Intellectual property (IP) rights have long faced strong legitimacy criticisms. As the vaccine debates during the COVID-19 pandemic showed, IP is often seen as a problematic asset of powerful private companies and developed economies. This book addresses these criticisms by focusing on a renewed interpretation of the TRIPS – the key international treaty for IP. By combining international law analysis and political theory, this work presents the TRIPS as the structuring agreement of the international IP regime rather than treating it as a technical trade instrument. Drawing on the ideal of freedom defined as protection against domination, the book develops a legal philosophy of the TRIPS, revisiting its foundations and proposing a renewed interpretation of its key norms. This reframing highlights how the treaty can potentially provide consistency and foreseeability in a conflict-ridden global multilateral trade system where weaker trade partners are often at a disadvantage. This title is also available as open access on Cambridge Core.

‘The expansion of intellectual property rights through trade law is one of the most potent forms of globalization confronting nations. With remarkable clarity and scholarship Johan Rochel draws together philosophical and legal resources to produce an original interpretative framework for these rights. He shows how power can be checked and paths to justice opened. This is a profoundly important book.'

Peter Drahos - Professor Emeritus, European University Institute

‘In the innovative book TRIPS Foundations Revisited. Building a Resilient International IP Regime for Troubled Times, Johan Rochel breaks new ground. Focusing on core TRIPS provisions he identifies how two philosophies – republicanism (non-domination) and sufficientarian thinking (basic needs) – can and should influence TRIPS application and interpretation. Drawing upon the human rights to science and to self-determination, his argument on strengthening the interface between TRIPS and non-WTO legal instrument is convincing. While being normative, his analysis is transparent and he does not dismiss TRIPS, rather identifying TRIPS flexibilities that states should apply.'

Hans Morten Haugen - Professor, VID, Oslo