¿Soberanía tecnocientífica y ecos de la Guerra Fría? Política de compensación específica y ultracentrifugación de uranio en Brasil

Readers of Science should be grateful to L. Palmer and G. Milhollin for describing Brazil's intention to operate a new uranium enrichment plant, and the proliferation concerns this action arouses (“Brazil's nuclear puzzle,” Policy Forum, 22 Oct., p. [617][1]). If apprehension about global warming causes an expansion of nuclear power deployment during the next half century ([1][2]), it is vital to limit the spread of dangerous fuel cycle activities—enrichment and reprocessing—that can lead to nuclear weapons. Palmer and Milhollin suggest that if Brazil cooperates with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and presumably accepts the “additional protocol” for challenge inspections, Brazil will be a “good nuclear citizen,” and the United States and the rest of the world should accept Brazil's enrichment activity. We disagree. As we ([2][3]), and others, have argued, the proper policy is to avoid all new enrichment and reprocessing activity in non-nuclear weapons states and for nuclear supplier states to provide recipient states with internationally assured enrichment and spent fuel disposal services at attractive prices. This would begin with a “stay-put” period of 10 to 15 years, after which nations could reevaluate in light of nuclear power and nonproliferation developments. We should not adopt a policy toward Brazil that we are unwilling to accept for Iran and North Korea. The latter have brought to a head the shortcomings of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) implementation regime—these states employ the regime to move to the brink of a weapons capability within the treaty framework. Closing NPT loopholes needs urgent attention, and Brazil will jeapordize the possibilities for successful resolution if they move forward with their uranium enrichment plant. The argument that Brazil is not seeking a weapons capability has not always been true, and IAEA inspections are not an adequate safeguard against states that are seeking nuclear capability, such as Iran and North Korea. IAEA inspections are not sufficient for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons capability, and the United States will not be successful with a policy based on a chosen few—the United States and other nuclear weapons states—deciding which other nations can safely develop fuel cycle activities and which cannot. The United States should vigorously oppose the Brazilian enrichment plant and offer Brazil concrete incentives to abandon this dangerous course of action. Brazil faces a choice of being a spoiler in modernizing the NPT implementation regime or of being a leader in accomplishing that important end. 1. 1.[↵][4] The Future of Nuclear Power-An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2003) (available at ). 2. 2.[↵][5] 1. J. Deutch, 2. A. Kanter, 3. E. Moniz, 4. D. Ponoman , SURVIVAL , in press. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1104209 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text

This chapter focuses on industrial and intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights do not affect the principal legal position of the buyer, as a title can be acquired without any problems, and the goods in principle can be resold and the title retransferred to other parties. Industrial and intellectual property rights can impact the seller-buyer relationship, however, it has not sparked a wave of legal reform. The chapter also tackles the issue of non-conformity and CISG in terms of industrial and intellectual property rights. Moreover, the awareness of the buyer of the intellectual or industrial property right excludes the seller from liability.

The Safeguards Department of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducts inspections to assure the peaceful use of a state's nuclear materials and facilities. Because of limited resources for conducting inspections, the careful disposition of inspection effort among these facilities is essential if the IAEA is to attain its safeguards goals. This report describes an optimization procedure for assigning an inspection effort to maximize attainment of IAEA goals. The procedure does not require quantitative estimates of safeguards effectiveness, material value, or facility importance. Instead, the optimization is based on qualitative, relative prioritizations of inspection activities and materials to be safeguarded. This allocation framework is applicable to an arbitrary group of facilities such as a state's fuel cycle, the facilities inspected by an operations division, or all of the facilities inspected by the IAEA.

