INTERNATIONAL KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE PAPER:

CONTROLLING THE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Lecturer: M. Zakaria Al Anshori, Ph. D

COMPILED BY :

IRVAN PRATAMA HERFI 210302110197

VIKI ZULVA NAJUBA 210302110093
MUSTOFA 210301110064
ZULFADHIL PLEASE 210301110100

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

MAULANA STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

MALIK IBRAHIM MALANG 2024

 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Edward Snowden, an intelligence contractor working for the National Security Agency
(NSA), downloaded approximately 1.5 million classified documents and began sharing them
with journalists after leaving the United States in May 2013. Newspapers based on the
documents said that the NSA collected a large amount of data about the telephone and Internet
activities of Americans and foreigners, spied on the leaders of close US allies, and tapped into
much of the global information and communications infrastructure. If it is true that knowledge is
power, then the information collected by the NSA surveillance system has given the United
States many advantages in international security and commercial affairs. At the same time, the
Snowden case shows how the digital revolution makes it difficult to learn to prevent the theft and
dissemination of large amounts of sensitive information. Another high-stakes global battle over
knowledge shapes the future of competition, freedom, and security.
Onfirst part, we identify key actors and issues in knowledge structures between
countries. Next, we discuss how states and corporations work within them to control the flow
of information, produce technological advances, and attract highly trained workers. In the
second half of the chapter, the focus shifts toIntellectual Property Rights (IPR)such as
patents, copyrights and trademarks that regulate the use of inventions and creative works. We
compare different perspectives on whether the IPR system is fair and beneficial to most
countries and citizens. We also discuss international agreements governing IPR.

B. Problem Formulation
- What is the structure of international knowledge?
- What is the definition of IPE?
- What is the information related to IPE / IPR?
- How is IPR in the international political economy?
- What are some theoretical perspectives on IPR?
- What is the politics of IPR in developed countries?

C. Objective
- Know the structure of international knowledge
- Know the definition of IPE
- Know information related to IPE / IPR
- Knowing IPR in the international political economy
- Know several theoretical perspectives of IPR
- Understand IPR politics in developed countries
 BAB II
DISCUSSION

A. INTERNATIONAL KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE: ACTORS AND RULES

The network of rules and practices that govern how knowledge is created, sold, and
controlled is known as the international knowledge structure. The general term "knowledge"
covers a variety of things, such as intellectual property, information, and technology. Data
created, shared, and recombined by humans for political, economic, and cultural purposes is
known as data. Technology is the domain of knowledge used to create products and services.
Inventions, works of art, and symbols that are granted monopoly rights by governments are
called intellectual property.
Undoubtedly, the rules governing the flow of knowledge create rights, motivations, and
prohibitions. These rules are created by powerful countries and multinational companies, who
are trying to get them recognized throughout the world. At the same time, many social forces try
to control knowledge through political actions and campaigns, and they are sometimes willing to
break the law to gain what they consider to be their due. We looked at a variety of regulations,
including national laws governing data and information; bilateral and multilateral agreements
that determine a country's responsibility for the intellectual property of other countries; and
shared standards regarding the moral responsibilities of producers and consumers of knowledge.
Production, trade, finance, and security are influenced by international knowledge
structures. For example, the high costs of arms competition, which was also technological
competition, led to the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. The global financial system has
become more complex due to advances in information and communications technology (ICT).
Which country will dominate electric car production will be determined by competition to
develop new energy technologies. Countries and transnational companies must definitely have
access to the best technology if they are to win or survive in global competition.

THE IPE INFORMATION

The digital revolution has increased the amount of data and made it easier to share.
Information has the potential to empower and disempower. This can be used by the government
to monitor the public. Companies take it from society to make a profit. The people of this
country can hold the elites accountable for that information. Many information disputes occur
around the world.

