London Agreement Research Articles

The changing work of IPR attorneys: 30 years of institutional transitions

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are at the core of innovation studies. Patent attorneys and other IPR experts play an important role in drafting and filing processes yet we know little of their work. We conduct an exploratory case study to shed light on how IPR attorneys adapt to changes in institutions and competitive environment that overturn the fundamentals of their business. We focus on the sector's evolution in Finland from 1990 to 2020, and analyse the impacts of globalization, European integration, and digitalization. EPC, EUTM, RCD and the London Agreement are identified as significant changes for the industry. IPR register data and expert interviews show that the business has shifted from serving foreign clients filing in Finland to serving Finnish clients filing internationally, increasing the knowledge requirements of local experts. The filing volume has increased due to globalization while billing per filing has decreased. This has triggered the development of consulting services relating to technology strategy. We contribute by analysing the sector's evolution in a small open economy where start-ups typically aim at the global market from the start. Our study also highlights the need to integrate IPR attorneys into the literatures on appropriability and propensity to file.

Genesis of legal cooperation of international criminal courts with states

We are examining the Institute of Cooperation between international criminal courts and states. By analyzing international legal doctrine, we have identified the main stages of development in international criminal justice. The influence of the humanist values of the 19th century and various pragmatic views and principles of international criminal law norms evolved as part of the international legal system, introducing prohibitions on certain criminal activities, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, is shown.The Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals were considered crucial benchmarks in the evolution of international criminal law. The International Military Tribunal for the Trial of Major War Criminals of European Countries has until now been created, as follows from Article 1 of the London Agreement, to try war criminals whose crimes are not connected to a specific geographical location, regardless of whether they are prosecuted individually or as members of organizations or groups, or in one or another capacity. It is shown that both Tribunals were historically necessary to carry out retribution for mass crimes committed by high-ranking military and civilian officials of Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II. It was noted that both Tribunals were subjected to fair criticism - both from the participants and later - for the legal imperfection of their institutional basis, selective administration of justice, and the retroactive effect of some essential material norms of criminal law.It was analyzed that the institution of cooperation was revealed in detail in the activities of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (from now on - ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (from now on - ICTR). Thus, the ICTY and ICTR were created based on resolutions of the Security Council, which, acting in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter, decided that states should fully cooperate with these bodies of international criminal justice.The Department of Private International Law is shown as one of the divisions of the International Court of Justice, which, among other things, “resolves extremely important and nowadays most relevant extradition disputes and tries political criminals and anarchists. It was emphasized that the court should be independent, both from the parties whose case it decides and from any political movements and opinions in general.