Global biological data poses particular challenges for organizing and managing intellectual property. Issues concerning the industrial property branch, such as patent protection, have generally not been the librarian's concern. However, for the librarian and information management professional specializing in the organization of biological knowledge, the knowledge domain includes intellectual resources eligible for industrial property rights protection. An intellectual resource can be deemed industrial property eligible for rights protection if the resource is a patentable invention and has an industrial application. Traditionally, libraries and natural history museums have been concerned primarily with the copyright branch of intellectual property as it pertains to access to intellectual resources. It is primarily the first sale doctrine and the fair use of copyrighted resources that enable libraries and museums to meet the educational and information organization and dissemination goals of their charter. With respect to the organization of biological knowledge, the intellectual property issues include the traditional issues surrounding the copyright branch as well as issues pertaining to industrial property protection. Access for current and future biological knowledge management has become more complicated. This is not to say that the intellectual property questions on the immediate horizon for biological knowledge management are necessarily new questions or are necessarily unique to the library and information science discipline. But the following issues concerning access to intellectual resources are new questions for library and information management practitioners and are of particular concern for those specializing in the organization of biological knowledge. The definition of biological objects is important for whether an intellectual resource falls under copyright protection or is eligible for industrial property protection. In other words, is the biological object a discovery or an invention? This definitional distinction is important because it affects whether the biological object is patentable and thus eligible for industrial property protection. That is, if the biological object is considered a discovery, then the biological object is not the scientist's creation. The creation of the scientist is the publication disclosing the discovery. Hence, copyright applies to the published findings and the protection of intellectual property rights is protection of the copyright. This protection is particularly important in biology where a person's name is associated as the authority for the first published treatment of a new species. On the other hand, if the biological object itself is considered a creation of the scientist, then the biological object is an invention and is a potentially patentable object. Whereas the scientist's publication disclosing the invention would fall under copyright protection, the issuance and protection of patents fall under the industrial property branch of intellectual property rights: the protection of intellectual property rights is protection of the industrial property, the invention. The classification of the biological object is not simply a matter of differing epistemological positions. A May 2002 Science article, "DuPont Ups the Ante on Use of Harvard's OncoMouse," details a recent intellectual property debate between private enterprise and academic scientific research where the biological object itself is a patented "mouse engineered to develop cancers." Another Science article, "Patents, Secrecy, and DNA," published in 2001, indicates "more than 25,000 DNA-based patents were issued by the end of 2000" on various genomics inventions, including patents for gene fragments and sequences. It is, as it were, a matter of the relations between publicly supported scientific research and commercial for-profit ventures in free-market capitalist economies. For the library and information management practitioner, the disposition of the biological object — whether it be discovery or invention — affects the approach to and management of access. For management of access to copyrighted creations, the first sale doctrine and fair use principle would certainly seem applicable guidelines. Although access to copyrighted creations becomes more complex when it involves property rights for physical objects in natural history museums. Museums may "own" (with caveats discussed below) the specimens in their collections but if these objects are digitized, the museums must claim copyright protection for the digital representations. Some museums may fear that even with the copyright protection regime, they may lose control over the value of their collections. In contrast, the organization of information to support patent protection of inventions would entail denying unauthorized access, as denial of access for unauthorized parties is the underlying assumption that makes patent protection possible. The Convention on Biological Diversity's "Report on the Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Implementation of Access and Benefit-Sharing" (www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/abs/abswg-01/official/abswg-01-04-en.doc) is exclusively concerned with the industrial property branch of intellectual property protection. The 2001 report makes plain that for international biological information networks, the most pressing intellectual property issues revolve around patents and patent procedures, adjudicatingcontesting claims for rights and protection, and trade agreements. All factor into decisions about the organization and management of biological knowledge, and all pertain to the commercial potential of biological resources. In addition, the Convention on Biological Diversity specifically focuses their attention on and makes recommendations for addressing the often-conflicting interests between developed and developing countries with respect to commercialization of biological resources. Natural history museums hold many specimens of species from around the world, as collectors from industrialized countries have aggressively gathered specimens from developing countries over the past 300 years. The potential financial consequences are enormous as many of these materials, such as botanical pharmaceuticals, are patentable. The Convention's Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit-Sharing identified four key intellectual property issues under their auspices: prior informed consent; traditional knowledge related to genetic resources; access and benefit-sharing agreements; and scope, prior art and monitoring. Library and information management practitioners would likely be concerned with all four, as each involves questions of information and knowledge organization and management. Prior informed consent pertains to incorporating patent application procedures for documenting "identification of the source of genetic material used in the development of subject matter which is to be protected by intellectual property rights" and "proof of the prior informed consent of the competent national authority of the provider country." Essentially, the panel maintained that holders of traditional knowledge and of the rights to innovations based on traditional knowledge must give informed consent prior to granting access to genetic resources, and that such consent must be documented. The panel's report on traditional knowledge related to genetic resources defines "traditional knowledge," discusses the limits of property protection for traditional knowledge and proposes the sui generis model for protection of traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge related to genetic resources is defined as "manifestations of knowledge and innovation" evidenced in indigenous creative practices, classifications systems, empirical observations and environmental management practices. Because of the collective nature of and lack of systematic documentation about traditional knowledge, the panel considered whether intellectual property rights are applicable to traditional knowledge; as argued by pharmaceutical industry interests, the panel recognized that intellectual property rights, in particular patents, could be viewed as and used toward protection of traditional knowledge. The panel recommended implementation of sui generis systems for protection of traditional knowledge rights. Among their proposals for legislation were the recognition of ancestral community rights; recognition that intellectual property rights can be collective; and the "distinction between the rights over genetic resources (where vested in the State) and rights over knowledge associated with such resources (vested in local and indigenous customs)." Components of sui generis systems for protection could include systematic documentation of traditional knowledge, traditional knowledge registries and various patent and innovation systems, all of which present opportunities for library and information science management. The panel discusses various access and benefit-sharing agreements at length, highlighting various possible arrangements between countries, industries, ministries and legal apparatuses. Access, for the Convention's purposes, tends to mean access to the actual genetic or biological resources for cultivation, harvesting and exploitation, and benefit-sharing means the protection of and compensation for the holders of intellectual property rights to such genetic or biological