● State Efforts to Control the Flow of Information

Social media has opened new avenues for communication between countries and between
countries. During the Arab Spring in early 2011, its political power became clear. Millions of
people in Egypt can share information via Facebook and text messages due to the abundance of
mobile phones and internet access. In an effort to ward off social media, Hosni Mubarak's regime
shut down cell phones and the internet for a week. Opposition forces in Syria have posted a large
number of YouTube videos picked up by international news media online. Obscure videos and
photos taken from mobile phones have exposed abuses against the government and have
depicted martyrs. general public. The ability to use social media has kept political activism on
the ground and weakened authoritarian governments' information monopolies.
In addition, both authoritarian and democratic governments are implementing more
sophisticated surveillance systems in an effort to prevent crime and improve border controls, as
well as gathering intelligence from other countries. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden
show that the NSA has sophisticated tools to collect electronic information from undersea cables,
Internet systems, computers and smart devices around the world. Additionally, China and Russia
are highly adept at foreign cyber espionage aimed at governments and businesses. In 2015, G20
countries pledged not to engage in commercial cyber espionage including theft of intellectual
property and trade secrets even though the countries have not reached an agreement banning the
common practice of cyber hacking for intelligence gathering. However, agreements such as
these, as well as bilateral non-hacking agreements are not enforceable.
An alarming form of propaganda called “fake news” has recently emerged. Many
politicians around the world, especially Donald Trump, tried to back up a very important report
that had been vetted by mainstream media by calling it fake news. However, more dangerous
fake news comes from governments, which spread false or misleading news via social media and
non-mainstream websites to try to change political decisions in other countries. Those who
distrust mainstream news institutions love fake news; unfortunately, as the world enters a
post-political correctness era, many people judge the “truth” of information provided based on
how similar its beliefs are to their partisan or personal leanings.
Russia is one of the most sophisticated operators, despite many governments conducting
disinformation campaigns. For years, Russia has waged an "information war" with Ukraine and
other countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. His groundbreaking 2016 campaign
scaled back support for candidate Hillary Clinton in favor of Donald Trump. Russia and groups
associated with it spread fake news to encourage anti-immigrant sentiment in Germany. Most
people think that fake news is created to weaken the democratic system in the West. There are
many laws that can punish those who produce fake news in their own country, but it is difficult if
the person providing it is someone from abroad.
Apart from the “offensive” use of information by the state, there are also “defensive”
actions taken by the state. Snowden's revelations have encouraged more countries to adopt
information sovereignty norms, namely the right to control the flow of information within and
within one's country. Although many Western countries criticize information sovereignty as
protectionist and antithetical to “freedom of connectivity,” its proponents argue that information
sovereignty protects national security and protects consumers.
A prime example of information sovereignty is data localization, or governments
requiring companies to store and process all information about citizens in a country. This means
multinational companies and cloud-based service providers cannot manage customer information
around the world centrally or easily transfer it across borders. Instead, data from each country
must be hosted on a local server in each country. For example, the Canadian provinces of British
Columbia and Nova Scotia require that all personal information collected by public institutions,
such as health care facilities and public universities, be stored in Canada, Russia, China, India,
and some other countries have more stringent localization requirements.
The United States argues that information should be treated as a neutral commodity,
subject to free trade, to ensure economic efficiency. Sean Powers and Michael Jablonski argue
that encouraging the free flow of information in the United States is in the economic and
geopolitical interests of the United States, especially as American companies have become
dominant in cyberspace and digital entertainment services, and online retail, which is a service
export with the fastest growing and most valuable for developed countries.
In 2015, the US trade surplus in digital and digital services reached $166 billion, with the
majority coming from the provision of financial services and licensing of intellectual property. 4
The Office of the US Trade Representative has sought to block barriers to digital trade while
negotiating new trade agreements with other countries.
For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intends to prohibit data
localization requirements (with some exceptions) and import duties on digital imports such as
online games and videos. Many Europeans resent the hegemony of US tech giants such as
Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon (GAFA), accusing them of anti-competitive behavior and
disregard for consumer privacy. China has worked hard to create a domestic alternative to
GAFA, with the aim of gaining a share of the huge profits earned by foreign companies and
boosting its own technological development. So part of the country, the fighttrade and
information are the most important things.When they do, they will face conflicting interests:
local companies vs. local companies. foreign companies, business vs. consumers, and
surveillance vs. privacy.

