You are on page 1of 39

N ATIONAL H IGH S CHOOL MODEL UNITED NATIONS

35th Annual Conference • March 18-21, 2009

BACKGROUND GUIDE

L e g a l
General

C o m m i t t e e
Main Committees

Assembly

 2008-2009 International Model United Nations Association, Inc. Used and distributed under license.

N ATIONAL H IGH S CHOOL M ODEL U NITED N ATIONS
The 35th Annual Conference • March 18-21, 2009

Nick Stefanizzi
Secretary-General
Boston University

September 2008 Dear Delegates, Welcome to NHSMUN 2009! My name is Daniel Nowicki and I’m the Under-Secretary General (USG) of General Assembly Mains Committees (known affectionately as GA Mains). I am a junior at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, where I’m studying international politics and security studies with a minor in international development. While I love Washington, New York will always be “the city” to me. Living right across the water in New Jersey for my formative years, I have come to New York often, especially in the past few years that I have been on NHSMUN staff. Like clockwork, we gather here each March to discuss the most pressing international issues of our generation. This semester I am studying abroad in Argentina’s beautiful metropolitan capital, Buenos Aires, where I will be living until December. If you enjoy traveling and have not yet visited South America, Bs. As. is your gateway city to some amazing natural wonders, great leather products, Texas-style steakhouses, and friendly people. On my free time, I enjoy playing fútbol with some porteño friends, adventure traveling, talking politics with my host family, visiting museums, and frequenting the many restaurants and clubs for which the city has become infamous. I find that I play in to the familiar Mark Twain saying of never letting “my schooling interfere with my education.” I suggest that from now until March you all find time to reflect on your academic, social and intellectual goals and discover that thing about which you are truly passionate. My international travel has not precluded me from completing my NHSMUN responsibilities. This conference holds a special place in my heart because of its wonderful staff, the intellectually stimulating topics, the high quality of debate, and of course, its delegates. Over this past year, I have edited the background guides in your respective committees and procedurally and substantively prepared directors for the rigors of chairing debate. At the conference, my job is to help you enjoy the substantive aspects of committee sessions. You can find me roaming the hallways of the Hilton, checking in on committees and bringing you completed draft resolutions from our administrative staff, among other tasks. Enjoy reading the attached background guide, research well, and get excited for March! Feel free to contact me with any questions about NHSMUN, and I’ll be happy to talk with you. Until then, Daniel Nowicki den4@georgetown.edu 732.522.2865 Georgetown University 37th and O Streets McCarthy Hall #627 Washington, DC 20057

Rosa Akbari
Director-General
McGill University

Nancy Henry
Conference Director
Tufts University

Michelle Shevin
Chief of Staff
Barnard College

Cristina Rade
Chief of External Relations
Adelphi University

Ryan Burke
Director of Security
University of South Carolina

Matthew Low
Under-Secretary-General
University of California, Berkeley

Daniel Nowicki
Under-Secretary-General
Georgetown University

Deanna Maxfield
Under-Secretary-General
University of Southern California

Emily Robertson
Under-Secretary-General
Duke University

Lisa Cuesta Under-Secretary-General
University of Pennsylvania

Jerry Guo
Under-Secretary-General
Dartmouth College

NHSMUN is a project of the International Model United Nations Association, Incorporated (IMUNA). IMUNA, a not-forprofit, all volunteer organization, is dedicated to furthering global issues education at the secondary school level.

N ATIONAL H IGH S CHOOL M ODEL U NITED N ATIONS
The 35th Annual Conference • March 18-21, 2009

Nick Stefanizzi
Secretary-General
Boston University

September 2008

Rosa Akbari
Director-General
McGill University

Dear Delegate, Welcome to NHSMUN 2009! My name is Danny Weinberg and I will be your Director for the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, The Legal Committee. I am very excited about this year’s conference and I hope that you are too. The two topics that we will be discussing on our committee are TRIPS and Access to Medicines and Building Accountability within the United Nations. Both of these topics are extremely relevant to our world today and should provide for three days of exceptional debate. I know that you will approach both of these difficult topics with enthusiasm and I greatly look forward to hearing your views in committee. So a little bit about me! I am currently a sophomore at the University of South Carolina studying biology. I am thinking about pursuing a career in medicine, but after spending seven months working in a lab this past year, the idea of research is also appealing. Of course, when it comes down to it, like most college students I really have no idea what exactly I want to do. I grew up in a musical household, so music is a big part of my life. I have been playing bass guitar since elementary school and it is still something I love to work at and explore in my free time. Sports and physical health are also very important to me. I am active on my campus with student health promotion and work as a Peer Health Educator. I played baseball throughout my childhood and grade school and it is still my favorite sport. To me there is nothing better than relaxing on a summer night watching a baseball game, except for of course, NHSMUN. Please read the information in the following pages carefully. Not only because I spent an enormous amount of time writing and researching, but also because it will guide you through your own writing and research process. Also, I want you to remember that though we are only simulating the United Nations, these topics are very real. Take them seriously now and committee will be far more rewarding. Please do not hesitate to call me or e-mail me for any reason. Most would agree that I am a pretty nice guy, and I am here to help you through this process. I will be most available between 7:00 and 10:00 pm, but my schedule is so hectic that you can just call me or leave me a message anytime. I can’t wait to see everyone in March. Until then—good luck and enjoy! Best, Danny Weinberg
WEINBER2@mailbox.sc.edu

Nancy Henry
Conference Director
Tufts University

Michelle Shevin
Chief of Staff
Barnard College

Cristina Rade
Chief of External Relations
Adelphi University

Ryan Burke
Director of Security
University of South Carolina

Matthew Low
Under-Secretary-General
University of California, Berkeley

Daniel Nowicki
Under-Secretary-General
Georgetown University

Deanna Maxfield
Under-Secretary-General
University of Southern California

Emily Robertson
Under-Secretary-General
Duke University

Lisa Cuesta Under-Secretary-General
University of Pennsylvania

Jerry Guo
Under-Secretary-General
Dartmouth College

Harper-Elliot A USC PO Box 80570 Columbia, SC 29225 (803)360.4977

NHSMUN is a project of the International Model United Nations Association, Incorporated (IMUNA). IMUNA, a not-forprofit, all volunteer organization, is dedicated to furthering global issues education at the secondary school level.

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

A NOTE ON RESEARCH AND PREPARATION
Delegate preparation is paramount to a successful and exciting National High School Model United Nations 2009 Conference. We have provided this Background Guide to introduce the topics that will be discussed in your committee; these papers are designed to give you a description of the topics and the committee. They will not give you a complete description of the topic areas and they will not contain the most up-to-date information, particularly in regards to rapidly evolving issues. We encourage and expect each delegate to fully explore the topics and be able to identify and analyze the intricacies of the issues. Delegates must be prepared to intelligently utilize their newly acquired knowledge and apply it to their own countries’ policy. You will find that your nation has a unique position on the topics that cannot be substituted for or with the opinions of another nation. The task of preparing and researching for the conference is challenging, but it can be interesting and rewarding. We have provided each school with a copy of the Delegation Preparation Guide. The Guide contains detailed instructions on how to write a position paper and how to effectively participate in committee sessions. (Note: some position papers have unique guidelines that are detailed within respective committees’ Background Guides.) The Guide also gives a synopsis of the types of research materials and resources available to you and where they can be found. A brief history of the United Nations and the NHSMUN conference are also included. The annotated rules of procedure complete the Delegate Preparation Guide. An essential part of representing a nation in an international body is the ability to articulate that nation’s views in writing. Accordingly, it is the policy of NHSMUN to require each delegate (or double-delegation team) to write position papers. The position papers should clearly outline the country’s policies on the topic areas to be discussed and what factors contribute to these policies. In addition, each paper must address the Research and Preparation questions at the end of the committee Background Guide. Most importantly, the paper must be written from the point of view of the country you are representing at NHSMUN 2009 and should articulate the policies you will espouse at the conference. All papers should be typed and doublespaced. The papers will be read by the Director of each committee and returned at the start of the conference with brief comments and constructive advice. You are responsible for sending a copy of your paper to the Director of your committee. Additionally, your delegation is responsible for bringing a bound copy of all of the position papers—one for each committee to which your school has been assigned—to the conference (to be submitted during registration). Specific requirements of the bound copy have been sent to the faculty advisor/club president. In addition to position papers, each delegation must prepare one brief summary statement on the basic economic, political, and social structures of its country, as well as on its foreign policy. Please mail country summary statements to the Director-General of NHSMUN 2009 at the address below. All copies should be postmarked no later than February 16th and mailed to: Rosa Akbari, Director-General 3631 av. Henri-Julien Montréal, Québec H2X 3H4 Canada (Country Summaries) Danny Weinberg Harper-Elliot A USC PO Box 80570 Columbia, SC 29225 (Individual Position Papers)

Delegations are required to mail hard copies of papers to the Director-General and Directors. NHSMUN Staff will not consider e-mail submissions as an adequate substitution. Delegations that do not submit position papers to Directors or Summary Statements to the DirectorGeneral will be ineligible for awards.
-3-

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

COMMITTEE HISTORY
The Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, or the Legal Committee, has the responsibility of clarifying, writing, and amending international law. It is the largest body in the UN that deals with exclusively legal matters, ultimately receiving the work of other smaller bodies, such as the International Law Commission (ILC), for overall agreement and codification. The Legal Committee was established in 1946 as a response to the need to formulate, define, and structure international law so that its methods and directions would be clear. In this ongoing process, the Committee continues its work “for the purpose of promoting international cooperation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification,” according to Chapter IV, Article 13 of the United Nations' Charter (“Charter”). Because of these codified standards of international law, the Legal Committee constantly reviews resolutions from other committees to ensure that parameters for international law are met. In addition to the role the committee plays in shaping international law and requesting adherence to its statutes, it is also a major force in overseeing the construction of international treaties and agreements. In this way the “Sixth Committee is entrusted with promoting the codification and progressive development of international law” (“Legal”). Using a global standard of ethical conduct, the Committee constantly reviews international law in order to keep it current and pertinent. This requires that its members be varied and open for frank discussion of the effectiveness of a specific treaty, statute, or article in a resolution. The Committee “traditionally strives to embrace the opinion of every member and include it within the final body of opinion” (“Consensus”). The Committee ultimately functions on consensus—“it has to if its resolutions on international legal issues are to have more universal validity” (“Consensus”). The Legal Committee has broad jurisdiction, and its topics reflect this diversity. The 2007 session agenda includes a discussion of the rule of law at the national and international levels, measures to eliminate international terrorism, requests for observer status in the General Assembly, and a comprehensive review of peacekeeping operations among other interesting topics. The breadth of these topics reveal the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction, as well as the vital part that it plays—among all levels of the United Nations—in codifying and reviewing international law.

-4-

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

SIMULATION
The proceedings of our simulation of the Legal Committee in March 2009 will follow closely to those of the real United Nations. We will engage in extensive debate on both topics and work to produce comprehensive resolutions that we will present to the entire General Assembly. Collaboration and cooperation are at the heart of the United Nations, and our committee should reflect these principles. Be mindful that resolutions can only be effective if countries are willing to back them; therefore, it is imperative that consensus building is a top priority during debate. I strongly advise against compromising your state’s official policies to push forward legislation. Maintaining your country’s policy is what provides the challenges, rewards, and ultimately the substance of debate. I would like everyone to view debate as a learning experience in which you discover what it means to produce an effective solution to a problem through balancing compromise and national interests. In modeling the Legal Committee, it is also important to remember that the scope of the committee prevents the passage of resolutions that require a country to enact specific legislation or impose punitive measures if nations are unwilling to modify domestic law in light of new international legal protocol. Rather, it is your job to discuss the legislation in question and provide suggestions for how to improve the status quo. Debate will proceed in two primary forms: formal debate and caucus. During formal debate, each nation that wishes to speak will have the opportunity to be added to a speakers’ list and speak before the entire committee for a limited amount of time. Due to the sheer size of our committee, caucusing will be an essential tool for expediting debate and working on resolutions. Caucus will be your opportunity to share ideas directly with one another and address the complexities of the topics in greater detail. Moderated caucus is another extremely important form of debate that allows speakers to address the entire committee without having to wait for their turn on the speakers’ list. This type of caucus is also established for the purpose of discussing a specific aspect of a topic in greater detail and may be used to quickly inform the committee of the various ideas circulating the floor. Unmoderated caucus allows delegates to negotiate without the involvement of the Dais. Representatives may use this time to disperse into smaller group discussions or to collaborate and develop draft resolutions. Both forms of caucus will be used frequently within our committee and will be excellent tools for collaboration. The Legal Committee is one of the largest at the conference; therefore, there will be three members of the Dais to help guide debate. It is my job as Director to oversee the progression of all substantive debate. I will chair the committee, listen to speeches, observe caucus groups, and assist in the resolution-writing process. The Assistant Director will assist in substantive matters as well as chair the committee. The third member of the dais will be a Chair who is solely responsible for dealing with matters of parliamentary procedure and will primarily run committee during voting procedures. The primary function of the Dais is to moderate debate; it is up to you, the delegate, to run the committee and see that debate is progressing in a meaningful manner. Both of our topics are highly complex and require extensive research and it is NHSMUN philosophy to hold a debate of the highest substantive caliber. More importantly, education through simulation firmly rests on compromise and innovative solutions; therefore, pre-written resolutions are strictly prohibited at our conference. While we encourage the preparation of possible solutions, do not bring them to the conference in resolution form. Also, maintaining decorum is mandatory on a committee of our size. I will not tolerate delegates that are disrespectful of their peers or any member of the dais. While complete silence in a room of 300 people is near impossible, I ask that you please respect the work that you, your fellow delegates, and conference staff members have put in to ensure a great committee experience. And finally, remember this: as Director, it is my job to help you. If you have any questions, concerns, apprehensions, etc. about anything during committee, do not hesitate to approach me. The same is true for the Assistant Director and Chair. Questions show me that you care about the material and are interested in learning. We are here to make sure that committee is a positive learning environment that runs smoothly from setting the agenda to passing resolutions.
-5-