resources. In other words, access and benefit-sharing agreements pertain primarily to legal and binding financial arrangements between interested parties across the globe. How such legal and financial agreements affect library and information management practitioners seems to depend upon the particular situations as determined by employers, be they governmental, non-profit or for-profit organizations. Related to, but different than, prior informed consent is prior art. The Convention's panel and the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore are both exploring and advocating recognition that traditional knowledge be viewed as prior art. The categorization of traditional knowledge as prior art affords opportunities for library and information management practitioners to compile existing traditional knowledge literature; create registries for and repositories of traditional knowledge; and examine ways to improve search and access to traditional knowledge documents, collections and databases. This information could be organized around the species descriptions used in western taxonomy or in the taxonomy assigned by the holders of traditional knowledge about the species in the native environment. One of the most interesting intellectual property problems facing current and future biodiversity knowledge management concerns relations between developed and developing countries and involves repatriation of biological intellectual resources. While international and national policy decisions regarding repatriation are beyond the scope of the individual library and information management practitioner, the practitioner should be aware that repatriation law, agreements and treaties will have ramifications for organizing and providing access to biological resources. The global mission of many biodiversity projects to identify, name and classify the world's species certainly warrants attention to repatriation issues. The emphasis Global Biodiversity Information Facility ( www.gbif.org/GBIF_org/what_is_gbif) places on data repatriation suggests the issue is crucial for the successful organization and management of a global biodiversity information network. The repatriation of biological intellectual resources differs from the repatriation of refugees, of human remains and of cultural heritage objects typically housed in developed countries' museums and libraries. Whereas the actual persons, actual remains or actual cultural heritage objects are returned to their respective countries of origin, the actual biological specimens are not. Rather, as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) working group on biological informatics points out, with respect to biodiversity resources, repatriation concerns the repatriation of data generated about the specimen. In other words, a data surrogate replaces the original biological specimen as the object repatriated. The original biological specimen is held and maintained by the natural history museum, organization or institution that generated the specimen data. In this manner, the natural history museum seems to serve a custodial role, as opposed to explicitly claiming ownership of the specimen, although claims for ownership seem implied through maintaining possession of the original biological specimen. Data repatriation poses an intriguing problem not only for governors, ministers and administrators of state, but also for scholars interested in globalization, the world economy, geopolitics and post-colonialism as data repatriation makes evident the historical, political milieu in which the present state of biological knowledge is immersed, and perhaps, from whence it originates. For data repatriation to be successful, the data repatriated must conform to internationally recognized standards and exist in formats of demonstrable value to the country of origin. Moreover, the replacement of the original specimen with its data surrogate must be satisfactory to all international parties involved. This question will probably be asked of natural history museums in developed countries: if the data surrogate be the virtual equivalent of the specimen, why not repatriate the specimen to the country of origin, generally a developing country, and maintain the surrogate in the developed country? In principle, unlike cultural artifacts, it would be possible to gather another specimen of the same species from its native environment. It is probably an understatement to remark that identifying, naming and classifying all of the world's species is a gargantuan, utopian goal. But that is the goal toward which many in the biological sciences devote their working lives. Achieving progress toward that goal necessitates significant contributions from many allied disciplines and practitioners, including those that organize and manage access to all of the actual current and possible future intellectual manifestations of biological knowledge. While much work remains to be done and many unknowns have yet to unfold, one thing is certain: where there are intellectual resources to organize and manage, there are intellectual property issues that affect how the work of library and information management practitioners proceed. We need to be aware of the intellectual property issues debated, the many parties and varied interests involved, and the organizational and managerial possibilities for enabling the desired type of access. This is part of our contribution toward knowledge of our vast world. Gwen L. Williams is currently enrolled in the Master's program at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The article focuses on a comprehensive study of the procedure for acquiring rights to the industrial property. The author has attempted to determine the individual stages of such an administrative procedure. The procedural issues, in general, are considered and complex stages are identified. The problematic issues concerning the rights of the subjects of power authority, the terms of the examination for the objects are analyzed. There is a discussion on the amount of payment for such services. The principles of providing and signs of administrative services are described in detail. Comparison of the legal protection of industrial property rights and legislation on administrative services was carried out. The legal protection of each object of the industrial property right has its own characteristics. The legal protection of intellectual property is ensured by the norms: copyright and related rights (works of science, literature and art, performance, phonogram, videogram, speech transfer), the right to the results of scientific-technical creativity (discoveries, inventions, utility models, industrial designs, topographies of integrated microcircuits, plant varieties and breeds of animals, rationalization proposals, commercial secrets); rights to commercial designations (trademarks (marks for goods and services), geographical indications, commercial (company) name). The study focuses on the legal ways of acquiring the rights of the second and third group of industrial property rights. The subjects of intellectual property rights are the creator (creators) of the intellectual property right object (author, performer, inventor, etc.) and other persons who own personal non-property and (or) property intellectual ownership rights. The primary subject of intellectual property right is an individual. The primary subjects of property rights of intellectual property are also the employers of the person who created the object of intellectual property right in connection with the performance of official duties. Individuals and legal entities can also acquire the primary right of intellectual property by virtue of law. Derived subjects of intellectual property rights are legal successors to whom this right passes by virtue of law, contract or inheritance. Authors can be individuals regardless of their age, legal, social, political or another status.Differences between protection of copyright objects and industrial property rights associated with various types of objects of intellectual property rights and features of protection of rights in accordance with the Law on Copyright and Industrial Property Laws. The difference of legal protection to objects of copyright and industrial property rights is associated with various grounds for the emergence (acquisition) of intellectual property rights. The acquisition of intellectual property rights for an invention, utility model, industrial design, plant variety, the animal breed is certified by a patent. The acquisition of intellectual property rights for the layout of integrated circuits, a trademark is certified by a certificate. The receipt of a patent, a certificate for the relevant objects of industrial property rights, is connected with the conduct of an expert examination, established by law. This stage of the legal protection of industrial property is considered as an administrative procedure that has certain stages, requirements, formalized documents and definite rights, duties of participants in such procedures. Particular attention is paid to the regulation of administrative services in the sphere of acquiring the right to industrial property. Administrative service is the result of the implementation of power by the subject of administrative services provision at the request of an individual or legal entity, aimed at establishing, changing or terminating the rights and/or duties of such person in accordance with the law.