● Information in the Hands of the Private Sector

The digital revolution allows private companies to collect large amounts of consumer
data, which can be used in ways that are not beneficial to society. Countries and multinational
companies debate the use of this information in the broader context of market regulation. Many
governments worry that private ownership of technology could lead to anti-competitive behavior,
threats to privacy, and a concentration of power. The European Commission, for example, has
led efforts to prevent abuse of Microsoft's software controls and sued Facebook to protect user
data. Global standards are difficult to create due to different legal obligations and cultural
standards around the world. Some countries even try to use their IT companies to destroy foreign
companies. For example, United States legislators have accused two Chinese companies, Huawei
Technologies and ZTE, of being dangerous because they could wage cyber war with them.
John Bellamy Foster and Robert McChesney worry that corporations have destroyed the
potential for a liberating communications revolution by turning the Internet into an oligopolistic
domain that allows them to make huge profits and threatens democracy. Net neutrality, quality
journalism and society are being sidelined on a global scale. Shoshana Zuboff uses the term
"surveillance capitalism" to describe a system in which companies extract large amounts of
information about various aspects of people's lives without much regulation. Companies and
states also work together to enable better government surveillance. Ron Deibert criticized
technology companies for providing information to governments about censorship of civil
society and human rights abuses. However, global civil society is fighting back, pushing for new
privacy standards, increasing competition, and increasing pressure on countries to be more open
and accountable.

B. IPE on Innovation and Technology Progress

In this section we will examine how countries are trying to encourage innovation and turn
knowledge into comparative advantage in the global economy. We find that countries play a
considerable role in coordinating research and development with market players. Some
developing countries are closing the knowledge gap with richer countries while capturing a
larger share of global production, but the United States and the European Union are struggling to
continue attracting the world's best talent.

The historical and theoretical question is this: What is the appropriate role for
governments and market actors in encouraging innovation? A number of political economists
such as Joseph Stiglitz, Ha-Joon Chang, and Dani Rodrik believe that countries need the
flexibility to design policies that are in line with their respective national needs. When it comes
to knowledge governance, they argue that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Some countries
try to replace the private sector in research and development, some collaborate with the private
sector in various ways, and some simply remove obstacles in the way of private innovators. Most
countries want to nurture those who turn technological innovation into profitable exports. Some
great powers are willing to spread knowledge throughout the world by educating foreigners at
their universities and encouragingoutsourcing by their multinational companies. But at the same
time many countries are determined to stay one step ahead of competitors in innovative fields,
including military technology.

Government Innovation Policy in Developed Countries

Technologically advanced countries play in the global game "keep-up" not "catch-up".
They want to remain competitive in knowledge-based industries and maintain "creative
industries,". Some of these leading industries include telecommunications, biotechnology, health
care, and defense. Innovation is often based on political openness, broad educational
opportunities, labor mobility, and another characteristic that only a limited number of countries
can quickly turn to their advantage.

These countries recognize that technological progress is a key determinant of economic

growth. Although private companies currently account for the majority of investment in research
and development, governments foster innovation through public spending, subsidies, and
intellectual property rights. Many countries have historically built technological infrastructure,
especially in situations of national emergency or competition between countries. For example, in
the nineteenth century the U.S. government established land-grant colleges across the country to
spur transformations in agriculture, industry, and engineering. Massive investment in the
projectManhattan during World War II gave the United States an edge in nuclear technology. As
part of its political rivalry with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the United States
increased its leadership in space technology through Project Apollo and military spending on
satellite systems. From 1990 to 2003, the US Department of Energy and the National Institutes
of Health funded the ProjectHuman Genome, which has resulted in major benefits for
commercial innovation in the molecular medicine and life sciences industries.

Governments often identify new research and development needs and provide resources
for major leaps in areas such as energy and medical research. This can be done with direct
funding to universities, government research laboratories and private companies. Sociologist
Henry Etzkowitz emphasizes how this funding can produce atriple helix
university-industry-government relationships that accelerate innovation. For example, the
Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 granted patents to US universities and federal laboratories for inventions
funded with public money and licensed those patents to private companies. Examples of
government-assisted innovation at US universities include Google online search (developed at
Stanford University) and hurricane tracking radar (developed at MIT).