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

TRIPS AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
TOPIC A “The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.” –Abraham Lincoln, 11 February 1859 (“A Brief History”). INTRODUCTION An interesting dichotomy has evolved in the modern world; a dichotomy evident in the medical field. While there has been great progress in identifying, treating, curing, and preventing disease, millions around the world still suffer from curable or treatable diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that one third of the world’s population lacks access to essential medicines – a figure that rises to over 50% in some regions of Asia and Africa (WHA61.21). This statistic starkly illustrates the disparity between the developed and developing world in accessing medicines. As illness spreads, these societies become even less capable of developing their own technologies. Thus, medicines remain in the developed regions where they are invented, perpetuating a cycle of health and productivity for these areas, while condemning the developing world that cannot afford these medicines or produce their own. Clearly, the free market alone would never provide the sick and poor in developing nations with the medicines they need. There is no incentive in place to benefit all parties. However, we know that factors determining access to pharmaceuticals extend beyond the simplicity of the free market to include national law, international law, and private interests. For hundreds of years, patents have granted legal legitimacy to new technologies, but as new industries have formed and the world has become more complex, so have these laws. Initially introduced to protect national economies, patent law has followed the trend of globalization and transformed to primarily protect the inventor and his/her intellectual property, rather than national economic or security interests. With the emergence of international patent law, the powerful role of patents in medical development and distribution came to the forefront of the impetus to provide decent and universal healthcare to the global citizenry. As intended, patents limit the production and distribution of drugs in order to protect their inventors’ rights to their intellectual property. As a result, these patents have prevented millions from acquiring medicine, even when they are readily available in other nations. A common example is the HIV/AIDS-weakened economies of Sub-Saharan Africa, often prevented by the high pricing of major pharmaceutical manufacturers from providing the poor and sick access to the drugs they need (Johnston and Wasunna 16). Clearly, a balance must be met between the rights of inventors and the demands of public health. The prevailing source of international law that covers intellectual property and patents, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), incorporates many provisions within its framework designed to preserve this balance. Still, the status quo does not provide the patent holder or the ill all that they demand. To what extent a new agreement is required or how TRIPS can be improved is a central question for the Sixth Committee. This issue is extremely complex because of its moral, social, economic, and political implications. Global health demands and health resources are highly differentiated, allowing for no simple, one-dimensional solution. The importance of this issue is further compounded by its human significance: people continue to die from preventable malignancies as a result of the current international consensus. The 37th Session of the Sixth Committee is charged with assessing TRIPS and identifying areas for improvement in the law that will bring medicine to poor countries. HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE Innovation is the engine that drives society, and innovators develop unique ideas that benefit the lives of all. Recognizing the importance of protecting these original ideas, and rewarding their progenitors, society developed the notion of intellectual property. As defined by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Intellectual Property (IP) refers to all “creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works,
-6-

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

and symbols, names, and images used in commerce” (“What Is Intellectual Property”). IP is protected by patents and trademarks, which protect industrial property and designs, and copyrights, which shield a wide range of artistic and literary works from illegal reproduction (“What Is Intellectual Property”). Though much of IP concerns non-physical products, such as a formula for a particular medicine, intellectual property rights (IPRs) share many common legal characteristics with those of physical personal property: they can be bought, sold, licensed, exchanged, or given away (Johnston and Wasunna 4). The concepts of intellectual property and the system of patents are by no means a recent phenomenon. The law has come a long way since the first patents were introduced, and, as such, the content and intentions of the laws surrounding intellectual property have changed tremendously. The emphasis once put on protecting a state’s economic strength dissolved with the emergence of globalization. Today, patent laws serve primarily to protect an inventor’s intellectual property, and they do so extensively. Further, to facilitate the security of the inventor’s rights across borders, the international community has codified numerous agreements and formed organizations to implement these policies, like TRIPS and WIPO. Before exploring the details of the current system of laws, a brief discussion/analysis of the system’s evolution is necessary (Johnston and Wasunna 5). Evolution of Patent Law The roots of the modern intellectual property law (IPL) system can be found in the practices of medieval Europe, when sovereigns granted exclusive monopolies to emerging manufacturers and industries as a means to raise money and protect the state’s economic interests from competing neighbors. In 1474, the Venetians passed the first patent law that resembles those that we have today. After Venice’s long war with the Turks, the once dominant Venetian commerce declined. The major focus of the newly restructured economy was its manufacturing sector. In order to protect the preeminence of manufacturing within the state, the Venetian government introduced the first patent system, granting inventors of new devices exclusive rights to their products for limited periods of time (“A Brief History”). While the 15th Century Venetian code resembles the laws we have in place today more closely, England may boast the earliest official patent. In 1449, King Henry VI granted a 20-year monopoly to Flemish-born John of Utynam for his novel method of making stained glass windows for Eton College. For nearly 200 years, the Tudor and Stuart monarchies issued “Letters Patent,” granting, in exchange for a fee, solo and proprietary rights to inventors over the use of their ideas and products as they were disseminated to a variety of trades and manufacturers. (“History of Patents”). Unlike the lawful process codified in Venice, these patent rights were used as an exercise of royal prerogative and abuse of the system was rampant. The crown over-extended patents on inventions that were not new and monopolized “royal favorites” that brought large revenues back to the crown (“Tudors and Stuarts”). English courts took the first steps to ensure only genuinely new industries were granted monopolies, but the Parliament put these court decisions into law (“A Brief History”). Parliament passed the first effort to codify patent law within a major Western nation with the 1624 Statute of Monopolies. The Statute declared that all monopolies were rendered illegal unless granted for 14 years or less and provided to the “true and first inventor.” Most importantly, the Statute addressed the relationship between the patents granted, or the inventor’s rights, and society-at-large. The legislation determined that patent law should protect the public interest by fostering innovation and rewarding inventors without blocking access to new technologies and incurring exclusionary pricing (“Statute of Monopolies”). Many of the recent transformations made to patent law could have been predicted based on prior actions affected by individual states; for example, the need to create international laws. In the American colonies, each colony had its own specifications. Recognizing that local governments could not effectively protect distinct patents across state borders, the writers of the US Constitution left the responsibility to produce national patent laws to the Congress, perhaps foreshadowing the international community’s need to merge domestic policies with more comprehensive, multi-state governing principles at the beck of globalization.
-7-

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Another case demonstrates the distinction between copyrights and patents. French law in 1791 placed greater emphasis on the inventor’s right to his property than society’s benefit. From these laws, the idea of copyrights emerged and an important separation between copyright and patent law was realized. While copyrights emphasize the author’s rights over his work, patents act to benefit both the inventor and society. (“A Brief History”). That is, patents originally served (in the English system) to incentivize the development of technologies in “matters of new manufacture” – realms that were important for the national well-being of the country. Copyrights give the individual rights over the work, whatever it may be, and do not deal with the issue of national interest. This is an important legal distinction that should be considered when looking at any IPL. There are different incentives at play with the two different types of IP. National patent law became much more popular at the turn of the 20th century, as it expanded from Western institutions into Asia. Japan was the first Asian state to implement a patent system, with the passage of the Patent Law of 1921 (Kato 4). Patent law also developed early in Korea, but not under the auspices of the Korean government. Rather, foreign powers sought to protect their industrial interests within Korean borders by promulgating the “Agreement between US and Japan for protecting invention, design, patent and copyright in Korea” in 1908 (Han 5). The law was later annulled when Japan annexed the state in 1910 and replaced it with the Japanese Patent Act; Korea did not enact patent law of its own until the Korean Patent Act of 1961 (Han 5). There have clearly been different national systems of patent law in the past, and to apply a universal system of patents to the world would be a challenging and fruitless task. The Committee should draw from this historical fact and seek to consider patent law in a more holistic way; by thinking in absolute national terms, there will be no progress. International Patent Laws The world outgrew national patent laws rather quickly, as emerging innovations necessitated a patent system that would foster the growth of international trade (Machlup and Penrose 3). While national policies forced inventors to apply for and receive a patent specific to each country in which the inventor sought rights of exclusivity, the attainment and protection of these prerogatives as a methodology of jurisprudence was nearly impossible for two reasons. First, any country could deliberately discriminate against foreign patents to allow their own nationals to patent inventions developed elsewhere. Second, once a country publicly disclosed a patent, another nation could patent the same product within its own borders before the inventor applied for foreign patents. In some extreme and notorious cases, as in Switzerland and the Netherlands, states lacked patent law altogether and freely violated the rights of foreign patent holders, reproducing, pirating, and selling in competition with the original to bolster their own no-patent economies (Kranakis 8). In light of widespread pirating after the 1867 Paris Exhibition, the US secured industrial patent protection at the 1873 Vienna Exhibition through several rounds of diplomatic negotiations (Kranakis 7). It became evident that if European countries did not take the necessary steps to secure IP rights internationally, there would be irreparable damage to trade relations, as well as a sense of insecurity looming over industrial and scientific research. Debate over international patent law reached a feverish pitch between 1850 and 1875 as pro-patent and antipatent groups further polarized. The English House of Lords passed the English Patent Bill of 1874, reducing patent protection to seven years, forcing the forfeit of non-worked patents after two years, and allowing compulsory licensing of all patents. Germany demonstrated even sharper divisions between economists and inventors than England. Citing advantages of a free trade system, economists, lobbyists, and corporate interests were nearly unanimous in their condemnation of any form of patent protectionist system. Free trade and patents were seen as fundamentally at odds because of the restrictive nature of patent legislation and the opportunistic goals of growing industry. Anti-patent sentiment argued that patent law would limit industrial production, while patent proponents felt that patents would stimulate innovation and reward talented inventors. Chancellor Bismarck denounced the patent system altogether within Prussia, while Switzerland failed to adopt any patent laws whatsoever and Holland vehemently argued over the workability of a patent system within a free trade economy (Machlup and Penrose 6).

-8-

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

A massive propaganda movement on the behalf of pro-patent groups, as well as a global economy in flux after the crisis of 1873, allowed patent protectionism to regain broad favor. The first Great Depression crippled the global free trade movement and reversed the opinions of many governments once opposed to patent systems. The English Patent Bill of 1874 was withdrawn by the House of Commons, Germany adopted a uniform patent law for the entire Reich in 1877, and even Switzerland debated several rounds of patent legislation by the early 1880s (Machlup and Penrose 6). Perhaps the two most significant pro-patent milestones transpired at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873 and at the Paris Exhibition of 1878. US concerns about protecting the IP of its exhibitors at Vienna prompted the Austro-Hungarian government to organize an international conference during the exhibition to discuss industrial property rights legislation. The consensus affirmed the moral right of patents, as well as the need for international legislation to protect IP. Five years later, the conference reconvened for the Paris Exhibition, with a newly emboldened group of nearly 500 manufacturers, university professors, lawyers, judges, scientists, artisans, patent office representatives, and industrialists from 17 European countries and the US. Their focus was to solve the dilemma of trans-boundary patent protection by harmonizing national patent frameworks into a draft international treaty. The ideas expressed in this draft treaty became the basis for the 1883 Paris Convention (Kranakis 9). The Paris Convention of 1883 addresses three major issues that are fundamental to all future patent legislation: foreign discrimination, public disclosure, and revocation for importation (Kranakis 10). Prior to this international statute, as previously mentioned, nations openly discriminated against foreign patent holders and pirated new materials. This new Convention addressed the issue by requiring its signatories to honor the inventions of a citizen from any other member state as if they were inventions of their own citizens, thus eliminating the basis for discrimination. Similarly, the Convention established that a patent application in one member state retained priority over subsequent patent applications in other member states for up to 12 months. Finally, countries could not revoke a patent for the simple reason that they were importing the same good patented in another country. Furthermore, the treaty allowed for periodic revision and admittance of new member states. Not only were European countries in support of the treaty; three of the eleven initial signatories represented the Latin American countries of Brazil, Guatemala, and El Salvador (Kranakis 10). The Road to TRIPS More than 100 years spanned between the 1883 Paris Convention and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. This century saw a global proliferation of intellectual property and patent legislation. Because of the need for widespread IP protection the Paris Convention and its sister convention, the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, focusing on copyrights, were combined into the United International Bureau for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI). (“WIPO Treaties”) BIRPI continued to grow and administer an increasing number of international conventions and treaties governing multilateral IP protection, eventually transforming into the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1970 (“WIPO Treaties”). In 1974, the United Nations mandated the WIPO, as a specialized agency of the UN, to coordinate treaties “for promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development, subject to the competence and responsibilities of the United Nations and its organs” (“Agreement”). The WIPO facilitated a new era in international patent law. It inspired the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of 1970, a revolutionary document aimed at incorporating the lessons learned since the inception of the Paris Convention 90 years earlier. Annual patent applications worldwide increased from two-hundred thousand in 1946 to over eight-hundred thousand in 1973, necessitating the streamlined international approach of the PCT (Kranakis 11). As mentioned above, prior to the PCT, under the national patent system, any inventor wishing to have his patent protected in foreign nations would have to supply a patent application to all nations receiving the product. This is clearly inefficient and causes a disincentive for innovation. Even under the Paris Convention, there were extremely high costs for inventors seeking patents in multiple countries. While the Paris Convention guaranteed that an individual’s invention would be protected once it was patented, acquiring these rights required the hiring of translators to help with applications and lawyers to
-9-