TÜRK’ÜN MİLLÎ DAVASI “KIBRIS MESELESİ”NİN 1955-1967 YILLARI ARASINDA MUŞ BASININDAKİ YANSIMALARI

Kıbrıslı Rumlar, 1945’ten sonra Yunanistan’a bağlanma isteklerini açığa vurmuşlar ve 1950’den itibaren Yunanistan’dan da büyük destek görmeye başlamışlardır. Yunanistan, Kıbrıs’ın ilhakı niyetiyle konuyu Ekim 1954’te Birleşmiş Milletlere taşımış, burada sonuç elde edemeyince Ada’da şiddet olaylarını desteklemiştir. Bu destekle Rumlar, 1955’te İngiliz ve Türklere yönelik şiddet faaliyetlerine başlamışlardır. Kıbrıs’taki şiddet olayları ulusal basında olduğu gibi Muş basınında da öncelikli haber konusu olmuştur. Bu dönemde Muş basını Kıbrıslı Türklerin sesini duyurmak ve Muş halkını Kıbrıs konusunda aydınlatma görevini üstlenmiştir. Türk kamuoyunun baskıları üzerine, İngiltere’nin 30 Haziran 1955’te Türkiye ve Yunanistan’ı Kıbrıs meselesini görüşmek üzere toplantıya çağırması, 1923’ten beri Türkiye’nin Kıbrıs’ı İngiltere’nin bir iç meselesi olarak görme politikasından vazgeçmesine neden olmuştur. Demokrat Parti Hükümeti, Kıbrıslı Türklerin Ada’da huzur içinde yaşamalarını sağlamak için 1955-1959 yılları arasında aktif bir politika izlemeye başlamıştır. Bunun neticesinde Türkiye, Zürih ve Londra Antlaşmalarını imzalayarak Ada’da İngiltere ve Yunanistan’la birlikte garantör devlet durumuna gelmiştir. 1960’ta Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti kurulmuşsa da Rumlar, Kıbrıs Anayasasını görmezden gelerek Türklere karşı 1963 ve 1967 yıllarında kanlı saldırılar düzenlemişlerdir. Bunun üzerine Türkiye garantör devlet olma hakkını kullanarak müdahale etmek istemiş, ancak özellikle ABD’nin karşı çıkması yüzünden küçük müdahalelerle yetinmek zorunda kalmıştır. Bu dönemde genel Türk basınında olduğu gibi Muş yerel basınında da 1963 ve 1967 olayları çokça yer bulmuş ve ABD’nin Türkiye’nin müdahalesine izin vermemesi ABD’nin dostluğunun sorgulanmasına neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmada Muş’ta çıkan gazetelerin Kıbrıs’taki gelişmeleri Muş kamuoyuna nasıl yansıttığı ve olaylar karşısındaki tutumlarını ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla 1 Temmuz 1955-15 Aralık 1967 tarihleri arasında Muş’ta çıkan gazetelerinin nüshaları taranmış, Kıbrıs’taki gelişmeler, gelişmeler karşısında Türkiye’nin, uluslararası kuruluşların ve müttefik devletlerin tutumları ile ilgili manşetler, yazılar, değerlendirmeler incelenmiş ve gerekli yorumlar yapılmıştır.

Nuremberg modification of international crime and criminal responsibility of individuals

The article analyses the formation of the Nuremberg model of international crime, its origins and preconditions, the role of theVersailles Peace Treaty of 1919 and other factors. The author states that the inability to ignore the expansion of international crimemakes criminal responsibility unavoidable, and thus the experience of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals bear the fundamental meaning.Examined are the legal bases of the Nuremberg trial, the main problematic issues of discussion, in particular, the recognition ofcertain acts as criminal, procedural security of the accused, harmonisation of procedural rules of different legal systems (continental,Anglo-American, Soviet legal system), immunity of officials and especially the importance of the Nuremberg Trials for the furtherdevelopment of international criminal law. The author argues that individual international criminal responsibility, which should be consideredthe first most important feature of international criminal law, was formed during the Nuremberg Trials on the basis of customarylaw, general principles of law and normative sources: the London Agreement of 1945 “On Prosecution and Punishment of the majorwar criminals of the European Axis countries” and the Statute of the International Military Tribunal. The Nuremberg Trials of1945–1946 and the Tokyo Trials of 1946–1948 were the first effective international criminal tribunals in which individuals with fullprocedural rights and acting on their own behalf were indicted. The precedents of these tribunals have proven the ability to criminalisecrimes under international law that are not crimes under national law and serve as a basis for developing a concept of international crimein a new sense that is closely linked to international justice.The author also concludes by drawing the attention to the fact that due to internationalisation of crime, two different characte -ristics and dimensions have formed: criminal responsibility stricto sensu, and criminal responsibility within the frames of a newlyformed autonomous subbranch of international criminal law – transnational criminal law.