Following this, innovation researcher Mariana Mazzucato has presented some of the most
compelling arguments for the critical role of the state in driving innovation. He believes that
public investment in research has been the source of some of the most important technological
breakthroughs since the 1950s in fields such as computing, aviation, biotechnology, green
energy, and nanotechnology. Countries often take on the role of entrepreneurs, diverting
government spending, venture capital, and loans to visionary projects with high risks but
potential long-term benefits for society. For example, in 1958 the US government created an
agency within the Department of Defense called the US Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) to fund research by industry and universities on technologies useful to the
military. Technology-derived products from its research support include the Internet, virtual
memory, computer networking, integrated circuit design, and speech-to-text conversion software.

After World War II, the US federal government funded about two-thirds of all US
research and development, but in recent years this number has fallen to just a quarter as private
industry increases its own investment. In European Union countries, the government funds
one-third of all research and development, while in Russia the government accounts for 70
percent of all research and development. For more than fifty years, the United States has led the
world in total combined public-private research and development. In 2013, the US accounted for
27 percent of total global research and development spending, compared with 20 percent by
China, 10 percent by Japan, and 6 percent by Germany.
 Mazzucato laments that while the government bears most of the risk in funding basic
research, it is private companies that reap all the profits by commercializing the products derived
from this research. Like many others, they argue that large amounts of state-funded research and
development will be vital to developing green technologies to prevent threatening climate
change; about 50 percent of total renewable energy research and development spending
worldwide comes from public institutions.

Italian economists Daniele Archibugi and Andrea Filippetti also warned that
"privatization of research activities and knowledge" increases can reduce long-term growth and
innovation. OECD countries now rely on the private sector for more than two-thirds of total
research and development spending. Archibugi and Filippetti argue that private companies often
avoid basic research that leads to radical breakthroughs, focusing on profitability rather than
important social needs, and slows down knowledge sharing with patents and trade secrets. Many
scholars also argue that ".financialization"developed economies are detrimental to technological
innovation.

Governments advance technological progress in many ways other than just research and
development spending. Scholars Jakob Edler and Luke Georghiou argue that public procurement
has become an important way in which governments create demand for innovative products. Tax
refunds to consumers and businesses who purchase innovative products also encourage
accelerated product commercialization. Since 2004, Germany has accelerated the development of
renewable energy by guaranteeing solar and wind power producers above-market prices for the
energy they contribute to the grid. Japan adopted a similar pricing system in 2012 to deploy
renewable energy sources after the Fukushima disaster led to the closure of nuclear power plants.

In addition to promoting innovation, developed countries seek to prevent the spread of

some forms of advanced technology to other countries. During the Cold War, the United States
banned the export of weapons systems, nuclear technology, and technologydual-use to the Soviet
Union. It also establishes export controls that limit the transfer of items controlled for export or
protected technical information to foreign persons working or studying in the United States.
Universities and private contractors must obtain licenses to allow foreigners to access this
information.

By requiring licenses and approvals for certain export lists, the United States has tried to
limit the transfer of technology to its competitors. When sharing advanced technology with close
allies such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany, the United States sought to ensure that
it also limited its re-exports. This requires close multilateral cooperation, especially among
NATO members, to harmonize all its export controls.

In recent years, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an
interagency group that examines proposed foreign investments in the United States for potential
national security risks, has rejected several purchases of Chinese companies in the United States.
In 2016, CFIUS rejected an attempt by Chinese investors to buy LED lighting company
Lumileds, which was later taken over by a US private equity fund. CFIUS is believed to be
concerned that the sale would give China access to technology about a material called gallium
nitride that could be used to make advanced microchips with military applications. That same
year, Chinese companies attempted to buy US chipmakersFairchild Semiconductor and some
hard drive manufacturers Western Digital failed because they expected to be rejected by CFIUS.
The United States' impulse was to use national security reasons as a pretext for "defensive"
mercantilism. However, it is worth noting that China also uses similar national security
arguments. After Edward Snowden leaked documents about the NSA survey, China began
putting pressure on banks, state-owned enterprises, and state institutions to replace foreign-made
computer software and servers with Chinese-made ones.