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

validate the legal terms. Regional IP groups such as the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) system, the Harare Protocol system in the African Regional Industrial Property Organization (ARIPO), the Eurasian patent system, and the European patent system limited these costs; still, there was no streamlined international system for obtaining a trans-boundary patent (“Chapter 5” 276). The PCT eliminated these costs and uncertainties by establishing a highly coordinated system for filing applications, examining inventions, and disseminating information internationally (“Chapter 5” 277). Initially, the PCT applied to only those countries that ratified the Paris Convention, but now the Treaty contracts in 139 countries (“Patent Cooperation Treaty”). Though both WIPO and the PCT were unprecedented in their stature, several critical weaknesses proved detrimental to WIPO. These two structures provided too much flexibility to Member States and did not protect the private interests of their national economies. For example, each Member State had the ability to determine the terms of any specific patent. In addition, weak WIPO enforcement mechanisms did not ensure these laws were executed effectively (Vogel 13). Industrialized nations became acutely aware of how these institutional lapses impeded their exporting firms, as patented products were not valued at higher domestic prices; in turn, nations complained of threats to their international economic and technological dominance because of the exposure of their technology to the risk of piracy. Countries with increasingly IP-based economies implemented political and economic strategies to protect themselves from the developing nations that lacked IP laws. For instance, the United States took unilateral action against states like Argentina, Brazil, China, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, forcing them to comply with US IP standards (Vogel 14). Firms within developed countries began influencing policy, gaining an economic advantage at the expense of lagging indigenous progress within developing nations. In an effort to address these issues, world leaders convened and completed a new agreement by 1 January 1995, marking the beginning of a new era in international law and trade. After seven years of debate on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO) was formally established. Though initially created after World War II to govern international trade, the GATT now serves as the principle set of guidelines for the trade of goods under the WTO. These seven years of debate, or the Uruguay Round, reformed the GATT to include new rules on the trade of services, relevant aspects of intellectual property, dispute settlement, and trade policy reviews (“World Trade Organization - in brief”). The Uruguay Round modified the WTO’s procedures to require consensus (absolute agreement) on all WTO agreements. The Structure of TRIPS The international cooperation displayed in the creation of WIPO, GATT, and the WTO culminated with the signing of Annex 1C of the 14 April 1994 Marrakech Declaration, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. A result of the Uruguay Round of talks, the document represents a concerted effort on the part of the international community to address the issue of intellectual property. TRIPS attempts to narrow the gaps by which these rights are protected between states and to bring them under a common international law. Broadly, TRIPS establishes minimum levels of protection that seek to balance long-term benefits of intellectual property with short-term losses. The Agreement covers five issues; it is critical that the Committee understand the existing structure and mandate of TRIPS to appropriately address the issue (“Intellectual Property”). The first issue is how basic principles of trade and intellectual property agreements should be applied. The principles of TRIPS echo GATT; non-discrimination is the most important feature. That is, trade agreements must trade all parties equally. This is accomplished in two ways: national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment (“Intellectual Property”). From the national treatment side, countries must hold foreigners and locals equal, and naturally, imported and locally-produced goods must be treated equally with respect to trademarks, copyrights, and patents. Most-favoured-nation status implies that trading partners must be treated equally; each trade partner receives the same benefits and favors as others (“Principles”). Additionally, TRIPS introduces the principle that IP protection must contribute to technical innovation and the transfer of wealth of technology; both producers and users should benefit (“Intellectual Property”).
- 10 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

How exactly to protect IP rights? There are a variety of categories of IP, and TRIPS seeks to apply the same protections for each category across countries. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works are the two Conventions that the Committee should reference when considering IP protection, as they also serve as the basis for IP protection in TRIPS. In areas like copyrights, where the Conventions have inadequate coverage, TRIPS adds new standards. For example, computer programs are now covered as literary works under the Berne Convention (“Intellectual Property”). Medicines are covered under patents, and TRIPS mandates that patent protection be available for at least 20 years. However, there are two important caveats. First, governments are allowed to refuse to issue a patent if its commercial exploitation is prohibited. Diagnostic and surgical methods are included under this provision. Second, governments can issue “compulsory licenses” that allow a competitor to produce a product if the patent owner refuses to supply the market with the product. Compulsory licensing will likely be a major topic of discussion for the Committee, and the TRIPS Council has indicated that flexible measures like that have been built into the Agreement specifically to allow members to take steps to prevent public health (“Intellectual Property”). Enforcement is tough, but fair. The Committee should review Part 3 of TRIPS, which discusses in detail how national governments should treat the issue of infringement. The document emphasizes fair and equitable procedures, proper usage of evidence, injunctions, and appropriate damages. Particularly interesting is Section 5, which makes IP infringement a criminal offense. The Committee must examine whether these provisions make it too difficult or provide disincentives to bringing medicines to poor countries. Very harsh penalties would discourage even the most steadfast entrepreneurs from seeking to do so (“Intellectual Property”). It would clearly be unreasonable to expect all parties to the Agreement to immediately implement its provisions without a transition period. The parties to the Agreement recognized that developing countries and transition economies required more time to ensure their laws and practices conformed to the TRIPS agreement. When the Agreement took effect on 1 January 1995, developed countries were given one year, developing countries were given five years, and least-developed countries were given 11 years, which has since been extended to 2016 for pharmaceutical products (“Intellectual Property”). The Committee should clarify the necessity of giving least-developed countries such a long time for pharmaceuticals, the legality of this policy, and whether it is actually an effective way to bring drugs to poorer countries. Dispute resolution is the last area that TRIPS covers. Unlike other agreements on intellectual property, states parties to TRIPS have access to the powerful WTO dispute settlement mechanism. A dispute arises when promises have broken; members believe that other members are violating trade rules. It comes before the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which consists of all WTO members. The DSB has the authority to appoint panels of experts to consider the case and then to implement the rulings and recommendations of the panels (“A Unique Contribution”). The process takes 15 months with appeals, with 60 days of that being consultations between the parties themselves prior to a panel being appointed. This dispute resolution mechanism is effective for several reasons. First, there is a clear timetable; cases are moved along and are resolved in a timely manner. Second, both parties agree to abide by whatever ruling is issued, even after appeals. This holds parties accountable for their actions and maintains a consistency in the law. Finally, the process encourages independent resolution before bringing a case before the DSB. That is, countries are mandated to attempt to resolve issues among themselves before bringing them to arbitration. This prevents overuse of the system and maintains its integrity. TRIPS is the most effective IP agreement that has ever been conceived. It covers a great number of issues in depth, and it uses logical mechanisms for enforcement and protection. However, it is possible that it does not adequately address pharmaceuticals, that is, it overprotects pharmaceuticals to the point that they are unavailable to poorer countries. It would be worthwhile for the Committee to examine the data on how medicines are brought to poor countries and consider the effectiveness of the Agreement.
- 11 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

TRIPS and Pharmaceuticals As of 2003, approximately 80% of the world’s population, an estimated 5.3 billion people, lived in developing nations (“Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights” 15). The struggles of these nations to lift their populations to higher standards of living are dramatically hindered by the prevalence of deadly communicable diseases: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria (“Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights”). “Diseases of poverty,” defined as communicable diseases, maternal complications, and nutrition-related ailments, account for over half of the burden of disease in low-income nations, nearly ten times higher than that found in developed nations. In Africa, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, in conjunction with other diseases of poverty, have caused an increase in the death rate for populations between the ages of 15 and 60; while mortality rates in this age group have been in a state of steady decline in all other parts of the world except for Eastern Europe. The WHO projects that the burden of disease for noncommunicable diseases will continue to rise in developing countries through 2015 (“Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights”). The implications of the disparity in wealth between citizens of developed nations and the majority of the global population – those who reside in developing states – are enormous, egregious. The large income variations between developing nations, along with differing disease burdens, political will, and treatment capacities, make any one public health policy impossible (“Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights”). Per capita expenditures on pharmaceuticals varies by a factor of 100 between developing nations (US$ 4) and developed nations (US$ 400), and it is estimated that only 15% of the world’s population consumes 90% of pharmaceutical production by value (“WHO Medicines Strategy 2004-2007”). Everyday nearly 300 people die from HIV/AIDS in Kenya largely because of the high cost of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Médecins Sans Frontières and Action Aid have estimated that nearly half of the Kenyan populations lives on less that US$1 a day; not nearly enough the cover the costs of ARVs protected under TRIPS and Kenya’s Industrial Property Act of 2004 (Sihanya 1). This is a situation that is in sharp contrast to developed countries like France, where high quality and readilyavailable medical care is standard. Over 95% of individuals are covered by the national healthcare plan and receive full benefits on a wide range of medicines and treatments (Sandier 8). In developed countries without socialized medical systems, like the United States, the statistics are similar. It appears to be wealth that determines the availability of medical care. Vast disparities in income and healthcare expenditures mean that people in developing nations may not have access to essential care, and will certainly not have access to more expensive treatments. There are several reasons why problems with access to medical treatment are so prevalent in developing nations. First, patents often directly affect pharmaceutical costs. Drugs, vaccines, and other treatments that are covered by patents are nearly always more expensive than their generic counterparts (Johnston and Wasunna 6). Many individuals in developing nations simply cannot afford certain treatments. Securing funding for access to essential medicines has been a main goal of the WHO since the inception of the Action Programme for Essential Drugs in the 1980s. This initiative was aided by several prominent NGOs like Health Action International (HAI) and the International Network for Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD). It was further revitalized when access to essential medicines was included in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (“WHO Medicines Strategy 2004-2007” 28). Though these programs have been successful in providing aid to impoverished citizens, egalitarian access to medicines remains a distant goal. Programs that provide drugs and information are not exactly legal by nature, but TRIPS does acknowledge them as being possibilities. Acknowledging the economic and technological disparities that exist between nations, TRIPS strives to provide greater equality of access. Article 7 of the Agreement strives to find this “balance of rights and obligations,” and protect IP rights “in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare” (“Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights”). Article 8 best reflects the central idea of the Agreement: public health should take precedence over patent rights. The clause empowers members to adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, implying that a nation should have the authority to
- 12 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

protect and improve the lives of its citizens. Article 30, however, does reinforce the importance of patent protection by listing criteria that must be met before exemptions are allowed (“Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights”). The extent to which Article 8 can be taken by states will clearly be a topic discussion for the Committee; the interpretation of this Article can mean the difference between a wide number of national policies. There are several safeguards that are built into TRIPS for the specific purpose of implementing Articles 7 and 8, but before we can understand the mechanisms behind these safeguards, we need a more specific understanding of how the TRIPS regime is constructed beyond the larger structural approach from above and with a greater emphasis on pharmaceuticals. Ultimately, TRIPS requires that WTO Member states harmonize domestic intellectual property legislation in accordance with international norms (Vogel 17). Patents are still fundamentally administered at the national level. TRIPS, however, standardizes patent protection within national legislatures. At the inception of TRIPS in 1995, over 40 nations had no patent protection for pharmaceutical products, and many others had inefficient and obsolete patent laws. Among those nations with no pharmaceutical protection were developing giants, Brazil and India. Prior to TRIPS these countries could use their own cheaper, alternative pharmaceutical industries to produce exact copies of drugs (“generics”) that were protected by patents in other countries. Generics are a much cheaper alternative for nations that cannot afford to purchase patented pharmaceuticals. Under TRIPS, however, all pharmaceutical “products or processes” must be protected under patent law. This policy threatens access to medicines in lower income countries; Brazil and India have large impacts on international healthcare, with India alone supplying nearly 67% of pharmaceuticals to lower income countries (Johnston and Wasunna 5). To limit the immediate impacts of the Agreement on developing nations, TRIPS was implemented in three transition tiers, depending on any given nation’s previous experience with patent systems. While transitional phases were designed as temporal flexibilities, TRIPS also includes a number a substantive flexibilities, many of which are designed primarily for minimizing the public health impact of the Agreement (Musungu and Oh 23). The primary public health-related substantive flexibilities include compulsory licensing; public, noncommercial use of patenting; parallel importation; exceptions to patent rights; exemptions from patentability; and limits on data protection (Musungu and Oh 24). Compulsory licensing is one of the most broadly used, applicable, and controversial flexibilities granted under TRIPS. A compulsory license grants a third party the right to exploit the production of a patented material without the consent of the patent holder. When an issue of public interest is deemed more important than protecting the rights a patent holder, national governments often grant a compulsory license (Musungu and Oh 34). This was in Brazil to address its HIV/AIDS epidemic. In addition to Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health further promotes the use of compulsory licensing in favor of preserving national healthcare and emphasizes national autonomy in determining what constitutes a national health emergency. The Declaration considers a national emergency to be, “public health crises, including those related to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics” (WT/MIN(01).DEC/2). Compulsory licenses are not exclusively granted in developing nations. Japan and Europe have extensive use of the alternative measure, with Canada possibly having the deepest history of compulsory licensing for pharmaceutical drugs. The United States also grants a large number of domestic compulsory licenses for government use and international compulsory licenses to address anti-competitive practices, or attempts to limit competition (Elbeshbishi 20). Although compulsory licenses may be allowed by TRIPS, there is a significant question as to their ramifications, both legal and economic. One of the major legal questions that remain is under what jurisdiction a compulsory license is granted. Compulsory licenses are generally granted by countries to fulfill a local requirement; this means that the countries themselves would have to produce whatever drug is in need. Since poor countries in need of drugs lag behind in technological development, they often cannot produce them themselves.