The article deals with the Agreement concluded in July of 2015 by the group of states “5+1” (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany, and special envoy of the European Union) with Iran on its nuclear energy program (called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPOA). It is argued, that despite some controversial points the Agreement as a whole is tangibly limiting, reducing and restructuring Iranian nuclear-technical assets, its development program, stockpile and quality of nuclear materials, and is prohibiting potentially military activities. Of special value is the broad and deep regime of transparency, safeguards and control by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which goes much further than the existing safeguards associated with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is underlined that objectively (regardless of Iranian intentions) manufacturing of nuclear weapon or some secret military activity of significant scale is practically out of question in Iran during the term of various provisions of the Agreement (10–25 years). As proved by the article, a crucial factor in reaching the JCPOA were the U.S. and European Union economic and financial sanctions, adopted against Iran in 2012. They led to the profound economic crisis, which brought the change of government at presidential elections of 2013, and eventually facilitated Iranian concessions (foremost, on the scale of uranium enrichment, deep underground enrichment complex, plutonium-producing reactor, and the scale of transparency). On the other hand, in contrast to American and Russian official statements, the unprecedented tensions between Russia and the West around the Ukrainian crisis since the early 2014 seriously weakened the unity and diplomatic dominance of the “5+1” group of states. Hence, it turned impossible to achieve still more far-reaching agreements on some principle issues (in particular, on the necessity for Iran to receive the approval of the “5+1” and IAEA for the parameters of its nuclear energy program justifiable by peaceful needs – as suggested by the Interim Agreement of November 2013). This has created a precedent for other states to claim the right for developing nuclear energy programs with dual purpose or suspicious elements without obligatory and plausible peaceful justification. It is also underlined, that the future impact of the Agreement on the global system and regimes of nuclear non-proliferation is unclear. The positive side is the JCPOA role in preventing the new war in the Gulf. The dubious aspect is that universalization of the limitations and transparency norms of the Agreement for the purpose of the Non-Proliferation Treaty enhancement is rejected by a number of states, foremost by Russia. It keeps to a tough position that the Agreement is exceptionally Iranian case, which is not applicable to other states, and in fact this point is legally fixed in JCPOA and IAEA documents. This Russian position is in line with its general stance against more restrictive interpretation of the NPT norms and against more intrusive IAEA safeguards. No doubt, in the foreseeable future, these issues will be a matter of serious controversies among states regarding the enhancement of the NPT and overall non-proliferation system and regimes.