However, geopolitical and economic changes since the 1990s have weakened the Western
technology oligopoly. As French political scientist Hugo Meijer suggests, since the collapse of
the Soviet Union, the United States has had much less control over the transfer of dual-use
technology to China. He identifies four main factors causing this trend: "the weakening of
multilateral institutions governing export controls, the commercialization and global diffusion of
technology, China's growing innovation capabilities, and domestic pressure to liberalize export
controls resulting from increasing Sino-American economic ties." Private companies at the
forefront of information, communications and satellite technology need to find export markets
for dual-use products to remain profitable. Export controls hamper their ability to compete
globally. According to Meijer, in a balance between economic interests and national security, US
lobby groups are promoting technology exportsdual-use defeated the "Obstacle Controller"
group.

Closing the Knowledge and Technology Gap

Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) believed that only firms with a certain
amount of monopoly power might have the incentive and ability (in the form of monopoly
profits) to invest in risky, expensive, and long-term research and development projects.
Therefore, he argues that many industries will likely have a monopoly structure. However, over
time, technologically bold newcomers will displace the once dominant companies.Gales of
Creative Destruction predict, will destroy established monopolies and create new dominant
companies.

Because of economies of scale, competition in many industries today is not for market
share but for the market itself. Competition is a proposition"winner takes all"or at least"winner
takes most", as Schumpeter hoped. This reality has clear political-economic implications.
Mercantilistically minded policymakers will establish industrial policies to encourage the
development of national champions that dominate high technology-based industries. Liberally
minded policymakers recognize the importance of creating favorable conditions will promote
entrepreneurs who are able to compete in the knowledge industry conditions described in
Michael Porter's bestselling book,The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The ability to acquire,
create and control technology has become central to international competition in the 21st century.

Even if countries cannot hope to have globally dominant firms, they strive to advance
technologically in the global value chain, which includes "all the activities undertaken by firms
and workers to take a product from its conception to final use and beyond" . Many companies are
connected in a global division of labor in which Western companies engage in high-value
functions such as finance, basic research, design, and marketing, while developing countries
perform low-value functions such as low-wage manufacturing and materials processing. raw.
Developing countries want to move up the value chain of more profitable activities, but to do so
they need to close the technological gap with developed countries by acquiring knowledge.

Taiwan and South Korea have followed Japan's example in improving their position in
the value chain by creating national champions through deliberate industrial policies and
strategic trade policies. Their companies shifted from manufacturing or assembling parts to
technology development and product design. Eventually, they became leaders in several
industries, collecting patents and controlling their own brands.

China is following the Japanese and Korean models in creating national champions. In
2015, President Xi announced an ambitious program "Made in China 2025" designed to make
China a technological power in industries such as aviation, robotics, semiconductors and electric
vehicles. The program encourages national companies to conduct more research and
development and buy high-tech assets abroad. Foreign companies complain that initiative"Made
in China 2025” is protectionist because it gives unfair preferential treatment to Chinese
companies in government finance and procurement.

Struggles over Education and Skilled Workers

In the context of an innovative society, investment in research and development and the
existence of strong institutions are of paramount importance. However, the success of innovation
also depends greatly on the availability of an educated workforce and skilled professionals.
Higher education plays a crucial role in preparing a workforce that meets the needs of industries
that rely heavily on knowledge. In addition, labor movements, both regionally and
internationally, also influence the progress of innovation in a society, as can be seen from
regional technology centers such as Silicon Valley and the Research Triangle.

Increasing international labor mobility, especially foreign students studying abroad, has
become an important factor in driving innovation in several developed countries. Countries such
as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom compete to attract talented foreign
students to their universities. However, there are challenges such as adjusting visa policies
post-Brexit and competition to attract highly educated immigrants is becoming increasingly
fierce amid growing anti-immigrant sentiment.