- 13 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

This barrier was addressed by the TRIPS Council in a report called “Implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health” of 30 August 2003. The report established an importation scheme for less-developed countries who do not have the technological capability to grant compulsory licenses and produce medicines in their own borders. It includes provisions for remuneration to the exporting country, which actually grants the license and produces the drug (WT/L/540). But this does not completely address the issue; it is fine to grant the licenses and provide the drugs, but the fact remains that the patent-holders are legitimately stripped of their rights to their innovation. The Committee must consider what remuneration schemes are available to the patent-holders themselves. The worst possible thing for the sick in poor countries would not be for pharmaceutical producers to refuse them access to the drugs, but for those producers to refuse to continue developing new drugs out of fear that they would not be compensated. For that is the purpose of patents in the first place; development costs for modern drugs can reach billions of dollars, and patents allow manufacturers to recoup that cost. To take away their right to the patent arbitrarily would stifle innovation and result in more deaths in the future. Because pharmaceutical companies engage in differential pricing for the same products in international markets, least-developed countries might “shop” the market to find the cheapest medicines. Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement makes this practice possible with the international exhaustion of rights, or when an inventor’s patent rights expire and his product enters the international market. This practice, also known as parallel importation, allows least-developed nations that are otherwise unable to produce their own pharmaceuticals to import drugs at prices that are far less than those being demanded by the original patent holders (Elbeshbishi 24). Here again emerges the issue of rights; when patent-holders are denied profit, what happens to their incentive to continue producing drugs? Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement provides the opportunity for generic drug makers to work around the patent of an object it seeks to reproduce, an exemption is known as the Bolar provision. The Bolar provision allows generic drug manufacturers to perform research and tests for regulatory approval before the end of the patent’s life. Generic drug manufacturers are then be poised to produce the product once the patent expires because all of the preliminary approval for the drug will have been completed (Elbeshbishi 12). This is an example of a specific legal exemption that should be utilized by nations seeking to establish a functional healthcare infrastructure. Finally, many nations lack the infrastructure to manufacture and distribute affordable medicines (Johnston and Wasunna 6). Without adequate domestic institutions, it is virtually impossible for individuals in any nation to access the drugs they need. Every year, millions die in African countries from preventable diseases; however, on average the governments of these countries spend only 3% of their gross national product (GNP) on healthcare (as opposed to the US which spends nearly 14% of GNP on healthcare) (Johnston and Wasunna 7). Additionally, without the proper legislative infrastructure, it is difficult for nations to take advantage of TRIPS flexibilities such as compulsory licensing and parallel importing (Musungu and Oh 37). It is difficult for the Committee to directly address this issue, as it is not within the purview of a Legal body, but it provides an appropriate context when framing legal solutions. CURRENT STATUS International IP law and global health has been in the spotlight in recent years, which adds volumes for our discussion. In May 2008, the World Health Assembly formulated a “Global strategy on public health, innovation and intellectual property,” stressing the urgency of facilitating R&D and formulated policies aimed to improve access to pharmaceutical products in developing nations (WHA61.21). These recommendations recognize the limitations set by the TRIPS Agreement as the primary statute governing the lawful distribution of pharmaceuticals to developing nations, and worked within this framework. Interpretive flexibility and the Doha Declaration are cited as the primary mechanisms by which developing nations can legally procure patented pharmaceutical products. The plan relies heavily on the action of national governments as well as international organizations to help coordinate these efforts. However, there are a number of governments
- 14 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

who lobby for very strict interpretation of the Agreement, which could present a barrier to interpretive flexibility. For the past ten years, Essential Action’s Access to Medicines Project has worked to overcome intellectual property restrictions and improve access to affordable medicine. The organization’s Global Access to Medicines campaign has been instrumental in influencing international policy and providing technical consulting to NGOs as well as national governments including South Africa, China, Indonesia, Venezuela, and Uganda (“About Essential Action’s Access to Medicines Project”). Another international healthcare initiative, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) publishes research and new ideas and helps nations create strong healthcare policies. These organizations have prestige and are respected by international policymakers, providing them with an outlet to push forward their novel ideas. For example, at the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Conference in June 2008, KEI presented suggestions and policy opinions in the opening remarks of the (“KEI Statement”). Essential Action released a report entitled “Patients, Patents and the Pharmaceutical Industry,” which detailed another factor of international IP law and access to medicines: lack of pharmaceutical transparency, or the power of private interest. The Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), established by WHO member states and other stakeholders, works towards improving access to drugs in the developing world and promoting innovation for new treatments. IGWG is extremely connected to the profit-driven pharmaceutical companies, with six of the seven board members directly from the brand-name pharmaceutical industry (“Patents, Patients and Pharmaceutical Industry” 2). Additionally in a 2007 web-based WHO public hearing on IGWG issues, NGO submissions from groups linked to the pharmaceutical industry outnumbered submissions from independent groups two to one (“Patents, Patients and Pharmaceutical Industry” 3). There is much at stake for these pharmaceutical companies and their involvement does have a place in drug intellectual property discussions; however, the international community should be mindful that the influence of highly profitable multinational corporations extends directly to the highest circles of international lawmaking, while the most vulnerable and sensitive populations are often the most powerless to influence policy. BLOC ANALYSIS Developed Countries Promoting Patent Rights (United States, W estern European states, and Japan) Within the developed world, three main patent systems predominate: the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO). As of 2003, these three patent offices were responsible for granting approximately 84% of the patents worldwide (DSTI/STP/TIP(2003)6 4). Pharmaceuticals play a significant role in their economies: they tend to support strict international laws pertaining to the subject (as well as strict interpretation of applicable laws), and they also favor the strengthening of IP rights related to pharmaceutical production and manufacturing. Stronger legislation would offer their private interests more opportunities for economic gains and innovation (DSTI/STP/TIP(2003)6 4). In addition, TRIPS proponents believe that introducing a global standard of IP rights in developing countries will benefit them in two ways; by encouraging citizens to partake in innovative endeavors, as well by attracting foreign direct investment. These three patent regimes share the same basic principles related to biotechnology patents: virtually any human invention with substantial utility and specific application is patentable, while biological materials found in nature are not; isolated or altered genetic material with a specific and useful function is patentable, while the mere sequencing of a genome is not (DSTI/STP/TIP(2003)6 13). Thus, nations with an abundant supply of natural resources from rainforests do not have the right to patent these natural resources, but rather the final product using these. OEPC nations strongly encourage an expedited harmonization of national law with international treaties, extension of subject matter, lengthened duration of protection, and scarcity of exemptions (DSTI/STP/TIP(2003)6 31).

- 15 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Developing Countires leading the fight to equal access (Brazil, India) From an international law perspective, the TRIPS Agreement has expanded the global middle-class. Nations that had little or no legal framework for IP protection prior to TRIPS, now have workable internal legislation that establishes parity across borders. Additionally, TRIPS have given some nations the power to fight back against the pressures of multinational pharmaceutical corporations and their host states. These flexibilities have enabled some developing nations to provide necessary drugs to their citizens. Brazil and India have been leaders among these developing nations for implementing TRIPS mandates and protecting national and regional health. High drug prices made necessary medication out of the reach for the average Brazilian patient. Recognizing the impact high costs levied on the Brazilian population, lawmakers began implementing progressive IP laws to reduce costs (Beihl 6). Through the combined efforts of local NGOs, political activists, grassroots organizations, and international development firms, Brazil became the first developing nation to provide universal access to anti-retroviral (ARV) medications (Biehl 4). While Brazil did not have any IP frameworks in place before TRIPS, today the nation successfully produces affordable generic drugs through the use of compulsory licensing, one of the TRIPS flexibilities and leads the Latin American region in pursuit of affordable medicine for all. Brazil, however, faced substantial difficulties in the achieving its goal of providing affordable medicines. In 2001, the US brought a case against Brazil’s national compulsory licensing laws, arguing that the Brazilian intellectual property law of 1996 was inconsistent with TRIPS. The US eventually withdrew its WTO panel after Brazil continued to insist that generic production of ARVs was vital to the public health of the nation, a practice explicitly covered by both TRIPS and the Doha Declaration. Brazil then threatened to issue a compulsory license against Roche pharmaceutical company. In response, the drug company agreed to lower the price of the drug Nelfinavir, an antiviral medication used in the treatment of the HIV virus, by an additional 40% (Elbeshbishi 12). Recently, Brazil issued a compulsory license on Efavirenz, which is also used as part of highly active antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV (Abbott 3). The success of Brazil’s compulsory license program is paramount to the success of other Latin American countries for resisting pressure from private interests and securing access to medicines (Abbott 12). India is another excellent example of how TRIPS can be effectively incorporated into the national policies of a developing nation. India supplies the majority of the developing world with pharmaceuticals. As a result, the regulations on generics are of extreme importance. India has invested greatly in R&D to build an internal basis of pharmaceutical IP (Commission on IPR 84). Success in India has served as a model for another emerging economy: China. In 2007, China was in the process of drafting the Patents (Amendment) Bill of 2007 in order to fully harmonize its national laws with the requirements of TRIPS (Cheung 5). China plans to invoke provisions of TRIPS for issuing compulsory licenses on imports as well as exports; R&D has already been a major Chinese focus and will likely continue to influence pharmaceutical distribution throughout the developing world (Cheung 6). Developing Countries Pursuing Bilateral Patent Agreements Several developed nations are choosing to implement bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) in order to secure more stringent IP protection across international lines. A majority of FTAs have originated from the United States and are largely focused on strengthening the protection of “originator” pharmaceutical industries beyond the provisions of TRIPS (Abbott 4). Notable US FTAs include NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, USSingapore FTA and US-Chile FTA. FTAs with Singapore and Chile are representative of a larger agenda to implement practices of TRIPS-plus (Sun 4). TRIPS-plus refers to a general trend among developed nations to seek more stringent protection of their intellectual property interests within developing countries. Developing nations must be very careful when entering bilateral or regional FTAs to ensure that these agreements do not negatively affect access to healthcare products (Commission on IPR126).

- 16 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Corollary to FTAs are the European Union’s Economic Protection Agreements (EPAs). EPAs mainly focus on trademarks and geographical indicators; however, EPAs are significant because they are further examples of how major developed nations are attempting to strengthen international IP protection through the formation of direct bilateral and regional agreements (Shabalala 5). Furthermore, the prevalence of EPAs and FTAs raises the question of TRIPS effectiveness. It is apparent that many developed nations do not see TRIPS as a strong protector of IP rights and industrialized economic interests and thus take the additional step of FTAs to protect its private interests’ rights even further. Sub-Saharan African nations are the most critically in need of IP law that facilitates the production and distribution of affordable medicines. The burden of disease in Sub-Saharan Africa, primarily due to the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, is much higher than in the rest of the developing world (“Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights” 4). In 2004, it was estimated that only 1% of individuals requiring ARVs actually received medication, and nearly 50% of the population does not have access to other essential medicines (Sun 5). The majority of African nations lack the research capabilities necessary to fully understand the diseases that affect their countries, the legal infrastructure to fully implement TRIPS and use its flexibilities, or the necessary means for national pharmaceutical production. Some nations including Morocco, Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa have established pharmaceutical industries and will likely continue to act as leaders among other African nations in the effort to secure medicines (Elbeshbishi 9). African nations wish to gain from importing low cost medications through the flexibilities granted under TRIPS. Generic drug manufacturing along with regional trade blocs will become increasingly more important for distributing medicines throughout the African continent, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe, where poverty and disease rates are very high. Southeast Asia in particular has attracted large amounts of foreign direct investment (FDI) from developed nations like the US and Japan. FDI has caused nations like Vietnam and Malaysia to move rapidly towards IP-based economies; however, most advancement in IP have related to trademarks, brand names, and some industrial designs. Weak R&D practices and poor manufacturing technologies necessitate drug importation rather than domestic drug production. Developing nations under these conditions will look to increase domestic pharmaceutical production; however, national economic advancement through industrial design and automobile manufacturing will likely remain a priority over pharmaceutical IP development. COMMITTEE MISSION The WTO and TRIPS have been cited as “the most comprehensive legal regime ever concluded at the multilateral level in the area of intellectual property rights” (Lanoszka 3). As a result, this legal framework has a tremendous influence on humanity, particularly in its impact on medical-related IP and global health. It is the role of the Sixth Committee to first assess to what degree this treaty has been effective in protecting intellectual property; then determine whether or not it allows for international access to medicines. Methods of harmonization of national law with TRIPS will be a critical aspect of debate. The rights of patent-holding pharmaceutical corporations will be a central theme because of the enormous leverage these companies have in the production and pricing of medicines. Additionally, the Committee must consider the political and economic climate within many nations as both of these factors directly relate to the enforcement of IP law as well as access to medicines. Particular areas of interest to the Committee include: the philosophical and legal bases behind compulsory licensing and parallel-importation, the legal rights of pharmaceutical companies over their products, the legal definition of a national emergency requiring a compulsory license, and the shortcomings in TRIPS. The Committee is charged with trying to identify areas in the Agreement like these that require improvement and to make recommendations to the TRIPS Council of potential changes and implementation. Global health indicators demonstrate the need for essential medicines within nations that are unable to afford drugs or produce their own pharmaceuticals. Our challenge is a unique one: not only must we understand the burden of disease within many nations and regions around the world, but we must also understand how to address relevant national and international law to ensure that individuals have access to medicines. Policy
- 17 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

decisions made in our forum will shape the health of the developing world for generations to come. It is not a simple question of international law, politics, or economics, but instead of life and death. In order to effectively address this issue, the Member States of our Committee will develop and implement an international platform that ensures the integrity of innovation and the right to health.