The desirability and necessity of having a relook into the re-categorization of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defined High-Enriched Uranium (HEU) and Plutonium (Pu) by focussing on the relevance of strategic value/isotopic composition of the materials for re-categorization, for example, creating an intermediate category between the existing Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) and weapons-grade uranium (U-235 > 90 per cent) and re-categorizing plutonium into Weapons-Grade Plutonium (WGPU) and Reactor-Grade Plutonium (RGPU), specifying the content of Pu-240 in each case, had been suggested by various specialists. According to them, this re-categorization facilitates flexible IAEA inspection goals, does not compromise on safeguards efficacy and at the same time could result in reduced inspection efforts and costs. An assessment has been made from the available literature and it is possible to conclude that (i) only a relatively small enrichment effort is needed to enrich uranium with 20 per cent U-235 to weapons-grade uranium and (ii) non-weapons-grade plutonium can also be used in nuclear weapons. This article therefore argues that there is no need to change the existing IAEA categorization of HEU and Pu, and the current IAEA practices should continue for a more meaningful safeguards implementation. In addition, it is argued that technological advancements in safeguards verification, and pragmatic adaptation of integrated safeguards, state-level approach may bring about flexibility in safeguards approach. Further, it is suggested that with a large safeguards verification database at its disposal, the IAEA may take a decision on revising the value of Significant Quantity (SQ) without changing other criteria.