Additionally, visa programs and immigration policies also play an important role in
determining a country's attractiveness to global talent. This also impacts the startup ecosystem,
technology transfer, and overall economic progress. Developed countries must strike a balance
between attracting foreign talent to enrich human capital and protecting the interests of the local
workforce.

International Political Economy on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

In addition to research and development, technology, and skilled labor, intellectual

property rights (IPR) play an important role in today's knowledge framework. Patents,
copyrights, and trademarks are some of the most important forms of IPR, but governments also
grant rights to things like geographical indications, industrial designs, and trade secrets. Through
patents, copyrights, and trademarks, IPR provides control over the use of inventions, creative
works, and corporate identity for a certain period of time. Variations in the type and level of IPR
protection reflect differences in history and legal traditions between countries. Although there is
coordination through international agreements such as TRIPS, implementation and enforcement
of IPR can vary depending on the policies of each country. Control over ideas and products
through IPRs has a major impact on innovation and the distribution of wealth at the global level.

Patents grant exclusive rights to make, use, or sell an invention for a certain period,
which encourages companies to invest in research and development. Although the criteria for
obtaining a patent vary, patents are generally granted for inventions that are new, useful, and not
obvious to a person skilled in the art. In exchange for a temporary monopoly, the inventor must
reveal the details of his invention to the public, allowing for the further development of
knowledge. Apart from that, patents also function as an indicator of a country's technological
innovation. Patent activity in various countries provides a rough picture of the level of
technological innovation in that country. Countries such as South Korea, Japan and China
showed significant increases in the number of patent applications, signaling their commitment to
fostering innovation and technological development.

Copyright is a right that protects the expression of ideas, covering works of art such as
books, films, music and software. Typically, copyright allows owners to prohibit the
unauthorized reproduction and distribution of original works. The WTO TRIPS Agreement
requires copyright protection for at least the lifetime of the author plus fifty years in protecting
the expression of ideas in various forms of artistic works and software. However, there has been
criticism of the long duration of copyright, even though the copyright industry in the United
States makes a significant contribution to GDP each year.
 The government establishes exceptions to copyright to allow certain uses of protected
material without seeking permission or paying royalties, such as in the case of fair use for
criticism, parody, or teaching. The first sale doctrine also facilitates the return or rental of legally
obtained physical copies of copyrighted items. Thus, the conclusion of the paragraph is that
copyright plays an important role in protecting works of art and software, while considering the
balance between the rights of the owner and the public interest in accessing and using these
works.

Trademarks include logos and names registered by manufacturers or traders to identify

goods and services. Typically lasting ten years and subject to renewal, trademarks such as Nike's
swoosh, Kleenex, and MGM's lion's roar are critical to market efficiency, as they prevent unfair
competition and consumer confusion regarding product origins.

Theoretical Perspectives on Intellectual Property Rights

With the definition and forms of intellectual property rights (IPR) above, 5 key theoretical views
about IPR and their impact on the global knowledge structure.

1. The economic liberal perspective highlights the fundamental role of intellectual property
rights (IPR) in encouraging innovation, ensuring the efficient use of resources, and
linking effort to rewards in the market system. IPR protection is seen as an incentive for
companies to invest in research and development, as well as ensuring that creators can
earn sufficient profits to recoup those investments. In addition, IPR enforcement is
expected to produce higher quality and safer products for consumers, as well as attract
more foreign investment and technology transfer to countries that protect their
intellectual property rights.

Thus, the economic liberal perspective emphasizes the importance of IPR mechanisms in
creating an environment conducive to innovation and economic growth, while providing
incentives for creators to continue to contribute to the development of knowledge and
technology. It also underscores the close relationship between IPR protection, product
quality, foreign investment, and technology transfer, all of which are considered
important factors in the formation of an efficiently functioning and inclusive market
system.