SERBIA, ITALY’S ENTRANCE INTO WORLD WAR I, AND THE LONDON AGREEMENT: A NEW INTERPRETATION

This paper follows the Entente Powers negotiations with Italy from the beginning of World War I up to the signing of the London Agreement. Simultaneously, this paper follows Serbian relations towards the negotiations and Italy entering the conflict from the standpoint of its national pretensions. Due to the important role of Russia, as Serbia’s closest ally and the traditional protector of Slavic interests, special attention has been dedicated to its position and reasons for relenting in diplomatic initiative for Italy entering the war. This paper contains an analysis and a new interpretation of the London Agreement. In addition to this, the paper sheds light on the beginning of deteriorating relations between the governments in Rome and Belgrade/Niš, which used to be friendly before the Great War, as well as the circumstances which influenced the situation.

From Confrontation to Cooperation: The London Debt Agreement of 1953 and Later Debt Crises

From Confrontation to Cooperation: The London Debt Agreement of 1953 and Later Debt Crises The London Debt Agreement of 27 February 1953 managed to solve the complex problem of German foreign debt of the pre- and post-war periods. The initiative for an international debt conference came from the Allies. But Germany also had a vested interest in regulating its debt, so as to be granted access to the global capital market once more. Contrary to all prior concerns, the settlement was finalised without a hitch. Most of the obligations were even paid back ahead of time. Since the 1990s public interest in the Agreement has been reignited. It has been repeatedly proposed as a solution to contemporary debt crises. At first, the London settlement was considered as a potential answer to debt crises in the Third World. One-World activists demanded that the countries in question should be relieved of a large part of their debt in the spirit of London 1953. It is frequently overlooked that the London Agreement did not specify a cut in capital for private pre-war debt, but instead a modification of interest and duration periods. Even in the current debt crisis, which originated in 2010, the London Agreement is frequently cited as a possible solution. The German government is often criticised in the foreign press for its uncompromising attitude on debt relief, especially towards weaker members of the Eurozone, and is called on to remember its recent history. When this happens, however, the special historic circumstances of the 1950s are usually not taken into account. Greece and other debtor countries, as part of the Eurozone, no longer have control over a national currency. The crisis of one country always impacts the community of the Eurozone as a whole. In light of this, it is rather misleading to take the London Agreement as a blueprint for the solution of contemporary debt crises. However, the discussion in the international press continues on whether the London Debt Agreement can serve as a model in the present crisis.

The Distinctive Legal Features of Crimes Against Humanity

This research intends to analyze general features and elements of criminal acts against humanity. Also in this paper, special attention was paid to the distinctive features that are crucial in the legal classification of crimes against humanity as offenses punished with international acts and legal regulations of each state. The term Crime against humanity first appeared in the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal. In the course of the preparatory work, it had become apparent that certain crimes committed during the Second World War were not, strictly speaking, war crimes. These were crimes whose victims were of the same nationality as the perpetrators, or nationals of an allied State and were committed for different motives. As early as March 1944, the representative of the United States of America on the Legal Committee of the United Nations War Crimes Commission proposed that crimes committed against stateless persons or any other person by reason of their race or religion should be declared "Crimes against humanity". It suggests, in at least two distinct ways, the enormity of these offenses of the other criminal offenses. First, the phrase "crimes against humanity" suggests offenses that aggrieve not only the victims and their own communities, but all human beings, regardless of their community. Second, the phrase suggests that these offenses cut deep, violating the core humanity that we all share and that distinguishes us from other natural beings. This double meaning gives the phrase potency, but also an ambiguity we may trace back to the double meaning of the word "humanity". "Humanity" means both the quality of being human-humanness-and the aggregation of all human beings-humankind. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "Are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings". They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated by a government or a de facto authority. The law traditionally distinguishes between crimes against persons, crimes against property, crimes against public order, crimes against morals, and the like. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