- 18 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

BUILDING ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS
TOPIC B "It is neither the time nor the place for superfluous words. ... The time has come when we must settle our account." –Georges Clemenceau, Paris, 1919 INTRODUCTION Accountability is at the core of all laws and the heart of any effective organization. It provides the people who organizations serve with recourse for injustice, and it serves as a check on the organization’s power. The United Nations is the world’s largest international organization, and it was founded in large part to bring accountability to the actions of the world’s countries. It has done much in this realm, playing a role in the production of many important pieces of international law that relate to accountability. But like any organization, the UN has made missteps in the past, and a lack of effective oversight has led the UN to deviate from its fundamental goals in practice. In recent years, the UN has come under criticism, facing numerous accusations, from the ineffectiveness of the Secretariat to the abuses committed by field workers. One of the most famous cases, the Oil-for-Food scandal, surfaced in 2004, and from this, the organization has demonstrated its inability to prevent cases of corruption in its own programs and staff, let alone within the borders of its Member States. The UN bears the burden of maintaining peace and international security, and it must enhance its own accountability and transparency in order to work towards attaining these goals. Allowing its field workers and delegates to be involved in corruption, sexual abuse, or worse weakens not only the individual missions in which these cases occur, but also the organization as a whole. Clearly, the ineffective or illegal practices of the UN should not be tolerated by its Member States. Without the confidence that the UN is operating efficiently and within the bounds of the law, Member States will not offer the support the organization needs to accomplish its goals. If the UN fails to accomplish its missions and goals, Member States will be very hesitant in the future to support further action, and the UN’s ability to achieve peace will be neutered. Clearly, rebuilding trust in the UN is necessary, and one of the most effective ways to do that is by building greater accountability into the organization. Here, we are not concerned about occasions when countries disagree with the UN’s decisions or resolutions, but rather, we are concerned with the mismanagement and poor execution of those decisions in the the actions of countries, organizations, and individuals involved in implementing the policy and holding them accountable for their actions. The first step will be for the UN to contain the corruption from its past missteps, and then recover its reputation by reinstituting a zero-tolerance policy for future violations. If the UN is to serve as a forum for world citizens to make decisions, UN employees must abide by the highest standards of ethical conduct. Improving accountability is the first step to reinvigorate the faith that these countries have lost in the UN as a result of past scandals. It is now the task of the Sixth Committee to rebuild accountability in the United Nations. This will require a keen understanding the historical context of accountability within the organization, as well as the mechanisms by which accountability can be successfully restored. Accountability is necessary for the future of the United Nations, and every Member State has a vested interest in seeing that this issue is thoroughly addressed. This guide will give an overview of this topic’s major components. It will begin by discussing the purpose behind the League of Nations and United Nations, particularly with regard to accountability. It will then proceed to give a summary of major mistakes the UN has made in the past with regard to accountability, analyze possible ways to improve accountability, and conclude with the current status of the topic. This guide is expected to be only the first step in delegates’ research; it is a requirement that delegates research thoroughly, so that they can create innovative and unique solutions for this issue.

- 19 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

HISTORY AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE The Origins of Accountability The League of Nations On 28 June 1919, the leaders of the Allied Powers and Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles to end the First World War. The events of the war had proven that traditional theories of international relations, based on alliances and the balance of power, were no longer effective in maintaining peace (Stromberg). Through this realization, the idea of collective security was born. President Woodrow Wilson formalized the concept of collective security in his Fourteen Points to restoring peace, and one of the central points was his proposed “League of Nations” (Finch 4). This League would become a world forum for countries to conduct negotiations and prevent future conflict. Foreseeing areas in which the League could be tainted by corruption and deception, Article I states that the body should achieve “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at,” with diplomacy proceeding “always frankly and in public view” (“The Fourteen Points”). The Covenant of the League was drafted by the victors of the War, and it produced an organization that at first largely served their interests. But after its founding, the League continued to grow throughout the 1920s. As defeated powers like Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, and Germany finally joined, the “League of Victors” became a true “League of Nations” (Rappard 5). While many former neutrals powers were also quickly joining, absent still was the United States. Enforcement of the Treaty, particularly the provisions directed to Germany war reparations, was primarily left up to the French and British. Though the United States, through President Wilson, had been central to the treaty negotiations, US involvement in its implementation and enforcement was virtually non-existent (Sharp 2). Unfortunately, the Treaty and the League were flawed from the start. Allied powers demanded that Germany pay massive reparations, with little attention paid to how the Treaty would actually be enforced or how the Germans would respond to these mandates (Sharp 1). What the allies had deemed as a “peace of justice,” the Germans condemned as the “victorious violence of our enemies,” causing social, economic, and physical damage to Germany (Lu 10). The Treaty’s failure was also seen in the League’s inability to adhere to its own mandate of collective security. For example, on three separate occasions, the Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Emperor Haile Selassie I supplied the League with undeniable evidence of Fascist Italy’s war crimes within Ethiopia. Between 1935-1936, the Italian army used poison gas and bombed Red Cross hospitals and ambulances in Ethiopia. In response, the Ethiopian Emperor requested that the SecretaryGeneral of the League establish an Inquiry Commission to investigate the crimes. However, the League took no action, failing to fulfill its declaration to collective security, determined by Articles 10, 11, and 16 of its Covenant (Pankhurst 2). The United Nations On 18 April 1946, the League of Nations Assembly adjourned for the final time, which officially terminated the League of Nations and formally transferred all of its assets and properties to the United Nations (Goodrich 1). The League’s shortcomings became evident in its inability to prevent the Second World War, and the UN was formed in reaction. While it was heralded as a symbol of change and renewed faith in the strength of international law, its basic principles and practices were similar to those of the failed League. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations are functionally based in voluntary cooperation. Each Member has the inherent obligation to remain accountable for its own actions. More specifically, neither the United Nations nor its subsidiary organs have the authority to make decisions binding on members without their consent, with the exception of one body and the most fundamental difference between the two organizations, the United Nations Security Council (Goodrich 7). The League Covenant provided that any threat of war, whether or not the affected state was a member, justified appropriate response measures. Furthermore, each member had the right to bring any matter concerning international peace and security before the League Assembly (“Covenant of the League of Nations”). In order for the League to take action, all states had to agree. Therefore, it was possible for aggressor states to veto action within the Assembly with regard to their own crimes, as was the case with
- 20 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Japanese aggression in Manchuria in 1931 and Italian war crimes in Ethiopia in 1935 and 1936 (Goodrich 8). However, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council is granted the exclusive power to impose binding resolutions on Member States without their consent, eliminating the League’s problem of mandatory consensus (Goodrich 8). The veto is restricted to the five permanent members: France, People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Disapproval from any of these powers blocks the passage of a binding resolution (“Membership”). The fact that some countries still retain a veto is an issue that mars the Security Council to this day. Accountability is built into the UN system via a body that conducts audits and serves as a check on the activities of the body. It is critical that the Committee understand the purpose and function of this body; it would be impossible to formulate solutions to the obvious problems if the existing framework is not incorporated into those solutions. The Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is led by an Under-Secretary-General and established on 28 July 1994 by GA resolution 48/218B (“About Us”). The Office assists the Secretary-General in overseeing UN operations, resources, and staff through audit, monitoring, inspection, and evaluation. It issues more than 200 reports and more than 1,500 recommendations each year to improve internal controls. The Office covers all activities under the Secretary-General’s purview, which includes the Secretariat, regional commissions, peacekeeping operations, and the Funds and Programmes administered by the Secretariat. The Fifth Committee reviews the functions of OIOS (“About Us”). OIOS principally focuses on the elimination of waste of the UN’s resources, and it is divided into three main divisions to execute this: Internal Audit, Investigations, and Inspection and Evaluation. It has certainly achieved much since 1994; it has eliminated 1,000 unnecessary staff positions, set up a 24-hour hotline for cases of fraud and waste, exposed waste and fraud totaling $250 million, issued 5,000 recommendations, and operates with a budget of only $17 million a year. OIOS has an impressive 80% rate of implementation for its recommendations (Reddy). However, challenges still remain. A report commissioned by the Under-Secretary-General leading the organization in 2007 describes major problems with the Investigations Division, with incompetent staff, the absence of a legal and administrative infrastructure to support the Division’s work, the mismanagement of human resources, and the general disrespect of staff (Girodo 17-8). Critics also point to the OIOS philosophy of pure oversight as a major problem; there is little work done in risk prevention. That is, OIOS is currently reactionary and not preventative, and this could lead to the abuses described later in the paper (Reddy). Clearly, the Committee will have to address these challenges to rearm OIOS with the power it needs to carry out its mandate. The OIOS is the UN’s major mechanism for ensuring accountability in its operations, but the Secretariat occasionally sees fit to appoint independent commissions to supplement its work. One such example was the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in April 2004 to investigate the serious mismanagement of the Oil for Food program. The IIC was unique in that it was not technically a UN office; it had independent authority to investigate the issue and UN personnel were directed to cooperate fully. The IIC published a series of reports on the Oil for Food program and subsequently shut down in 2006 after completing its mission (“About the Committee”). The independence and supreme authority of the Committee clearly had a large part to play in its success; the Committee should bear this in mind when considering solutions. The United Nations is not lacking in oversight mechanisms; the Secretariat has a number of tools it can use to ensure that UN operations are not mismanaged. With this knowledge in the mind, the Committee should examine examples of specific mismanagement and seek to identify the challenges that exist and what can be done to improve the existing infrastructure, or to create an entirely new one.

- 21 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Issues with Accountability The UN has faced a number of challenges in the recent past with regard to accountability. What follows is a discussion of the most prominent cases; the Sixth Committee should learn from these and use them as examples of possible scenarios that any accountability plan will encounter. Peacekeeping Maintaining the rule of law within the United Nations and its member states is paramount to the success of the organization. Since 1948, the UN has implemented 63 peacekeeping operations missions worldwide. In response to an ever-changing international sociopolitical landscape, the scope and practice of UN peacekeeping operations has evolved in various conflicts, whether by establishing the rule of law within many conflict-stricken countries or regions, monitoring ceasefires in internal conflicts, or stabilizing situations between two great powers, as seen during the Cold War. Peacekeeping missions operate in conflict areas to mitigate tension, using a multi-dimensional approach with political, social, economic, and military tactics. While the UN sponsors human rights legislation, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under what legal jurisdiction UN peacekeepers fall under is sometimes ambiguous. They are acting under the UN banner, which confounds matters because the UN is not a state, but they are also sent by Member States of the UN, who are subject to international law and national laws. Without clear jurisdiction, there are no clear means to keep these peacekeepers accountable, bringing the credibility of the UN’s protection of human rights during peace operations into question. Though we would expect that the UN would hold itself accountable for its humanitarian practices, history has proven us otherwise. The alleged torture committed by Canadian, Belgian, and Italian peacekeepers in Somalia demonstrates this (Megret and Hoffman 13). Abuses have occurred in places other than Somalia. There have been widespread allegations of abuse by MONUC peacekeepers in the Congo, with charges of sexual misconduct being very widespread. An Indian battalion of peacekeepers allegedly used children as domestic servants and for prostitution. There have been 140 specific cases of peacekeepers implicated in prostitution or sexual abuse in 2004-2006, and there have also been accusations of gold smuggling and weapons trading with Congolese rebels. Although a group of Indian soldiers have returned home, allegations continue to surround the mission and no criminal charges have been levied (Kakala). Other peacekeeping troops have been accused of abuse as well. Major General Emmanuel Karake Karenzi is a Rwandan general serving as deputy force commander for the UNAMID, the UN peacekeeping operation in Darfur. In February 2008, a Spanish judge charged Karenzi and 39 other Rwandans with a 1998 killing of 334 civilian ethnic Hutus and several aid workers (“Rwandan”). In Haiti, one-tenth of a contingent of Sri Lankan peacekeepers was sent home after being accused of buying sex from underaged girls, with no other punishment (Lee). This is not to say that it is impossible to try to bring these people to justice. A French citizen who worked as a mechanic for missions in the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1998-2004. He is currently on trial in a Paris court, charged with raping 20 young girls, along with allegations of possession of pornography. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted (“French”). The Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia in 1992-1993 provide another example of how the international community is powerless even when there are flagrant violations of human rights by UN forces. From rules of engagement failures, the beating to death of a teenager in custody, and other actions did not warrant attention by the ICC or any other international regime. Only Canadian law could be applied and only at the behest of the Canadian government. A report by the Canadian Department of Defense, which by its own admission was "curtailed" with "important questions remain[ing] unanswered", found significant failures in accountability and discipline among its forces deployed to Somalia (Eggleton).