2. Perspectivemercantilis highlights the role of the state in developing and maintaining

internal technology while also acquiring technology from outside. Protection of
intellectual property rights (IPR) for domestic companies is considered important, but
equal enforcement of foreign technology is not always considered in the national
 interest.Mercantilism emphasizes the importance of "policy space" in IPRs for
developing countries to reflect their local conditions, capabilities and interests, and to
address barriers to economic growth and technological development. Additionally, the
mercantilist view describes how countries can exploit their limited resources by stealing
intellectual property, as a strategy to save on R&D costs, speed up the uptake of
technology, and provide cheaper products to their citizens. It reflects a different approach
to the management and utilization of knowledge and technology, highlighting the role of
states and national interests in the global economic environment.

3. Racesstructuralist argues that developed countries use intellectual property rights (IPR) to
secure their global economic dominance by monopolizing markets and gaining excessive
profits from developing countries. The capitalists who control IPRs are considered
monopolists and international cartels who are not interested in fair competition, but are
more inclined towards rent-seeking and litigation. Carolyn Deere Birkbeck highlights the
unequal distribution of global cross-border royalties on intellectual property licenses,
most of which benefit only ten developed countries.

Economic geographer Christian Zeller adds that capitalists seek to control and
commodify the intellectual creativity of various parties, including researchers, skilled
workers, and rural communities, by transferring profits to capital and licensing
companies. The structuralist perspective also emphasizes that global IPR regulations are
often used by developed countries to strengthen their economic dominance.

4. Constructivists hold the view that social views regarding intellectual property rights
(IPR) are the result of a social construction process, where society's values ​and interests
are influenced by shared discourse that is built over time. Constructivists highlight how
the definition and discussion of IPR has been shaped by powerful economic interests,
which depict intellectual property as the property of individuals that must be protected.
They also show that narratives about IPR are often structured to support specific political
and economic agendas, such as linking intellectual property theft to threats to national
security.

In addition, constructivists highlight the existence of alternative views on intellectual

property, such as the cultural perspective which proposes more inclusive IPR goals for
the empowerment of poor communities and the preservation of cultural diversity. They
also highlight postmodernist arguments about the cumulative nature of creation and
knowledge, suggesting that the idea of ​exclusive ownership of knowledge can be
questioned. Thus, constructivist conclusions emphasize the importance of understanding
the origins and impact of the narratives that dominate discussions about IPRs in broader
social and cultural contexts.
 5. From a "balancing" perspective is that they seek to achieve a balance between individual
rights and communal rights in the context of intellectual property rights (IPR). They fight
for individual creative freedom while respecting the legitimate economic rights of others.
Balancing emphasizes the importance of having a broad public domain and liberal fair
use rules to encourage unimpeded creative activity. They also oppose excessive efforts by
IPR holders to limit competition or prosecute excessively for IPR violations.

Additionally, the balancing perspective advocates for limitations on the length and scope
of IPRs to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in the hands of large corporations
that could hinder growth and create higher inequality. They reject the concept of a
"permission society" that forces individuals to constantly ask for permission and pay to
access cultural products. Instead, they promote the idea of ​preserving vast public domains
so that everyone can benefit from cultural resources freely. In an effort to fight for better
balance in the IPR system, the balancer also supports the open science movement which
encourages the reduction of patents and the free circulation of scientific publications.