This paper describes a potential approach by which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might verify the nuclear-material balance at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) for the circumstance in which the IAEA inspections occur on an intermittent basis. The verification approach is a variation of the standard IAEA attributes/variables measurement-verification method. This alternative approach is useful and applicable at the Portsmouth GCEP, which will ship all its product and tails UF/sub 6/ to United States facilities not eligible for IAEA safeguards. The paper reviews some of the relevant results of the Hexapartite Safeguards Project (HSP), describes the standard IAEA material-balance-verification approach for bulk-handling facilities, and provides the procedures to be followed in handling and processing UF/sub 6/ cylinders at the Portsmouth GCEP. The paper then discusses the assumptions made in the approach, and derives a formula for the probability with which the IAEA could detect the diversion of a significant quantity of uranium (75 kg of U-235 in depleted, normal, and low-enriched uranium) if this method were applied. The paper also provides numerical examples of IAEA detection probability should the operator divert uranium from the feed, product, or tails streams for the Portsmouth GCEP with a capacity of 1100 tonnes of separative work per year.

In 1992, as part of its obligations under the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty, North Korea declared that it had earlier separated abut 100 grams of plutonium from damaged fuel rods removed from a 25 megawatt‐thermal (MWt) gas‐graphite reactor at Yongbyon. The plutonium was separated at the nearby “Radiochemical Laboratory.” Separated plutonium is the raw ingredient for making nuclear weapons, but 100 grams is too little to make a crude bomb. Following its inspections of North Korea's facilities, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that North Korea had separated more plutonium than it had declared to the Agency. However, the IAEA could not tell if the discrepancy was in grams or kilograms. Based on information gathered by intelligence agencies and IAEA inspections, North Korea may have already separated 6 to 13 kilograms of weapons‐grade plutonium, enough for one or perhaps two nuclear weapons. In spring 1994, North Korea unloaded the 25 MWt reactor. Our best estimate of the amount of ...

WEO Newsletter.

The article is devoted to the features of foreclosure on industrial property rights as a pledged item. The purpose of the article is to substantiate proposals for improving the legislative regulation of the procedure for foreclosing property rights of industrial property as collateral. The article investigates the special legal literature and the current legislation in the field of pledging industrial property rights and foreclosure procedures.Based on the study, generalized methods of foreclosure are inherent to secured industrial property rights: judicial — sale of pledge through electronic bidding, out-of-court — by concluding an agreement on satisfying the requirements of the pledge holder. All out-ofcourtmethods of collection are analyzed, based on them a method is proposed that will correspond to the nature of industrial property rights, namely, conclusion of an agreement on satisfying the requirements of a pledge holder. Also, in the article, considercases where the out-of-court method of foreclosure on property rights of industrial property cannot be applied, and foreclosure should only take place in a judicial proceeding, these cases are proposed to be fixed in the Law on pledges.Given the specificity of industrial property rights, certain proposals are proposed to improve the collection of such rights in the enforcement proceedings. Thus, the assessment of intellectual property rights requires a different approach than the assessment of things, so it is proposed to supplement Part 3 of Art. 57 of the Law of Ukraine«On Enforcement Proceedings» is such an object of valuation as property rights of intellectual property.In order to regulate the procedure for the realization and enforcement of industrial property rights, the legal bases for the transfer of these rights and their state registration require systematic refinement, in particular by supplementing the relevant state registers in the field of industrial property by such types grounds for the transfer of rights, such as: a fixed-price bidding act, an electronic bidding act, an ordinance and act of transfer of property to a debt collector, an agreement on satisfying the requirements of a pledge holder.The conclusions suggest amendments to the current legislation regarding the issues discussed above.