- 22 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Accountability in Peacekeeping Several schools of thought exist as to how international humanitarian law could apply to UN peacekeepers. The “External” conception suggests that the UN, as an organization founded on principles of international law and thus a subject of international law, is customarily bound to international law, including human rights standards, and thus cannot invoke their non-party status (Shermers 824). The “Internal” theory proposes that the UN is bound to international human rights laws because it promotes them through its own internal constitutional and judicial order (Megret and Hoffman 4). In other words, the UN is obliged to these principles in its pursuit to realize its own purpose (Stavrindes 38). As suggested by its name, the “Hybrid” philosophy combines aspects of these two theories, stating that the UN is “transiently” held to the standards of human rights law to the same extent to which its members are bound (Megret and Hoffman 5). Since these are not mutually exclusive theories, these three schools of thoughts must be supported by proper international legal mechanisms to hold the UN fully accountable for any human rights violations that may occur during peacekeeping operations (Megret and Hoffman 5). The UN must serve as an international model of good governance and accountability because of the great importance of peacekeeping missions in establishing international peace and security. Delicate situations that necessitate peacekeeping forces also necessitate great care, but if missions are implemented with a high sense of accountability, they can prevent minor violence and skirmishes from spiraling back into war (Fortna 10). To accomplish this, UN peacekeepers must become bound by some measure of international law, and it is up to the Committee to determine what they may be. Successful peacekeeping operations lie at the core of the UN’s mission to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Charter of the UN). Recognizing the importance of these missions, former SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan invoked the expertise of the Panel on UN Peace Operations to conduct a comprehensive review of the standing missions and provide suggestions for improving the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) in 2000. The Panel’s findings reinforced the notion that accountability on all levels, from Secretariat members to those in the field, was central to the success of the DPKO, as well as to the organization as a whole (A/55/305-S/200/809 18). Further, the report noted the importance of Member States’ support and assistance in training and equipping their own forces (A/55/305-S/200/809 17). Peacekeeping operations are good case studies for demonstrating the importance of accountability. Oil for Food The UN initiated the Oil for Food Programme (OFFP) to provide humanitarian relief necessities to an Iraqi public that had been crushed by the international sanctions on Saddam Hussein. Under the auspices of OFFP, the Iraqi government was permitted to sell oil to bona fide traders in exchange for the ability to import food and other supplies to civilians (“A Brief History of the UNOFFP”). Over the duration of its mandate, the OFFP facilitated the export of US$64.2 billion of oil from Iraq to 248 companies. In turn, 3,614 companies sold US$38 billion of commodities to Iraq (Report on Programme Manipulation). The success of the Programme could be found in the numbers. The OFFP supplied 27 million people with food, increased the average daily caloric intake by 83%, and cut malnutrition nearly in half (“Frequently”). Even with these successes, the OFFP resulted in massive amounts of corruption. The mismanagement of the OFFP allowed Saddam Hussein to embezzle US$4.4 billion through pricing irregularities and an additional US$5.7 billion through illegal oil smuggling (“Frequently”). In April 2004, Secretary-General Annan and the Security Council charged the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) with comprehensively reviewing the management of the OFFP (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 6). Through this review, the Committee exposed senior officials and field workers guilty of corruption (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 7). However, there were less obvious issues that led to faulty results. The OFFP was the largest and most complex humanitarian effort ever constructed by the United Nations, and it became obvious under the IIC review that scale of the program was a major factor in its mismanagement. Differences among member states slowed decisionmaking, allowed illicit smuggling, and worsened weak administrative practices within the Secretariat. In addition, the program lacked a framework of controls and auditing mechanisms to monitor any cases of fraud or mismanagement (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 6).
- 23 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

However, not all illicit revenues resulted from OFFP fraud or mismanagement. Conditions within the program allowed for US$13.1 billion of illegal oil smuggling (“Myths and Facts”). Jordan, Turkey, and Syria were primarily involved in the illegal trade of Iraqi oil because of the disproportionate effects of the Iraqi sanctions. The inactivity of the Security Council and the special 661 Committee (a special committee composed of Security Council members to oversee trade with Iraq) with regard to the smuggling situation may have also had drastic effects. Despite the increased smuggling outside of the Programme and Jordan’s repeated requests for the UN to officially authorize oil imports from Iraq under Article 50 of the Charter, the 661 Committee was blocked from action by the constraints of consensus-based decision making, as well as external political pressures applied by Member States like the United States, Russia, and France (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 37). The political ambitions of member states were key decision-making factors that reduced the accountability of the Programme. In 2001, the United Kingdom and United States sought to expand the OFFP by implementing new arrangements to limit and control all Iraqi border trade. However, China, France, and Russia supported the interests of the affected border nations, which ultimately defeated the proposal (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 38). We see here the effects of the poorly designed and operated 661 Committee: the principle of decision making by consensus, while based on ideals of equality, became selfdestructive. Subsequent inaction served to embolden the illegal states. After Syria joined the Security Council in 2002, and automatically. the 661 Committee, it was able to veto any inquiry by the Committee (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 38). Audits and management oversight are necessary tools for accountability within the UN. Throughout the OFFP, the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and the Internal Audit Division (IAD) concluded 55 internal audits and produced three summary reports regarding Programme performance, administration, and procurement. But the majority of the audits were concerned with field matters rather than official administrative practices in New York. Audits also failed to review and test the execution of oil purchase and humanitarian aid contracts; such examination may have limited the illegal Iraqi oil trade (Internal Audit Reports on the UNOFFP 5). Furthermore, audits were critically lacking in the first few years of the Programme (5). Internal oversight of the nine UN-related Agencies responsible for administering the OFFP was also lacking. Eight of the nine Agencies’ auditing committees were chaired and staffed by insiders rather than independent members. As the Programme increased in size, the 661 Committee raised concerns about maintaining transparency and accountability; the Office of the Iraq Programme was generally met with resistance when obtaining Agency audits (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 61). Poor audit performance seems to have deprived the UN of important tools of accountability (“Internal Audit Reports of the UNOFFP” 5). Ultimately, there was no sense of holistic accountability for the OFFP. Though there were many individual agencies and offices responsible for operating and reviewing the Programme, as reported by the US Government Accountability Office and numerous other official reports, “no single entity was accountable for the program in its entirety,” (“Lessons Learned from Oil for Food…” 19). The Security Council failed to define the broad parameters, policies and administrative responsibilities of the Programme, and neither the Security Council nor the Secretariat had total control of the OFFP. Saddam Hussein was thus able to manipulate the Programme in his favor because of the internal “absence of clear lines of authority and reporting” (19). The IIC noted in its Official Report in 2005 that there also “appears to be a pervasive culture resistant to accountability and prone to escaping responsibility,” within the Secretariat and the Organization as a whole (Volcker, Goldstone, and Pieth 66). Lack of internal accountability in the case of the OFFP had major consequences for the UN from operational and moral standpoints. Success of the United Nations ultimately relies on the cooperation of its member states. Remember that similar to the League of Nations, the United Nations, except through the Security Council, cannot mandate compliance from Member States. However, when member states join the UN, they vow to uphold and promote the aims, values, and principles of the organization. Without the support and respect of its member states, the United Nations would fail as an international organization. In the interdependent world we live in today, the issues felt and actions taken by each member state affect every other state within the organization,
- 24 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

and ultimately the organization itself (Young 726). Similarly, tolerance of corruption or mismanagement of any UN program will erode at the accountability all programs in the system, and ultimately deteriorate the organization’s value. M echanisms for Improvement Despite the obvious issues with accountability in the UN system, there are mechanisms for improvement. Fact-finding missions are an effective way of assessing a peacekeeping operation’s legality and an essential aspect of operations in two respects: they provide crucial information for conflict prevention, and they review the progress of standing peacekeeping missions (A/55/305-S/200/809 22). Those focused on the latter are instrumental in reviewing the efficacy of standing operations. For example, in 2001, the former SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan ordered a fact-finding mission to investigate video footage recorded by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) after the abduction of three Israeli Defense soldiers by Hizbollah across the “Blue Line,” a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel, drawn by the United Nations for the purposes of determining whether Israel had withdrawn its military forces. The investigation brought into question the impartiality of UN Peacekeeping forces, as well as the strength of field communication. Investigators found that there was no breach of impartiality, while there were several critical gaps in communication. Though there was no evidence of UN foul play, the safety of several individuals on the ground clearly suffered from the lack of internal communication (“Report”). A professor at United Nations University released a policy brief called “Accountability and the United Nations System,” which outlined the issue of UN accountability, as well as ways to improve accountability. The report separates managerial accountability and political accountability into two different issues. The managerial side is concerned with project management at all levels, from the Secretariat to field workers. Political accountability takes a larger look at the issue, and it focuses on accountability from individual organs and organizations affiliated with the UN (Fowler 4). There have been consistent questions about accountability in both respects, and both aspects of the issue must be addressed if the UN is to survive in the 21st century. The brief proposes that each organization formulate a strategic plan for increasing both its managerial and political accountability, set goals and benchmarks for achieving that plan, and develop an implementation plan (Fowler 5). Enhanced transparency is a requirement for this scheme to succeed. With reevaluations, this framework would constantly be improving accountability, as there would always be some sort of strategic goal to accomplish, and it would be clear to the rest of the world what needs to be done. CURRENT STATUS Accountability has been a major theme in the Sixth Committee in recent years. In 2007, the Committee discussed several items related to accountability, including: responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, the rule of law at the national and international levels, and the administration of justice at the United Nations. Each of these items demonstrates different levels at which the UN recognizes issues pertaining to accountability. In order to rectify these issues and strengthen the UN as a whole, the Legal Committee Each year, the UN holds the UN Treaty Event to provide an opportunity for States to sign or ratify treaties while at the General Assembly’s General Debate at the UN Headquarters. The goal of the event is to raise awareness about the importance of participating in multilateral treaties (Zimmerman). This is a simple, yet necessary step towards promoting accountability within the UN. Unfortunately, several notable treaties were left off of the agenda in 2007 including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; both of which are prominent treaties in the realm of international cooperation and accountability (Zimmerman). If these contentious treaties are not supported by more Member States, their legitimacy will be limited and their effect will be the same.

- 25 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

The third meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Criminal Accountability convened in April 2008 to discuss aspects of international cooperation outlined by the Group of Legal Experts in A/60/980. Host state and non-host state investigations, UN investigations, notification and reporting mechanisms, on-sight investigations, and mechanisms of mutual assistance were discussed among many other topics related to peacekeeping reform (A/63/54 9). Representatives of the OIOS and Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) were also present and responded to questions posed by the Working Group. Though the meetings were an essential step in reforming peacekeeping operations and internal accountability, the report of the Working group was far from conclusive. There must be more work done on major issues of internal governance. BLOC POSITIONS M ajor Contributors to UN Operations Those Member States who are major contributors to UN operations, both in financial terms and also in terms of manpower for peacekeeping or assistance operations, will be very concerned with the mismanagement of their resources. Lack of accountability will undermine the operations that these states spend so many resources on, and they will be looking for determined action to ensure that future missteps do not happen. These states will look closely at the OIOS and look for ways to improve the existing infrastructure; as major constituents of the UN, they have no incentive to argue for a fundamental change in the system. By working within the system, they have the potential to shore up their own influence and maintain their position of dominance. M ajor Recipients of UN Assistance Those Member states who are major recipients of UN assistance, with significant operations within their borders or simply taking in monetary or other forms of aid, will also be concerned with the mismanagement of resources. Often, abuses and waste will have a negative impact on the people in these countries, and national governments will take whatever steps necessary to protect their people. This is tempered by the fact that local officials and citizens can often profit from corruption and mismanagement; although these states nominally support reform, they will be wary of action that places their governments under too much scrutiny. For this reason, they are more likely to support fundamental changes in the UN oversight system. The OIOS wields a great deal of power to investigate and audit; perhaps a new organization would both deal with the problem of accountability while still allowing these states to retain sovereignty. M oderate Donors and Recipients These Member States both contribute to UN operations and receive aid, which places them in the unique position of having both constituencies represented. These states will take a moderate position, neither supporting great reform nor blocking it. COMMITTEE MISSION The Sixth Committee of the General Assembly is charged with the task of reviewing relevant international law that governs both the internal actions of the United Nations and the policies of Member states for the purpose of building a high level of accountability within the Organization. How can we ensure that all facets of the United Nations operate with accountability under the rule of law? Internal reform will undoubtedly be a major topic of debate. Past allegations of corruption among high-level officials and human rights violations on missions must be rectified through fundamental reform of oversight and accountability mechanisms. It is also important that UN officials and workers alike are held to the same standards of behavior and performance indicative of its status as the world’s premier international organization. Member states must also realize that their actions have consequences throughout the
- 26 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

international community; corruption undermines the UN’s ability to conduct operations in any respect, and it should be stamped out. Member states must also work together to limit the effects of rogue state agendas and demand accountability from fellow members of the international community through improved treaty processes and methods of enforcement. Security Council reform should also remain high on the agenda as a means of building accountability through equality. This issue, however, is not just a simple matter of UN reform, but a fundamental question of the UN’s function. Without strong methods of ensuring accountability across all levels of the Organization, the United Nations will cease to exist as a body of international peace and justice. Only through diligent focus and determination to improve the efficacy of the Organization will the Sixth Committee create a strong and lasting culture of accountability within the United Nations. The fact that the issue of accountability remains in the UN demonstrates that there was no clear definition of what accountability really means and what mechanisms are required to achieve it. For the purposes of the Sixth Committee, accountability must include a number of things. First, all parties must be treated equally. The principal of “rule of law” by definition requires that no one is above judgment or reproach, and this must be incorporated into any UN reforms. If some countries or officials in the UN system are untouchable, the organization as a whole loses credibility and there is no hope of accountability. Second, accountability must require consequences. To be able to truly hold someone accountable for an action, there must be a mechanism to enforce some measure of punishment on guilty parties. In this regard, non-binding resolutions or reprimands are not enough. There must be incentives against acting illegally or irresponsibly, and legitimate punishments would go far to create them. Third, UN policy on this must be clearly spelled out. If the organization wishes to continue meeting challenges in the 21st century, it cannot afford to ignore the issue and deal with it with the same ambiguity it has in the past. A clear definition of policy for the UN would lead to similar policies for other international organizations; it is the UN’s role to serve as a world leader, and it is time that it starts acting like one.

