of nature and those of humans converge in a sustainable long-term philosophy. Principles of justice, responsibility and long term environmental protection, rather than short term economic contingency and strong interests must set the legal agenda. A new governance and bottom-up inclusive integration of knowledge-based economies (wherever located), which is crucial to the very survival of humankind, cannot happen without defning new terms of a widely accepted standard of long term justice in the transnational context, hence the urgency to conceive legitimate transnational legal structures and possibly some apparatus of “superlegality.” The report is composed of fve sections. After having presented the pitfalls of the prevailing theoretical apparatus, an alternative cultural grid upon which policy actions should be shaped is presented. In this sense several normative proposals - revisiting the key characteristics of the current system - are offered aiming at acquiring a wider perspective over the actual global crisi

Russia & Legal Harmonization: An Historical Inquiry into IP Reform as Global Convergence and Resistance

This Article examines several waves of intellectual property (IP) regulation reform in Russia, starting with an examination into early Soviet attempts to regulate intellectual property. Historical analysis is useful to illustrate areas of theoretical convergence, divergence, and tension between state ideology, positive law, and law in action. The relevance of these tensions for post-Soviet legal reform may appear tenuous. However, insofar as IP enforcement has emerged as one of the largest hurdles for Russia\u27s prolonged accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), these historical precedents may help explain Russia\u27s apparent theoretical and political disconnect from the WTO. If Russian policymakers and many Western analysts agree that Russia has complied with all necessary structural adjustment reforms for WTO accession (including reforming its IP legislation), then deeper points of contention between Russia and the West must be identified. One point of departure, the Article posits, is Russia\u27s lingering inability to convey adherence to general international law. Thus, this Article re-conceptualizes the link between domestic and international legal orders by connecting the IP debate to broader debates over the nature of international law in the Soviet and post-Soviet space. Specifically, Part I examines how Soviet theorists attempted to reconcile IP regulation with Marxist ideology and socialist international law. Part II surveys the main IP law reform projects in post-Soviet Russia from 1992 to 2006, with particular emphasis on harmonization with global legal standards. The second part also provides a brief comparative analysis of Russia\u27s latest IP law (effective 2008) and copyright protections in U.S. law as well as the 1971 Berne Convention. The Article concludes with an overview of doctrinal debates within Russia over harmonization, WTO accession, and international law. These debates shed light on the development of local resistance to further legal harmonization efforts, an issue of immediate relevance not just for policymakers working with Russia, but for broader law and development debates