The urgency of the research on intellectual property in the context of creative industries, economy, and mindset is unquestionable in the context of innovation and information society. Industrial property is understood in its broadest sense and extends not only to industry and commerce as such but also to the agricultural and extractive industries and all industrial or natural products such as wine, grain, tobacco leaves, fruits, livestock, minerals, mineral waters, beer, flowers, flour. The purpose of the research is to conceptualise intellectual property in the context of creative industries, economy, and mindset (using the European Union as an example). Formation of article objectives: 1. Study the problems of industrial and creative property protection in the EU countries. 2. Identify the essence and directions of development of the institute of intellectual property rights. 3. Clarify the functioning of intellectual property rights. 4. Show the development of the creative industries sector and intellectual property rights. 5. Define creativity and creative thinking as a factor in creative industries and the creative economy. Historically, intellectual property law was a long process of appropriation of works of intellectual creation. This notion has changed over time; today, for example, the intellectual property generates significant revenues in its primitive industries and extends into increasingly broader areas. In the current state of affairs, intellectual property law has become much more complex. There is no harmonisation according to activity (copyright, related rights, patents, plant variety certificates, etc.) or country. Creative industries have been shown to produce (almost) systematically two types of products that can be exchanged in two different but interlinked markets: 1) goods and services with a strong ‘significant’ component; 2) the rights to express or embody ‘ideas’. We are interested in three constituent aspects of this construct of value to which intellectual property rights contribute: 1) the use value of these rights; 2) the exchange value, and 3) the market value of the goods and services to which they relate. The conclusion is that in the European Community context, intellectual property rights are perceived as instruments to dominate national markets, given the monopoly position they can confer on their owner. They are also seen as obstacles to intra-Community trade because of differences in the legislation of the Member States. Their application is contrary to the principle of free competition and the principle of free movement of goods and provision of services, which are the basis for the creation of a common market.

South Asia (SAARC) represents an interesting region to anyone who follows nuclear energy development. Out of the four Non-“Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty” States, two are in South Asia—India and Pakistan, both having civilian nuclear energy and weapons programmes. Apart from these two countries, Bangladesh has recently initiated setting up nuclear energy, and Sri Lanka is contemplating on the possible options. International Atomic Energy Agency has predicted that Asia will drive the nuclear energy growth worldwide, and in it South Asia remains an important element. South Asian countries are pursuing the civilian nuclear energy programme, even though it remains an option which is linked to international legal and regulatory scrutiny and compliance on security and safety, on the hope that in the long run nuclear power will be economically viable, less volatile than conventional fossil fuels which is currently imported draining massive foreign reserves, and above all environmentally friendly. The thrust towards nuclear power especially in SAARC has to be seen in this context. The chapter provides background of nuclear energy programmes in South Asia, tracks the legal, liability and regulatory regimes that are in compliance with international law, details individual countries liability and regulatory regime and concludes with a view that SAARC should work with a common approach with respect to nuclear safety and security.

The pros and cons of nuclear fuel recycling.

The article analyzes the concept of “industrial property rights” from the standpoint of modern civil doctrine and current legislation in the field of intellectual property. Based on the understanding of the legal nature of the subjective rights to the results of intellectual activity and the means of individualization as exclusive rights other than property rights, attention is paid to the conditionality of the term “industrial property rights”. The range of the objects of industrial property rights is determined on the basis of the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, taking into account some relatively new categories of intellectual property, which currently have legal protection. The objects of industrial property rights are divided into two groups: the results of human creativity in certain areas and the means of individualization of participants in civil turnover, goods and services. Attention is drawn into the differences between these two groups of the objects of industrial property, which are connected with the essence of these objects, the subjects of rights to them and the nature of these rights. The first group includes objects enshrined in the Paris Convention, such as inventions, utility models and industrial designs. Also, in modern conditions to this group of the objects of industrial property it is expedient to carry topographies of semiconductor products, grades of plants, breeds of animals, know-how. The second group of industrial property includes commercial names, trademarks and geographical indications. Although scientific discoveries and innovation proposals are formally classified by the legislation of Ukraine as objects of intellectual property, the position is expressed on the inexpediency of providing these objects with legal protection under intellectual property rights and, accordingly, classifying them as objects of industrial property rights. Although the cessation of unfair competition falls within the scope of the Paris Convention, it cannot be considered as an object of industrial property rights.