Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. This article outlines material from a longer study of the World Intellectual Property Organisation prepared for the Global Institutions (Routledge) series, and I thank the series editors for permission to draw on that study for this Global Monitor. 2. All membership figures are drawn from the WIPO Treaties – Contracting Parties database. 3. This period of the history of intellectual property is covered at length in Christopher May & Susan Sell, Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History (Lynne Rienner, 2005), ch. 5. 4. Ruth Gana, ‘Has Creativity Died in the Third World? Some Implications of the Internationalisation of Intellectual Property’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1995), p. 137. 5. Craig N. Murphy, International Organization and Industrial Change: Global Governance since 1850 (Polity Press, 1994), ch. 2 and passim. 6. As a result of the time constraints, none of the original members was able to ratify the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization before 1970, but in that year 20 states completed the process. 7. Arpad Bogsch, The First Twenty-Five Years of the World Intellectual Property Organization from 1967 to 1992, WIPO Publication No. 881 (International Bureau of Intellectual Property, 1992), p. 28. 8. Ibid. 9. Agreement between the UN and the WIPO, available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/agreement (accessed 19 December 2005). 10. World Intellectual Property Organization, Introduction to Intellectual Property Theory and Practice (Kluwer Law International, 1997), p. 30. 11. Ibid., p. 42. 12. Technical assistance and capacity building for intellectual property is explored at considerably more length in Christopher May, ‘Capacity Building and the (Re)production of Intellectual Property Rights’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 5 (2004), pp. 821–37. 13. Ibid. 14. Stephen Gill, Power and Resistance in the New World Order (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 132. 15. Ibid., p. 196. 16. Ibid., p. 177. 17. Much of this section draws on the work of William New at IP Watch and Sisule Musungu, both of whom have been keen observers of the political debates underlying the development of the Development Agenda. I am grateful to them both for their extensive reportage, little of which is explicitly cited here but has informed much that set out in this Global Monitor. 18. Brazil's previous major attempt in 1961 to raise these issues (at the UN) is discussed at length in Andréa Koury Menescal, ‘Changing WIPO's Ways? The 2004 Development Agenda in Historical Perspective’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 8, No. 6 (2005), pp. 761–96. 19. Sisule F. Musungu, ‘The WIPO Assemblies 2004: A Review of the Outcomes’, South Bulletin, No. 89 (15 October 2004), pp. 1–5. 20. The Development Agenda was reproduced in the South Bulletin, No. 88 (30 September 2004), and all quotes are taken from this source. 21. Sisule F. Musungu, ‘A Review of the Outcomes of WIPO Discussions on the Development Agenda Proposal’, Bridges, Vol. 8, No. 9 (October 2004), pp. 21–2. 22. See the elaboration reproduced in South Bulletin, No. 101 (15 April 2005). 23. May & Sell, Intellectual Property Rights, ch. 7. 24. Space precludes a full discussion of all the various proposals, but an overview can be found in Sisule F. Musungu, Rethinking innovation, development and intellectual property in the UN: WIPO and beyond, TRIPS Issues Papers: 5, Quaker United Nations Office, 2005, section 3.2.1. 25. Sisule F. Musungu & Graham Dutfield, Multilateral agreements and a TRIPs-plus world: The World Intellectual Property Organisation, TRIPs Issue Papers: 3, Quaker United Nations Office, 2003, p. 19. 26. Ibid., pp. 19–20. 27. Musungu, ‘The WIPO Assemblies 2004’. 28. William New, ‘Industry Concerned About Development Agenda at WIPO’, Intellectual Property Watch, 4 November 2005, http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php/125 (accessed 24 November 2005).