ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2084-8987
Current Organisations
Macquarie University
,
Australian Catholic University Thomas More Law School
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 05-01-2022
DOI: 10.1017/ERR.2021.60
Abstract: This article is a critical legal analysis of the proposed TRIPS waiver under World Trade Organization (WTO) law. It reviews the existing TRIPS flexibilities and the “August 2003 TRIPS waiver”, highlighting the obstacles to achieving the goals of these legal instruments. It demonstrates that numerous critical TRIPS flexibilities, notably TRIPS Article 31 bis , are ineffective, prompting some countries to submit a new waiver proposal to the WTO. It highlights several WTO rules that are also quite ambiguous. This paper argues that a WTO clarification might be an alternative to the new TRIPS waiver proposal if it is ultimately rejected due to a lack of consensus among WTO members. Finally, this article emphasises the importance of adopting a balanced approach that may simplify complicated TRIPS rules, decrease the risk of trade-based retaliation and improve collaboration in knowledge transfer and scaling up the manufacture of and access to lifesaving vaccines, pharmaceuticals and healthcare equipment.
Publisher: Brill
Date: 2013
DOI: 10.1163/15718034-12341243
Abstract: The Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) prescribes three different types of arbitration which are ancillary to the Panel and Appellate Body functions of the WTO dispute settlement system (DSS). These are the arbitrations for determining the implementation timeline under Article 21.3 (c) of the DSU and two other types of arbitration under Articles 21.5 and 22.6. This article focuses on some specific approaches and functions of Article 21.3 (c) arbitrations and examines the procedural actions which are related to determining a suitable implementation time for developing countries. It investigates the consistency and coherence of practice in selected arbitral awards in which developing countries claimed “particular attention” either as complainant or as implementing parties. This article points out that the lack of specific guidelines in the DSU is the substantial cause for arbitrators’ noncompliance with Article 21.2 provisions in Article 21.3 (c) arbitrations, which questions the procedural fairness of such arbitrations. This situation, amongst others, reiterates the urgent necessity to amend the relevant DSU rules.
Publisher: Kluwer Law International BV
Date: 06-2023
DOI: 10.54648/GTCJ2023026
Publisher: Kluwer Law International BV
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.54648/GTCJ2022004
Abstract: In mid-December 2020, Australia sought WTO intervention in its dispute over Chinese anti-dumping duties on its barley export. Upon a critical analysis of the relevant applicable provisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the potential challenges ahead and likely outcome for Australia, this article argues that the dispute is unlikely to be resolved expeditiously and in favour of Australia due to several caveats and contradictions in the DSU, which seemingly favour China more than Australia. Even if Australia prevails and the outcome of its lamb meat dispute with the US is any guide, the prospect of a procrastinated implementation of the outcome may not be gainsaid. Australia will be the ultimate loser at least in the substantial part, if not the full five-year tenure, of the imposed anti-dumping restriction on its barley imports in China. The article concludes that resort to the WTO by Australia appears to be as difficult as its diplomatic pursuit to resolve this barley trade impasse. Nonetheless, a bilaterally negotiated settlement may be a more palatable option for Australia than any legalistic intervention by the WTO. Highlighting the cracks of the DSU, the article reinforces the urgency of long overdue reforms of the DSU. Australia-China Barley Dispute, Anti-dumping, WTO Dispute Settlement, DSU Reform
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 20-04-2021
Publisher: Brill
Date: 2006
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 19-10-2012
DOI: 10.1017/S2044251312000185
Abstract: Despite the existence of almost eighty international agreements and legal instruments, there has not been a marked development in the transfer of climate change technologies to poor and the least developing countries. This article investigates the role of intellectual property rights (IPDs) and scrutinizes the effects of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) on the transfer of these technologies. It explores the TRIPS patent protection provisions and examines the associated flexibilities like compulsory licensing and parallel import options in the context of the transfer of climate change technologies. It finally concludes that the TRIPS patent protection rules, including the existing flexibilities, are one of the biggest impediments to the transfer of these technologies to poor and least developed countries. New agreements or promises on the transfer of green technologies would be fruitless if these TRIPS rules are not amended.
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 15-06-2015
DOI: 10.1108/JITLP-08-2015-0022
Abstract: – The purpose of this paper is to examine one of the most pressing global challenges, the ongoing migrant trafficking across sea, from international trade law and policy perspective. It identifies global poverty as one of the underlying causes of such trafficking. It argues that restrictive trade in labour-intensive services of the World Trade Organization (WTO) contributes to and sustains poverty in many migrant producing countries. Chronic unemployment in poor countries with surplus manual workforce renders these workers bewildered to survive in a jobless and incomeless home markets. Non-liberalization of movements of natural persons under General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Mode 4 prevents legal cross-border delivery of labours. Restrictive trade in agriculture has but aggravated their marginalized plight. It is this poverty trap that pushes workers, lured by smugglers, to take risky migration routes for better life in countries with labour shortages. – The paper adopts a blend approach of theoretical and applied aspects of international trade law and policy, which is interpreted and applied to a fact situation of contemporary challenge of migrant trafficking by sea. – This paper establishes a nexus between restrictive Mode 4 trade and its implications for poverty-induced migration trafficking trade. It suggests a palatable trade law and policy-based reform response for the WTO to ameliorate poverty and migration trafficking trade concurrently through the creation of legal channels for the cross-border delivery of labours by liberalizing Mode 4 trade in a manner beneficial for developed countries as well. – Its value lies in its contribution to maximize multi-lateral trade liberalization for the benefit of all countries, social inclusion and economic emancipation of the disadvantaged, which would minimize global poverty.
Location: Bangladesh
Location: Australia
No related grants have been discovered for Khorsed Zaman.