国际多边条约知识产权执法研究

发布时间：2018-09-04 14:05

【摘要】：知识产权执法，是知识产权执法保护的简称，通常指知识产权保护的执法制度和执法程序，也称知识产权的执法机制。随着科学技术的不断进步，跨国技术交流日益频繁，大量国际知识产权条约推动了各国知识产权实体保护标准的趋同，与此同时，知识产权执法的重要性开始凸显，逐步纳入国际条约的关注视野。对国际多边条约知识产权执法的研究不仅具有重要的理论意义，也具有重要的实践的意义。其理论意义在于：首先，剖析了知识产权的权利属性，深入分析了知识产权与人权、知识产权与公共利益的关系，进而从知识产权正义论的角度，对国际多边条约调整知识产权执法事项的合理性和必要性进行考察。其次，扩展了传统国际条约义务的内涵和外延。第三，深化了国家执法主权的自我限制和外部监督。最后，提出了国际多边条约对知识产权执法问题进行规定时，，应当遵守的“均衡保护”、“执法与实体”保护相协调的理念。而其实践意义在于：此命题直接关系到我国的知识产权执法机制的建构以及今后在WTO争端解决机制下相关知识产权执法争端的预防和应对，具有很强的实践性和可操作性：一方面，对现有多边条约中的知识产权执法条款的发展脉络的分析和梳理，有利于正确把握国际条约规定知识产权执法事项的发展方向和趋势，从而为将来多边知识产权条约的发展做出准确预测；另一方面，对现有多边条约中的知识产权执法执法条款具体内容的释义性分析，有利于学习和借鉴其中的科学规定，警惕其不良倾向，为合理构建我国的知识产权执法机制提供有益借鉴。事实上，国内对国际知识产权条约中的执法条款进行解释性研究的并不鲜见，但从理论层面对其合理性进行解释，并在此基础上对国际条约对知识产权执法调整的合理范围进行探讨的却不多。而本文的一个核心问题就在于对国际多边条约规定知识产权执法标准的合理性论证，并在此基础上对国际条约涉入国内执法事项的正当程度和范围进行界定。这不仅是本文的理论根基，也直接决定了对现有知识产权条约中的执法性规定的义务性质和义务范围的认定，从而决定了我国应对此类条约义务的科学态度。而这也恰是本文的难点所在。传统国际法理论认为，知识产权执法属于严格国内事项，直接关系到国家执法主权，如何在国家主权与国际条约义务约束之间寻求一种“微妙的”平衡，这本身就需要深厚的理论基础和宏观的全局思想；同时，知识产权是兼具私权属性与公共利益功能的特殊垄断性权利，知识产权执法和救济必然涉及国家公权力介入，也必然要对知识产权权利的私人激励性与公共福利性进行适当的平衡，特别是当这种平衡还必须接受来自本国之外的国际因素影响时，如何在尽量坚持本国知识产权政策价值取向的同时，规避相关的条约责任，这无论是在立法态度上还是立法技术上都需要相当的圆通性和灵活度。本文从知识产权执法的概念、特征和功能入手，以知识产权执法标准的国际多边条约调整为主线。首先从理论上探讨其对国际法传统理论和国际条约法基本认识的突破及其历史必然性，同时结合知识产权本身所兼具的私权激励性与公共福利性的双重属性，分析其与传统意义上的“人权保护”的差异及由此所决定的国际保护手段的特殊性，并对其涉入一国国内执法主权的程度、范围和方式所应当遵守的基本原则和必要限制进行了探讨，着重解决应然领域的“是否应当”以及“如何”将知识产权执法在国际多边条约中作出规定；接着，以历史和实证的眼光，考察目前已有的识产权国际条约中规定国内执法义务的历史背景和利益需求，并对所涉条款，特别是TRIPS第三部分执法条款的目的、宗旨、内容进行全面考察，结合国际条约解释的一般规则，从迄今为止WTO争端解决机制下涉及TRIPS执法条款的所有案例中总结出争端解决机构的基本态度，辅助理解相关执法条款的准确含义，并具体分析此类争议在WTO争端解决机制下的具体运作程序和解决途径。最后，对照我国现有知识产权执法机制的优势和不足，确立我国面临此类条约的科学态度，完善我国的立法、司法、行政及海关程序，并为我国在WTO争端解决机制下应对此类争议做好充分的法律和技术准备。本文共五章，约十八万字，前三章偏重理论，后两章偏重实践，第三章既是前两章理论分析的结论和落脚点，也是后两章实践考察的前提和标尺，起到承上启下的重要作用。各章的主要内容分别为：第一章为知识产权执法及其国际条约保护概述。主要介绍了知识产权执法的概念、特征、功能，并简单介绍了国际多边条约以《TRIPS协定》为分界点，对知识产权执法标准从基本不作规定到疏密有致的体系化安排，而后在发达国家和发展中国家的利益博弈中逐步分化为两种不同发展趋势的基本脉络。第二章为知识产权执法国际多边条约调整的理论依据。从知识产权本身的特殊权利属性、程序正义的应有之意、全球化背景下国际法人本化发展趋势的必然结果、条约必须遵守原则的内在要求四个方面论证了知识产权执法事项通过国际多边条约予以规定的合理性。第三章为国际多边条约中的知识产权执法规定对传统国际法理论的挑战及合理构建。主要分析了国际多边条约规定知识产权执法标准对国家执法主权的限制的深入和对传统国际条约义务内涵和外延的扩展，以此为基础，归纳出国际多边条约中的知识产权执法性规定应当遵循的尊重差异、均衡保护、整体机制可行以及程序正义等基本原则，以及与知识产权实体权利规定协调配合，确立合理的解释权限和规则等必要限制。第四章为各主要多边条约知识产权执法条款解析。分阶段对《TRIPS协定》之前的知识产权多边条约《、TRIPS协定》本身以及以ACTA为代表的TRIPS-plus条约中有关知识产权执法的规定，结合经典案例进行了解析和评价。其中，对《TRIPS协定》执法条款的分析是本章的重点内容，除了介绍《TRIPS协定》执法条款的基本框架和具体要求外，还分析了《TRIPS协定》执法条款与《TRIPS协定》其它条款、与WTO其他基本原则和机制的关系，并通过具体案例探析了WTO争端解决专家小组和上诉机构对执法条款的态度。第五章为国际多边条约知识产权执法标准对我国的影响及对策。主要介绍了我国知识产权执法的现状及特征，分析了现有国际多边条约中的知识产权执法性规定，即《TRIPS协定》执法条款、发达国家推动的TRIPS-plus执法以及发展中国家倡导知识产权保护多元化目标体系对我国的不同影响。结合我国的国内外实际，从对内与对外两个方面为我国合理应对知识产权执法国际标准，科学构建符合我国国情的知识产权执法体制提出了建议。
[Abstract]:Intellectual property law enforcement is the abbreviation of intellectual property law enforcement protection. It usually refers to the law enforcement system and procedure of intellectual property protection, also known as the law enforcement mechanism of intellectual property. At the same time, the importance of intellectual property law enforcement began to highlight and gradually incorporated into the attention of international treaties.