The Distinctive Legal Features of Crimes Against Humanity

This research intends to analyze general features and elements of criminal acts against humanity. Also in this paper, special attention was paid to the distinctive features that are crucial in the legal classification of crimes against humanity as offenses punished with international acts and legal regulations of each state. The term Crime against humanity first appeared in the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal. In the course of the preparatory work, it had become apparent that certain crimes committed during the Second World War were not, strictly speaking, war crimes. These were crimes whose victims were of the same nationality as the perpetrators, or nationals of an allied State and were committed for different motives. As early as March 1944, the representative of the United States of America on the Legal Committee of the United Nations War Crimes Commission proposed that crimes committed against stateless persons or any other person by reason of their race or religion should be declared "Crimes against humanity". It suggests, in at least two distinct ways, the enormity of these offenses of the other criminal offenses. First, the phrase "crimes against humanity" suggests offenses that aggrieve not only the victims and their own communities, but all human beings, regardless of their community. Second, the phrase suggests that these offenses cut deep, violating the core humanity that we all share and that distinguishes us from other natural beings. This double meaning gives the phrase potency, but also an ambiguity we may trace back to the double meaning of the word "humanity". "Humanity" means both the quality of being human-humanness-and the aggregation of all human beings-humankind. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "Are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings". They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated by a government or a de facto authority. The law traditionally distinguishes between crimes against persons, crimes against property, crimes against public order, crimes against morals, and the like. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

Crimes Against Humanity Rights

This research intends to analyze general features and elements of criminal acts against Also in this paper, special attention was paid to the distinctive features that are crucial in the legal classification of against as offenses punished with international acts and legal regulations of each state. The term Crime against first appeared in the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal. In the course of the preparatory work, it had become apparent that certain committed during the Second World War were not, strictly speaking, war crimes. These were whose victims were of the same nationality as the perpetrators, or nationals of an allied State and were committed for different motives. As early as March 1944, the representative of the United States of America on the Legal Committee of the United Nations War Commission proposed that committed against stateless persons or any other person by reason of their race or religion should be declared Crimes against It suggests, in at least two distinct ways, the enormity of these offenses of the other criminal offenses. First, the phrase crimes against humanity suggests offenses that aggrieve not only the victims and their own communities, but all human beings, regardless of their community. Second, the phrase suggests that these offenses cut deep, violating the core that we all share and that distinguishes us from other natural This double meaning gives the phrase potency, but also an ambiguity we may trace back to the double meaning of the word humanity. Humanity means both the quality of being human-humanness-and the aggregation of all human beings-humankind. against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, Are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated by a government or a de facto authority. The law traditionally distinguishes between against persons, against property, against public order, against morals, and the like. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of against only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

Agresi dan Kejahatan Terhadap Perdamaian

The defining of aggression and the penal responsibility should be able to bearranged, both based on the London Agreement and the Draft Code of Crime ofAgainst and Security of Mankind. But because the super power states have egoism sothat they still will act aggression in the name of self defense right. The issues ofterrorism, communism ideology and radicalism always will be reasoning of self defense tooffense and attack another states and then to upset peace rights. Economic interesting todeveloping countries natural resources is a main motivation of self defense.

Comment on “Window of Opportunity Opens: Asian and American Views of the International Economic Architecture”