- 27 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

RESEARCH AND PREPARATION QUESTIONS
As mentioned in the Note on Research and Preparation, it is imperative that delegates answer each of these questions in their position papers. TOPIC A 1. 2. 3. 4. What problems, in any, do individuals in our country face with access to medicines? What has your country done to harmonize its national IP law with the provisions of TRIPS? Is TRIPS adequate in its balance of IP laws and public health? Why or why not? How does your country view the use of bilateral and regional FTAs and related regional agreements aimed at implementing a TRIPS-plus system? Do pharmaceutical companies have too much lobbying power? What solutions does your country propose to facilitate access to medicines while preserving IP rights?

5.

TOPIC B 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Has the United Nations ever conducted a specific mission within the borders of your country? To what extent are binding international agreements, i.e. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, enforced within your country? Does your country contribute to United Nations Peacekeeping forces? Why or why not? What does your country see as the role of Security Council reform in enhancing accountability within the United Nations? Should more efforts be focused elsewhere? Why or why not? What specific measures would your country propose for building accountability at all levels of the United Nations?

- 28 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS
The following documents have been hand-selected by Directors to further aid in delegate preparation. Please make a concerted effort to read and analyze these documents prior to the conference. TOPIC A Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Most comprehensive international IP legislation ever created. It is the central topic of discussion of patent law and access to medicines. Governs the distribution and patent of pharmaceuticals. What is Intellectual Property? PublicationNo. 450(E). World Intellectual Property Organization. Provides official definitions and examples of intellectual property from WIPO. WT/MIN(01).DEC/2. World Trade Organization. Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Doha Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS. Important amendment to TRIPS that makes specific provisions for public health. Aimed to assist developing nations. TOPIC B Fowler, Michael, and Sumihiro Kutama. Accountability and the United Nations System. Issue briefNo. 8. United Nations University. 2007. Very important report defining accountability and giving some potential solutions to the problem. The most detailed and clear document that has been produced on the topic. Girodo, Michel. A Culture Review of the Investigations Division of OIOS. Office of Internal Oversight Services. United Nations. Report commissioned by OIOS about the investigation division. The report uncovers significant shortcomings in the division and its practices. Volcker, Paul A., Richard J. Goldstone, Mark Pieth, and Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. The Management of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. Vol. 1. 2005. Comprehensive report by the Volcker Commission and the Independent Inquiry Committee on the management practices of UN officials and relevant governmental and non-governmental parties involved in the OFFP. Implicates poor program design, mismanagement, and disagreements between Member states in the scandal. .

- 29 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

BIBLIOGRAPHY
COMMITTEE HISTORY “Charter of the United Nations.” 26 June 1945. <http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/> 10 June 2007. Provides the foundation of all action undertaken by organs of the United Nations and outlines the basic human rights guaranteed to all citizens of the international community. “Consensus, Not Confrontation Sought Over Controversial Issues in International Law.” UN Chronicle Online Edition. 2004. United Nations. 10 June 2007. <http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue1/0104p30.asp> Outlines the emphasis on cooperation that exists in the sixth committee in addressing the complicated issues associated with codifying international law. “Legal Committee: Strengthening the 'Rule of Law, Disciplining Peacekeepers and Protecting the . 2006. United Nations. 10 June 2007. Environment.'” UN Chronicle General Assembly Coverage. <http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/webArticles/ga/6qa.htm> Provides the text of an interview with H.E. Juan Manuel Gòmez Robledo, the chair of the Legal Committee. TOPIC A UN Sources "A unique contribution." 10 Oct. 2008. World Trade Organization. <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm>. Website detailing the WTO’s enforcement mechanism. “Agreement between the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization.” 17 December 1974. Agreement that incorporated WIPO into the United Nations. Outlines the relationship and objectives between the UN and WIPO for IP advancement. “Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.” 15 April 1994. Most comprehensive international IP legislation ever created. It is the central topic of discussion of patent law and access to medicines. Governs the distribution and patent of pharmaceuticals. “Chapter 5: International Treaties and Conventions on Intellectual Property." WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. 240-364. Provides a detailed analysis of international treaties and conventions on intellectual property. Analysis includes historical context, international involvement, problems, function and many other aspects of the treaties. “Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights.” Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health. Chicago: World Health Organization, 2006. Extensive report that addresses many issues in public health around the world and relates them to intellectual property laws. Demonstrates how economics, politics, health, and law are interconnected. DSTI/STP/TIP(2003)6. Overview of Recent Trends in Patent Regimes in United States, Japan and Europe. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 3 Jun 2003. Overview of recent activity in the world’s three major patent regimes. Information from these three systems indicates activity in many other patent frameworks around the globe. "Intellectual property: protection and enforcement." World Trade Organization. 10 Oct. 2008 <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm>.
- 30 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Website detailing the TRIPS Agreement and providing excellent information on the structure and functioning of the Agreement. WHA61.21. “Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property.” 28 May 2008. Action plan by the World Health Assembly to promote and facilitate R&D in developing nations for pharmaceutical production. References TRIPS as the primary body of international law governing pharmaceutical patents. What is Intellectual Property? PublicationNo. 450(E). World Intellectual Property Organization. Provides official definitions and examples of intellectual property from WIPO. WHO Medicines Strategy 2004-2007. Geneva: WHO, 2004. Statistics on global healthcare. Highlights particularly problematic diseases regions and peoples at risk, and potential solutions to access to medicines. Closely links poverty and poor health. World Health Statistics 2008. World Health Organization. France 2008. Detailed statistical analysis of major health indicators around the globe. Important for assessing the demand for medicines and analyzing the links between poverty, health, and medicines. WT/MIN(01).DEC/2. World Trade Organization. Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Doha Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS. Important amendment to TRIPS that makes specific provisions for public health. Aimed to assist developing nations. WT/L/540. World Trade Organization. Implementation of paragraph 6 of The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Document discussing rules for the implementation of compulsory licenses referenced in the Doha Declaration. Non-UN Sources Abbott, Frederick M. "The Problems of Intellectual Property and How to Address Them." Workshop on Experiences in the Implementation, Administration and Use of Trade Agreements in Latin America. Panama City. 20-21 June 2007. Details about regional and bilateral FTAs in Latin America. Overall trends of how developed nations seek out protective partnerships with developing nations. “About Essential Action’s Access to Medicines Project.” About Us – Access to Medicines Project. Essential Action. 17 Sep. 2006 <http://www.essentialaction.org/access/index.php?/categories/2-About-Us>. Information about the Access to Medicines Project under Essential Action. Example of an international organization that is focused on improving access to medicines. "A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States." A History of the Patent Law of the United States. Ladas and Parry LLP Intellectual Property Law. 11 June 2008 <http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html>. Offers information about the early origins of patent law in Europe and how these early ideas influenced the development of United States’ patent law. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. World Trade Organization. WTO Analytical Index: TRIPS. World Trade Organization. 25 Aug. 2008 <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/trips_02_e.htm#100>. Text of TRIPS accompanied by analysis and real-world examples. Valuable tool for understanding the intricacies of the Agreement.