The research on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in international multilateral treaties is not only of great theoretical significance, but also of great practical significance. Secondly, it expands the connotation and extension of traditional international treaty obligations. Thirdly, it deepens the self-limitation and external supervision of national law enforcement sovereignty. Finally, it points out that international multilateral treaties should abide by the provisions on intellectual property law enforcement. The practical significance of this proposition lies in that it is directly related to the construction of the enforcement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China and the prevention and response to the disputes concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism in the future. On the one hand, the analysis and combing of the development context of the intellectual property law enforcement clauses in the existing multilateral treaties will help us to correctly grasp the development direction and trend of the intellectual property law enforcement matters stipulated in the international treaties, so as to accurately predict the future development of the multilateral intellectual property treaties; on the other hand, the intellectual property in the existing multilateral treaties The interpretation analysis of the specific content of the law enforcement clause of the right is helpful to learn from and draw lessons from the scientific provisions, guard against its bad tendency, and provide a useful reference for the rational construction of the law enforcement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China.
In fact, it is not uncommon to interpret the law enforcement clauses in international intellectual property treaties in China, but there are few explanations on their rationality from the theoretical level, and on this basis, there are few discussions on the reasonable scope of international treaties for the law enforcement adjustment of intellectual property rights. It is not only the theoretical foundation of this paper, but also the determination of the nature and scope of the obligations of the enforcement provisions of the existing intellectual property treaties. The traditional theory of international law holds that the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a strict domestic matter, which is directly related to the state's sovereignty of law enforcement. It is necessary to find a "delicate" balance between state sovereignty and the binding of international treaty obligations. At the same time, intellectual property is a special monopoly right which has both the property of private rights and the function of public interests. The enforcement and relief of intellectual property rights must involve the intervention of state power, and it is necessary to balance the private incentive and public welfare of intellectual property rights, especially. When this balance must also be influenced by international factors from outside the country, it needs considerable flexibility and flexibility both in legislative attitude and in legislative technology to avoid the relevant treaty liability while adhering to the value orientation of domestic intellectual property policy as far as possible.