Regional cooperation endeavors in Asia since the Asian financial crisis have had no clear and strategic focus on the big global issues of macroeconomic imbalance, financial system reform, trade reform, and the environment. Asia is such a big part of the global system now – truly a huge third force in it – in all these dimensions that it cannot afford not to be proactive in the development of policy strategies to insure against fragilities in the system or even its collapse. The global nature of the current world economic crisis required an urgent global response. Fortunately the elements of that have been put in place through the G-20 process. This global play has, for the while at least, sidelined the role of regional institutions. There were three major achievements out of London. The first is in world leaders' acceptance of the reality that the global economy today is one that can only be managed successfully – with stable markets offering continuing opportunity for human development and growth – if it is managed jointly. The second is crafting a coherent set of strategies to address the challenge of the crisis. Doing “what it takes” in the way of fiscal expansion and monetary policy stimulus may not satisfy everyone, but the political energy and will behind these commitments and the substantial range of programs that have already been put in place around the world will be more secure for what has been done in London. Third, G-20 leaders agreed to meet again before the end of 2009. Success in engineering a rapid and sustained recovery depends crucially on entrenching the G-20 as the theater for global economic action, building an infrastructure that will help to make its work effective and continuation of a process that must shift the emphasis over time from stabilization to sustainability and growth. But the G-20 has taken only the first step. There is a constituency beyond the G-20 yet to be engaged. In Asia, that means bringing along and mobilizing the region beyond the Asian G-20 participants. In Europe that challenge is even more formidable. The Asian participants in the G-20 emerged as an important and constructive force (Soesastro & Drysdale, 2009). Now the real job of implementing the London agreements and the G-20 process itself begins. That is a task that importantly devolves upon Asia because of the expectation that Asia can be at the leading edge of global recovery and an effective force for reform and openness. Dobson (2009) puts her finger on a central element in that whether this part of the world can adjust to lower US consumption and how. This is a structural issue. It will require learning new policy strategies in the reform of markets and institutions so that there is broader access to and intermediation of savings in the region. In China and other parts of Asia, this means opening up the financial system to private sector participation and eliminating the distortions in favor of savings over consumption in the financial market. These are domestic policy challenges, but they are challenges that will be assumed more readily if there is active regional cooperation on financial market reform and development. As I have argued elsewhere (Drysdale, 2009), these are priorities in regional cooperation that will strengthen the global as well as the regional economy. The Asian G-7 now have a new role and responsibility in making sure that the whole region's weight is brought to bear on making that happen. There are two issues here. One is leadership and strategic thinking. The other is settling on the best vehicle whereby to carry that forward. Asia needs its own forum, but a single East Asian platform is unlikely to be sufficient to handle the many aspects of cooperation that are important to the region. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)+3, ASEAN+6, and the transregional APEC process all have their part to play. The principle of “variable geometry,” which Dobson mentions, can productively be built into East Asian regional cooperation in this and other ways (Soesastro, 2007). We now have a functioning group from Asia that is feeding into the G-20 process. Soogil Young (2009) suggests building an East Asia caucus around the Asian G-7 in the G-20. De facto that has now emerged as the practical way forward. Finally, these are not purely economic or technical matters; they are also political matters. The future shape of regional economic cooperation will also reflect political circumstances and big geopolitical choices.

The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe

This paper analyses the consequences for the European patent system of the recently ratified London Agreement, which aims to reduce the translation requirements for patent validation procedures in 15 out of 34 national patent offices. The simulations suggest that the cost of patenting has been reduced by 20–30% since the enforcement of the LA. With an average translation cost saving of €3,600 per patent, the total savings for the business sector amount to about €220 millions. The fee elasticity of patents being about −0.4, one may expect an increase in patent filings of 8–12%. Despite the translation cost savings, the relative cost of a European patent validated in six (thirteen) countries is still at least five (seven) times higher than in the United States.

The London Agreement and the future of parallel imports

Are European patents really getting cheaper, and if so, what effect will this have on parallel or so-called gray imports?

Cyprus at the Crossroads, 1959–63

Cyprus became independent in 1960, after a fierce dispute between Britain, Greece and Turkey; but the island did not find a way towards normal political development. After 1960, the Cyprus Republic, and mainly its President, Archbishop Makarios, could follow either the long-term option of implementing the 1959 Zurich–London agreements and integrating with the West; or the short-term option of trying to acquire unlimited independence and following a non-aligned policy. From late 1962, as disagreements with the Turkish Cypriots grew, Makarios oriented himself to extensive constitutional revision, and finally proposed this unilaterally in late 1963. It was then that the second Cyprus crisis erupted.

The Cyprus Crisis of 1967 and its Effects on Turkey's Foreign Relations

The Republic of Cyprus was formed on 16 August 1960 according to the Zurich–London agreements and had the representatives from both Greek and Turkish communities.1 This government did not last long...

