Unilateral rates risk retaliation aimed at intellectual property

Copyright © HT Digital Streams Limit all rights reserved. Opinion Manu Sanan, Yogesh Pai 4 min Read April 15, 2025, 04:19 PM IST In considering the current madness over one -sided rates, it is helpful to look back a few decades. (Istock) Summary countries that have unilateral rates can consider such property as a valid target for their response under international law. Article 22 of the WTO’s understanding of dispute resolution had such a mechanism. In what went into diplomatic bank, when Henry Kissinger in 1972 asked Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai for his thoughts on the French Revolution (1789), he replied that it was “too early to say”. The wrongly translated reference was to French student riots in 1968, but before it could be corrected, the reaction became an adverb for far-minded leaders who think in centuries rather than years. If you are considering the current madness over one -sided rates, it is helpful to look back at a few decades. Remember the outcome of the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) of negotiations that took place before the World Trade Organization (WTO) was set up to support the multilateral trading system. Also read: Indira Rajaraman: US Liberation Day Tarifs Target the WTO’s playing field A core feature of the Uruguay Round was the extensive coverage of services and intellectual property, against the general agreement on rates and trade 1947 (GATT), which only dealt with goods. The trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips), which codified universal IP protection, were agreed after long and difficult negotiations. Many developing countries have dispute the inclusion of intellectual property in these trade discussions; They only agreed in exchange for tariff concessions on textiles, agriculture and other goods. Another core function was the ‘single business’ principle, which made certain agreements on goods, services, intellectual property and dispute resolution uniformly and indivisible for all WTO members. It has merged the benefits of the sectoral benefits in a single package, unlike the balcanization of trading negotiations before the Uruguay Round. Of great importance is that this framework enables a dynamics for play theory to lead negotiations and repeat meetings among WTO members, through which losses in one sector can be traded for wins in another. It also opens the possibility of sectoral retaliation for uncorrected violations of norms, such as by the suspension of intellectual property rights to repay against continued offenses by a member, via a mechanism provided under the WTO’s understanding of dispute resolution (Article 22). For example, consider the dispute of the US Gilling regarding the discriminatory blocking by the US of online gambling sites in Antigua. When the US did not correct the discriminatory measure (despite the loss of a WTO panel in 2004, Antigua received approval to institute cross-distance measures by suspending the intellectual property rights of US entities. If inadequate. assessed. to enforce free trade agreement, or against a party that prevents effective dispute settlement. In 2023, the EU adopted a ‘Regulation against Environment’ (Regulation 2023/2675), enabling direct countermeasures (without an appeal to dispute resolution) to counteract economic interference and coercion. It explicitly provides for the suspension of intellectual property rights of the coercion and corresponding suspensions of travel commitments. Even without specific domestic regulation and outside the WTO framework, countries are regarded as a countermeasures under international law independently of the strike (that is, under state responsibility) to counteract unilateral rates that violate trade obligations. Although intellectual property has been used in the past in the past, there are practical restrictions. Also read: Spaghetti-Bowl trading transactions can firstly change the worldwide balance of power, the reputation and political interests can be great, especially for developing countries. Second, under the WTO framework, the suspension of the protection of intellectual property must be calibrated to be ‘equivalent to the level of the vanity or impairment’ caused by the offense party. Third, under general international law, countermeasures must be based on specific parameters, temporarily (to continue until the offense is addressed) and undertake in a manner that enables an effective resumption of suspended obligations. As countries assess potential reactions at unilateral rates, they may want to carefully recall the underpinnings of a ferocious negotiated multilateral trading equation. The authors are a lawyer and founder of the Sanan Law respectively; and an associate professor at National Law University, Delhi. Catch all the business news, market news, news reports and latest news updates on Live Mint. Download the Mint News app to get daily market updates. More Topics #Tariff Hike #Donald Trump #intelectual Property Appellate Board Mint Specials