Starting with the concept, characteristics and functions of intellectual property law enforcement, this paper focuses on the adjustment of international multilateral treaties on the standards of intellectual property law enforcement. The dual attributes of the common welfare are analyzed, the differences between the common welfare and the traditional "human rights protection" and the particularity of the international protection means determined therefrom are analyzed, and the basic principles and necessary restrictions that should be followed in the degree, scope and manner of its involvement in a country's domestic law enforcement sovereignty are discussed, with emphasis on resolving the "whether or not" problem in the due field. Then, from a historical and empirical perspective, it examines the historical background and interests of the domestic enforcement obligations stipulated in the existing international intellectual property treaties, and the purposes and purposes of the relevant provisions, in particular those in Part III of TRIPS. Allow for a comprehensive investigation, combined with the general rules of interpretation of international treaties, from all the cases involving TRIPS enforcement clauses under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism up to now, summarize the basic attitude of the dispute settlement body, assist in understanding the accurate meaning of relevant enforcement clauses, and specifically analyze the specific transport of such disputes under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Finally, by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the existing enforcement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China, we should establish a scientific attitude towards such treaties, improve our legislative, judicial, administrative and customs procedures, and make adequate legal and technical preparations for China to deal with such disputes under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.
The first three chapters lay particular stress on theory and the latter two chapters lay particular stress on practice. The third chapter is not only the conclusion and foothold of theoretical analysis in the first two chapters, but also the premise and yardstick of practical investigation in the latter two chapters. It plays an important role in connecting the preceding and following chapters.
The first chapter is an overview of intellectual property law enforcement and its international treaty protection. It mainly introduces the concept, characteristics and functions of intellectual property law enforcement, and briefly introduces the international multilateral treaties which take TRIPS Agreement as the demarcation point, from basically not stipulating the standards of intellectual property law enforcement to densely and systematically arranging, and then in developed countries and development. The game of interests of the country has gradually been divided into two different development trends.
Chapter two is the theoretical basis for the adjustment of international multilateral treaties on intellectual property law enforcement.From the special property of intellectual property rights, the due meaning of procedural justice, the inevitable result of the development trend of humanization of international law under the background of globalization, the internal requirement of the principle that the treaties must abide by, this paper demonstrates the passing state of intellectual property law enforcement from four aspects. The rationality of the multilateral treaties is stipulated.
Chapter three is the challenge and reasonable construction of the traditional international law theory from the intellectual property law enforcement provisions in the international multilateral treaties. It mainly analyzes the restriction of the international multilateral treaties on the national law enforcement sovereignty and the extension of the connotation and extension of the obligations of the traditional international treaties. The enforcement provisions of intellectual property rights in multilateral treaties should follow such basic principles as respecting differences, balanced protection, feasibility of the overall mechanism and procedural justice, and coordinate with the provisions of entity rights of intellectual property rights to establish reasonable limits of authority and rules for interpretation.
Chapter Four is the analysis of the intellectual property law enforcement clauses of the major multilateral treaties. The article analyzes and evaluates the intellectual property law enforcement provisions of the multilateral intellectual property treaties before TRIPS Agreement and TRIPS Agreement itself and TRIPS-plus treaties represented by ACTA in stages, combining with classical cases. The analysis is the key content of this chapter. Apart from introducing the basic framework and specific requirements of the enforcement clauses of TRIPS Agreement, it also analyzes the relationship between the enforcement clauses of TRIPS Agreement and other provisions of TRIPS Agreement, and other basic principles and mechanisms of WTO. It also explores the enforcement clauses of the WTO Dispute Settlement Expert Group and the Appellate Body through specific cases. Attitude towards money.
The fifth chapter is about the impact and Countermeasures of international multilateral treaties on China's intellectual property law enforcement standards. It mainly introduces the current situation and characteristics of China's intellectual property law enforcement, and analyzes the provisions of the existing international multilateral treaties on intellectual property law enforcement, i.e. the enforcement clauses of TRIPS Agreement, the enforcement of TRIPS-plus promoted by developed countries and the advocacy of developing countries. Based on China's domestic and foreign realities, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to rationally cope with the international standards of intellectual property law enforcement and scientifically construct an intellectual property law enforcement system in line with China's national conditions.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D997.1

【相似文献】