Deux théâtres, un même conflit ? Le poids de l'Union française sur l'intégration atlantique 1952-1956

This study begins with striking the geopolitical balance in Europe of the French Indochinese war within the framework of the Cold War. On one side, France needs an independent expeditionary force to remain a World power during the 1950's. On the other side, ECD or NATO require to keep important French field forces on the European soil, since the EDC Agreements and then the London Agreements assign 12 divisions to West Germany. Therefore, each theatre of operations is ambiguous and source of misunderstandings with the Atlantic allies of France, especially United States and Great Britain. On one end, the Indochinese conflict is as much a colonial struggle (inconsistent with American liberalism), as a primary Cold War issue in which however the United States subsidize the French overseas forces ($ 1,1 billion for 1953-1954). In Europe, the main threat remains of course the USSR whereas the French skeptical opinion still watches over Germany with anxiety. That explains the basic indecision of the legislative branch (Assemblée nationale ), and of the shaky governments of the IVth Republic. Just after Diên Biên Phu (Laniel Government), the Mendès France Government fails to obtain the ratification of ECD. It means very difficult relations between France and the other members of NATO about the French taking part in the common effort. The financial strain on French budget (because of Vietnam), chronic inflation, and now the Algerian crisis (11/1/1954) imperil the national outlay on armaments. Moreover, Algeria absorbs at least the two thirds of the home army with its NATO equipment, also subsidized by the United States (1952-1955). This material deficit and strategical breach in the integrated Atlantic command provoke growing tensions. We will analyze the reactions of the French high command, and its attempts to define a military disposition in harmony with the overseas needs, the heavy budget deficits and the NATO requirements. We will especially concentrate on the chaotic fate of the Yellow Plan (1954-1955) and of the Orange Plan (1956-1958), proposed by the general staff and the French Minister of Defence in order to reorganize the land forces.

Un aspect peu connu de l'accession de Chypre à l'indépendance

Abstract Some underlying facts in the series of events that led to the independance of Cyprus have long remained unnoticed. Such is the role played during the years, weeks and hours before the signature of the London agreements, on February 19th 1959, by a few individuals close to Moral Re-Armament.

The United States Of America's Policies Towards Turkish Straits

One of the oldest, most persistent and important problems in European History and İnternational Law is the "Question of the Straits". More than twenty treaties in modern times mention the Turkish Straits. Five of these treaties were made exclusively to regulate passage through these waters: The London Agreement, 1841; Paris Straits Convention, 1856; London Convention, 1871; Lausanne Straits Convention, 1923; and the Treaty of Montreux, 1936. Phillipson and Buxton affirm that one of the causes of the First World War was the Straits problem.

Israel and Jordan in the Shadow of War: Functional Ties and Futile Diplomacy in a Small Place

Preface - Introduction - A Short History of Zionist-Hashemite Ties - The June War and the New Reality - These Bones Shall Live - The Intifada and Jordan's Crisis - Epilogue: Of the Future - Appendix A: The Faisal-Weizmann Accord, January 3, 1919 - Appendix B: Feisal-Frankfurter Correspondence - Appendix C: Israel-Jordan Non-Aggression Pact, February 24, 1950 - Appendix D: Draft of Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, February 28, 1950 - Appendix E: Text of the London Agreement, April 1987 - Appendix F: Unity (Widha) Dam Treaty Text, September 3, 1987

Pétrole : un repli stratégique

That oil production should currently be concentrated in the least cost-effective areas is a paradox which reveals the fragility of OPEC's price monopoly. The explanation lies in poorer prospects for growth, the emergence of new producers and the financial difficulties of some members of the cartel. Unless OPEC's prices are re-aligned on the production costs of competitors, its market share wMI inevitably shrink given current prospects of stagnation in oil consumption up to the year 2 000. However, OPEC remains the arbiter of supply in the short term. The London agreement showed that a massive reduction of stocks can be absorbed with only a limited fall in prices, leaving room for a subsequent strengthening of the market. In the future, a short-term instability of prices could therefore be combined with a long-term fall.