- 31 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Biehl, Joao. "Pharmaceuticalization: Aids Treatment and Global Health Politics." Anthropological Quarterly 80 (2007): 1083-126. Poject Muse. Case study of Brazil’s transformation from having no patent system to being one of the IP leaders of the developing world. Detailed account with many personal anecdotes. Cheung, Peter K F. Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health: Practice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 20 Jul. 2007. Information about the future of China’s patent system and efforts to better harmonize its patent system with TRIPS. Access to medicines is a major concern. Elbeshbishi, Amal N. TRIPS and Public Health: What Should African Countries Do? Rep.No. 49. Trade, Finanace and Economic Development Division, African Trade Policy Centre. 2007. Report offers good insight into how African countries have dealt with trade law in the past and what they should do in the future with respect to access to medicines. Good references and examples to other transitioning economies around the world. Essential Action. Patients, Patents and the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Pharmaceutical Industry Ties of the Organization "Patients and Patents," and the Signers of the "Patient Declaration on Medical Innovation and Access" Essential Action. 28 Apr. 2008. Report detailing the connection of IGWG officials to the pharmaceutical industry. Brings up questions about the transparency of international organizations and the pharmaceutical industry. Han, Ji-Young, and Kwang-Chul Jang. Impact of the Intellectual Property System on Economic Growth: Country Report - Korea. WIPO - UNU Joint Research Project. Country-specific history and analysis of IP law within Korea. Relates IP law to economics. “History of Patents.” History of Patents. UK Intellectual Property Office. 11 June 2008 <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-ourorg/about-history/about-history-patent.htm>. Provides the history of patent system development in England, beginning with the very first patent granted. Johnston, Josephine and Angela A. Wasunna, “Patents, Biomedical Research, and Treatments: Examining Concerns, Canvassing Solutions.” Hastings Center Report 37.1 (2007), 1-36. Report provides insight into the effects of patent laws on access to medicines, with good examples of where medicines are lacking and how patents influenced the situation. Kato, Hiroshi, and Futoshi Yasuda. Impact of the Intellectual Property System on Economic Growth: Country Report - Japan. WIPO – UNU Joint Research Project. Country-specific history and analysis of IP law within Japan. Relates IP law to economics. “KEI Statement at WIPO Standing Committee on Patents.” Knowledge Ecology International – KEI Statement at beginning of WIPO SCP. Knowledge Ecology International. 23 Jun. 2008 <http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=185&Itemid=1>. Organization promoting access to medicines gives opening speech at WIPO committee on patents. Demonstrates how intertwined medicines, social welfare, and patents are. Kranakis, Eda. “Patents and Power: European Patent-System Integration in the Context of Globalization.” Technology and Culture 48. (2007): 689-728. Analysis of how international patent law came to be Europe, explaining how globalization and patent law are interconnected. Lanoszka, Anna. "The Global Politics of Intellectual Property Rights and Pharmaceutical Drug Policies in Developing Countries." International Political Science Review Vol. 24, No. 2 (2003): 181-97. JSTOR. 12 June 2008.
- 32 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Excellent analysis of TRIPS and why it is revolutionary. Provides details about the significance of the Uruguay Round and the effects of IP law on global health. Machlup, Fritz, and Edith Penrose. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century." The Journal of Economic History Vol. 10 No. 1 May (1950): 1-29. JSTOR. 22 June 2008. Informative account of pro-patent and anti-patent movements in Europe leading up to the implementation of the Paris convention of 1883 and subsequent international patent law. Musungu, Sisule F., and Cecilia Oh. The Use of Flexibilities in TRIPS by Developing Countries: Can They Promote Access to Medicines? Rep.No. 4C. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health. Review of the use of TRIPS flexibilities in developing countries. Explains TRIPS provisions and terminology very well. "Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT") (1970)." Patent Cooperation Treaty. World Intellectual Property Organization. 22 Aug. 2008 <http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/treaty/about.htm>. Information about the history and important aspects of the PCT. Details on the revised application process and current participants. Sandier S, Paris V, Polton D. Health care systems in transition: France. WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Copenhagen: 2004. Detailed discussion of the transitioning French healthcare system in 2004. Provides a good basis for comparison with healthcare systems of developing nations. Shabalala, Dalindyebo. Intellectual Property in European Union Economic Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries: What way Forward after the Cariforum EPA and the interim EPAs?. Center for International Environmental Law. April 2008. Clarifies the use of Economic Protection Agreements (EPAs) by the European Union as a corollary to FTAs. The European demonstrates similar tactics for securing IP as the US and other major patent systems. Sihanya, Ben. Patents, Parallel Importation and Compulsory Licensing of HIV/AIDS Drugs: The Experience of Kenya. World Trade Organization. Managing the Challenges of WTO Participation: Case Study. World Trade Organization. 25 Aug. 2008 <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case19_e.htm#context#context>. Case study on how Kenya has dealt with implementing TRIPS and challenges of balancing IP law and access to medicines. Specific discussion of compulsory licensing and HIV/AIDS medications. “Statute of Monopolies 1623.” Office of Public Sector Information. 22 June 2008 <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1623/caep_16230003_en_1>. First national patent law. Shows the origins of modern patent legislation as well as the same problems that still exist today. Sun, Haochen. “The Road to Doha and Beyond: Some Reflections on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.” EJIL. Vol. 15, No. 1 (2004) 123-150. Discussion of the factors that prompted the formulation of the Doha Declaration. Emphasizes the lack of access to medicines and the difficulty for developing nations to legally obtain the necessary amount of medicines. “Tudors and Stuarts.” History of Patents. UK Intellectual Property Office. 11 June 2008 <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-ourorg/about-history/about-history-patent/about-historypatent-tudor.htm>. Discussion of the role played by the English royalty, at the time of the Tudors and Stuarts families, in granting patents and monopolies. Vogel, Carsten. "The Impact and Implications of TRIPs in a Knowledge-based Global Economy: A Developing Country's Perspective." Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Review Vol. 2, No.1 May (2006): 47-70.
- 33 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Insight into how international IP laws, namely TRIPS, affect developing countries. Details some relationships between developed nations and developing nations over patent disputes. “What is Intellectual Property?” World Intellectual Property Organization. 18 June 2008 <http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/>. Excellent overview of the definition of intellectual property from WIPO. "WIPO Treaties - General Information." Treaties and Contracting Parties: General Information. World Intellectual Property Organization. 20 June 2008 <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/general/>. General information about the history of treaties leading to the formulation of WIPO. World Trade Organization - in brief. World Trade Organization. Geneva: WTO, 2008. History and policies of GATT and WTO. Breaks down roles of WTO and how the organization formulates and implements laws and agreements. TOPIC B UN Sources A/55/305-S/200/809. Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects. United Nations. General Assembly Security Council. 21 Aug. 2000. Secretary General Kofi Annan calls upon Member states and the internal Organization to take their responsibilities seriously to reform peacekeeping. Thorough analysis of how peacekeeping could be improved in the year 2000. A/62/4. Report of the International Court of Justice. United Nations General Assembly. New York 2007. Role of the ICJ in international dispute settlement. Input of the court in agenda items of the 62nd Session of the General Assembly. Addresses the topic of promoting the rule of law internationally and the powers of the court in dealing with international treaties. A/63/54. Report on the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission. United Nations General Assembly. 11 Apr. 2008. Discusses the findings of the Group of Legal Experts. Report addressed many aspects of accountability, but was said to be overall inconclusive. More questions on accountability arose. "About the Committee." Independent Inquiry Committee. <http://www.iic-offp.org/about.htm>. Excellent FAQ discussing in detail the composition, appointment, and results of the Independent Inquiry Commission. A valuable example of an alternative method of oversight. "About Us." United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services. 2008. 12 Oct. 2008 <http://www.un.org/depts/oios/pages/about_us.html>. Website detailing the inner workings of the Office of Internal Oversight Services. The OIOS is a critical part of the UN organization that provides audit and investigation services. Charter of the United Nations. 1946. Legal framework of the UN through which all UN works are granted legitimacy. Important transition between the Covenant of the League of Nations and modern collective security. Fowler, Michael, and Sumihiro Kutama. Accountability and the United Nations System. Issue brief No. 8. United Nations University. 2007. Very important report defining accountability and giving some potential solutions to the problem. The most detailed and clear document that has been produced on the topic. Girodo, Michel. A Culture Review of the Investigations Division of OIOS. Office of Internal Oversight Services. United Nations.
- 34 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Report commissioned by OIOS about the investigation division. The report uncovers significant shortcomings in the division and its practices. Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. Internal Audit Reports on the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. 2005. Comprehensive review by the Independent Inquiry Committee on the success of internal audits during the OFFP. Critical of the lack of audits preformed by the OIOS on UN administrative practices, and the lack of audits in the early stages of the program. Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. "Summary of Report on Programme Manipulation." Report on Programme Manipulation. 1-8. 2005. Brief summary of an extensive report prepared by the Independent Inquiry Committee on the manipulation of the OFFP. Provides details of how Hussein manipulated the program in his favor and why he was able to do so. Includes information about the actions of other nations and the UN. “Membership in 2008.” Membership of the Security Council. United Nations. 19 Jul. 2008. <http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp>. Description of the membership rights and privileges within the Security Council. Includes rotating and permanent seats. Search option can track membership since the beginning of the UN. "Principles of the trading system." World Trade Organization. 13 Oct. 2008 <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm>. Website discussing principles of trade, specifically, most-favored nation status and national treatment. Critical to understand these basic principles before proceeding. “Report of the fact-finding investigation relating to the abduction of three Israeli soldiers on 7 October 2000 and subsequent relevant events.” 2 Aug. 2001. <http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/videorpt.htm>. Press release discussing a UN fact-finding mission into the actions of UN and non-UN officials during the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Good insight into how fact-finding missions operate and their potential ramifications. Volcker, Paul A., Richard J. Goldstone, Mark Pieth, and Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. The Management of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. Vol. 1. 2005. Comprehensive report by the Volcker Commission and the Independent Inquiry Committee on the management practices of UN officials and relevant governmental and non-governmental parties involved in the OFFP. Implicates poor program design, mismanagement, and disagreements between Member states in the scandal. Non-UN Sources "A Brief History of the United Nations Oil for Food Programme" Oil-for-Food: Facts. United Nations Foundation. 20 July 2008 <http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/history.aspx>. Provides general information about the UN Oil-for-Food Programme. Helpful for understanding why the program was initiated, what it accomplished, and why it became so controversial. Eggleton, Art. Report of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry. Somalia Commission of Inquiry, Minister of Public Works and Government Services. 1997. Report issued by the Canadian government on the activities of Canadian peacekeepers operating in Somalia between 1992-1993. Finch, Geo A. “The Peace Conference of Paris, 1919.” The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 13, No. 2 April (1919) 159-186. JSTOR. 19 Jul. 2008. Information about Germany’s attempts to reconcile with the Allies prior to Paris. Mentions discussions between the US and Germany and how the peace accords came to be. Wilson’s ambitions with his Fourteen Points.

- 35 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Fortna, Virginia Page. “Interstate Peacekeeping: Causal Mechanisms and Empirical Effects.” World Politics. Vol. 56. July (2004) 481-519. Project Muse. 22 Jul. 2008. Accountability of peacekeepers is necessary for actually maintaining peace. Feels the UN must serve as a model of conduct. Good governance within the UN promotes accountability internationally. "French UN man in child rape trial." BBC News. 9 Sept. 2008. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7607106.stm>. A news article on the case of a French mechanic who was employed by UN peacekeeping operations in Canada. The man is accused of raping 20 children, and he is currently under trial in a Paris court. "Frequently Asked Questions about the Oil for Food Programme." Oil-for-Food: Facts. United Nations Foundation. 20 July 2008 <http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/faq.aspx>. Answers common questions about the OFFP relating to the program mandate, success, scandal, and review. Clarifies misconceptions and provides unbiased analysis based on data and variety of viewpoints. Gierycz, Dorota. Transitional Justice - Does it Help or Does it Harm? Working paperNo. 737. Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt. 2008. Weighs the pros and cons of international criminal tribunals. Good information about past international tribunals as well as the ICC. Discusses policy differences that weaken the power of the ICC. Goodrich, Leland M. “From League of Nations to United Nations.” International Organization. Vol. 1, No. 1 February (1947) 3-21. JSTOR. 19 Jul. 2008. Traces the development and transformation of the League of Nations to the United Nations. Brings up the idea of accountability because of the voluntary nature of the international organization. Kakala, Taylor T., and Lisa Clifford. "JTW News - UN Sexual Misconduct Allegations Won't Go Away." Journal of Turkish Weekly. 15 Sept. 2008. <http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=59548>. Discussion of the allegations of sexual misconduct against UN peacekeepers in the Congo. Lee, Matthew R. "UN's Lack of Women in Iraq and Darfur, Sexual Abuse Cases Unanswered by UN Gender Advisers." Inner City Press. 18 Jan. 2008. <http://www.innercitypress.com/dpko1gender011808.html>. Discussion of sexual abuse allegations levied against Sri Lankan peacekeepers. Lessons Learned from Oil for Food Program Indicate the Need to Strengthen UN Internal Controls and Oversight Activities. Rep.No. GAO-06-330. United States Government Accountability Office. 2006. Report by the US GAO reflecting that there was no single entity that was held responsible for the OFFP. Reflects the importance of clandestine practices and internal UN oversight. Lu, Catherine. “Justice and Moral Regeneration: Lessons from the treaty of Versailles.” International Studies Review. Vol. 4, No. 3 (2002) 3-35. JSTOR. 19 Jul. 2008. Addresses the idea that reparations against Germany were far too harsh after the First World War. Classifies the peace as a “peace of justice” to indicate that the allies were motivated to punish. Megret, Frederic and Florian Hoffmann. “The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United Nations Changing Humans Rights Responsibilities.” Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 25 (2003) 314-342. Project Muse. 22 Jul. 2008. Questions the accountability of the UN with its own actions in peacekeeping operations. Interesting viewpoint that the UN may be violating some of its defining principles. "Myths and Facts." Oil-for-Food: Facts. United Nations Foundation. 20 July 2008 <http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/>.

- 36 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Clarifies the accusations made about the program and delineates between what are legitimate and illegitimate claims. Speaks largely about the true successes of the program which are often clouded by the scandal, and clarifies the conditions for illicit oil smuggling. Pankhurst, Richard. “Italian Fascist War Crime in Ethiopia: A History of Their Discussion, from the League of Nations to the United Nations (1936 – 1949).” Northeast African Studies. Vol. 6, No. 1-2 (1999) 83-140. Provides details of the Fascist atrocities in Ethiopia and how the League of Nations lost credibility because of inaction. Discusses the transition to the United Nations. Stresses the dangers of inaction against criminality. Rappard, William E. “The Evolution of the League of Nations.” The American Political Science Review. Vol. 21, No. 4 November (1927) 729-826. JSTOR. 19 Jul. 2008. Argues that the League of Nations had become more equal and representative with the inclusion of defeated powers in the mid 1920s. Discusses the impact of the US’s absence from the League. Reddy, Shravanti. "Watchdog Organization Struggles to Decrease UN Bureaucracy." Global Policy Forum. 22 Oct. 2002. 12 Oct. 2008 <http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/ngo-un/rest un/2002/1029watchdog.htm>. A news article discussing the accomplishments and challenges of OIOS. "Rwandan general accused of abuse." United Press International. 21 Sept. 2008. <http://www.upi.com/top_news/2008/09/21/rwandan_general_accused_of_abuse/upi15141222029761/>. A news article discussing allegations levied against the Deputy Force Commander of UNAMID, who was accused of aiding in a massacre in Rwanda. Schermers, Henry G. “International Institutional Law: Unity Within Diversity.” (1995) 824. Focuses on how UN can be held accountable under international humanitarian law. Presents the idea that customary law has the capacity to govern all international bodies including the UN. Sharp, Alan. “The Enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919-1923.” Diplomacy and Statecraft. Vol. 16 (2005) 423-438. Points out the flaws of the 1919 Peace of Paris and the difficulties of enforcing such a treaty. Makes the case that the treaty imposed unrealistic sanctions on Germany and was largely the result of vindictive, power-hungry nations. Stavrinides, Zenon. “Human Rights Obligations under the United Nations Charter.” International Journal of Human Rights. Vol. 3 (1999) 38-40. Discusses the “Internal” mechanism for the UN being accountable for its actions. Takes the philosophy that it is in the UN’s own best interest to follow the laws it creates. Stromberg, Roland N. “The Idea of Collective Security.” Journal of the History of Ideas. Vol. 17, No. 2, April (1956) 250-263. JSTOR 19 Jul. 2008. Discusses the changing policies of world leaders coupled with the media after World War I toward collective security. Collective security is seen as a novel idea. “The Covenant of the League of Nations.” The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 15, No. 1 Supplement: Official Documents, January (1921) 4-13. JSTOR. 19 Jul. 2008. Foundation and basic principles of the League of Nations. Contains many of the ideas that the UN is based on. This was a revolutionary document in developing the notion of collective security. “The Fourteen Points.” President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”. 17 Jul. 2008. <http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob34.html>.
- 37 -

The 2009 National High School Model United Nations

Legal Committee

Wilson’s main ideas for moving forward after WWI. Included provisions for a League of Nations and other ideas that were not backed by US Congress. Young, Oran R. “Interdependencies in World Politics”. International Journal. Vol. XXIV. 1969 p. 726. Illustrates the relationship between interdependence and autonomy in the global forum. Stresses the theory that autonomy decreases as interdependence increases. Events in one part of the world will ultimately affect countries and people in other parts of the world. Zimmermann, Dominik. "Focus 2007 - The Annual UN Treaty Event." 28 Sept. 2007. International Law Observer. 24 July 2008 <http://internationallawobserver.eu/2007/09/28/focus-2007-the-annualun-treaty-event/>. Annual event designed to give states the opportunity to sign and ratify treaties and agreements of which they are not already part of. Notes that several major treaties were left off of the agenda in 2007.

- 38 -