On September 18, 2012, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh took an important step towards publically elucidating the U.S. positions on how international law applies to cyberspace. Shortly thereafter, NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD COE) had released a draft the long-awaited Tallinn Manual, due for formal publication in early 2013. The Manual is the product of a three-year project sponsored by the Centre in which an “International Group of Experts” examined, inter alia, the very issues cited in the Koh Speech. This article functions as a concordance between the positions articulated in the Koh speech and those found in the Tallinn Manual, and provides analytical granularity as to the legal basis for the positions proffered in the Koh Speech.
In examining how intellectual property
rights can most effectively and strategically support developing countries in
implementing this ambitious and potentially catalytic agenda in enabling innovation
for global health, this paper seeks to outline a coherent and strategic approach to
address human development needs and to facilitate the harnessing of innovation and
the sharing of knowledge for global health.
This essay explores one aspect of that discussion—the determinants of effective protection—by considering three commonly held beliefs about the path to overcoming the failure of a country’s intellectual property laws to provide adequate and effective protection. Each of these ideas posits a determinant of effective IPR enforcement: The first is domestic economic interest, the second is the rule of law, and the third is political will.
Admittedly this is an immense and complicated issue, and the economics behind pharmaceutical innovation and access is but one facet of a complete understanding of the problem. This paper describes the context of the problems surrounding access to medicines, highlighting the tremendously complicated web of issues that prevent medicines from reaching the world’s poorest.
Recognizing that Hollis’ project here is not to propose a complete solution [to the threat posed by cyber attacks] but merely a framework upon which to build, I will focus my comments on four points in Hollis’ paper: proximity, frequency, technology protection, and the continuing problem of attribution. While these four points are fundamental to Hollis’ proposal, I believe that they also present some difficulties.
Individuals, shadowy criminal organizations, and nation states all currently possess the capacity to harm modern societies through computer attacks. These new and severe cyberthreats put critical information, infrastructure, and lives at risk—and the threat is growing in scale and intensity with every passing day.
March 25, 2011