IPR POLITICS IN ADVANCED COUNTRIES

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are one of the main concerns of developed countries,
such as the United States, the European Union and Japan. They play an important role in forming
global rules governing IPR. They form global rules, work together to set strong IPR standards,
sign international agreements and also form multilateral institutions to accommodate and also
comply with agreed rules using international diplomacy and pressure. political.
The United States has been a leader in promoting IPR protection. Several large business
groups such asInternational Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA),Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA), andPharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
emphasizes the importance of strong IPR. They argue that strong IPR is the key to innovation
and competitiveness on the international stage.
If foreign companies infringe IPRs by copying original technological innovations, they
can sell products at lower prices than US companies that have spent on original development. In
other words, the foreign company benefits from the hard work of the US company without
having to pay development costs. It is estimated that total losses to US businesses due to IPR
violations by foreign countries reach tens of billions of dollars each year. This shows how
important IPR protection is to a country's economy.
Susan Sell and Aseem Prakash have observed how large corporations in the United States
play an important role in fighting for IPR protection. These business groups include companies
in the software, video, music, agricultural chemicals, and pharmaceutical industries. They have a
strong interest in protecting their intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights and
trademarks. Why? Because IPR gives them a competitive advantage and allows them to control
the products and innovations they produce. One of the strategies used is to change perceptions
about IPR. They are trying to make IPR a right that should be given to creators and innovators,
not a right given by the government. In this way, they try to remove the stigma that IPR is a
“privilege” that only benefits large companies. Instead, they want to show that IPR is a tool that
encourages innovation, investment and economic growth. These companies have established
networks and collaborations with their counterparts in Europe and other countries. The aim is to
fight for stronger IPR protection at the international level.
In the 1980s, there were already several multilateral agreements governing IPR, including
the more than 100 year old Berne Convention on copyright and the Paris Convention governing
patents and trademarks. In 1967, WIPO was established as a UN body tasked with monitoring
compliance with IPR conventions. WIPO plays an important role in coordinating IPR issues
globally, but concerns remain about the effectiveness and adequacy of the protection provided.
Many parties feel that the standards applied by these conventions are still low and do not have
adequate legal enforcement mechanisms.
During the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations from 1986 to 1994, the United States
and other developed countries fought for the establishment of (Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights) TRIPS. TRIPS is an agreement that must be accepted by members
of the WTO (World Trade Organization). This agreement regulates IPR protection and binds
member countries in terms of minimum standards that must be provided which require member
countries to comply with the provisions of the Berne Convention and the Paris Convention.
TRIPS requires member countries to comply with the provisions of the Berne Convention and
the Paris Convention. This includes copyright, patent, trademark and other protections.
Developed countries have attempted to increase international protection of IPR beyond
the standards set by TRIPS. One of the steps they took was to strengthen WIPO, where in 1996,
WIPO produced two agreements regulating IPR protection in the era of the internet and
international electronic commerce. This agreement aims to harmonize IPR protection worldwide
and ensure that innovation and creative works can be recognized and protected effectively.
The United States has an active role in fighting for stronger IPR protection in Special
Section 301 of the Omnibus Trade and Competition Act of 1988 requiring the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) to monitor countries that have deficiencies in IPR protection. If a
country is found to be violating IPR policies, USTR can negotiate bilateral agreements or impose
trade sanctions.
USTR's 2017 Special 301 Report placed thirty-four countries on its priority watch list or
watch list, including the five largest countries in the world besides the United States (China,
India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan) and America's three largest trading partners - Canada,
China , and Mexico. Collectively, these countries host 4.3 billion of the world's 7.3 billion
people.
In facing the challenges of protecting intellectual property rights (IPR), developing
countries have looked for alternatives outside the standards set by TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights). One approach they have taken is to create stricter standards,
known as TRIPS-Plus, through bilateral, regional and plurilateral agreements.
 The TRIPS-Plus standard includes stronger protection for IPR. This includes copyright,
patent, trademark and other protections. Countries implementing TRIPS-Plus seek to ensure that
innovation and creative works receive better protection. TRIPS-Plus also establishes stricter law
enforcement mechanisms. This includes more severe sanctions for IPR violations. Developed
countries often champion agreements such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
to step up the fight against counterfeit goods and copyright infringement. Countries
implementing TRIPS-Plus can choose where they can gain the most leverage to advance their
goals.

North-South Conflict over IPR and Patented Medicines

Developing countries have increased resistance to IPR norms promoted by developed
countries. Developed countries tend to strive for strict IPR standards, including strong patent
protection. They want to ensure that innovations and discoveries are properly protected. On the
other hand, developing countries want more flexibility to determine their own IPR standards
according to their national needs.
Developing countries demand recognition of their right to use the existing flexibilities in
the TRIPS agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). They want to
incorporate aspects such as human rights, public health, and education in intellectual property
law. They want IPR to not only focus on economic growth, but also serve social goals. Some
countries are even seeking to expand IPR to biodiversity and traditional knowledge which
involves protecting knowledge that already exists among indigenous peoples.
Like developed countries, developing countries are also trying to influence IPR
regulations in international forums. For example, Argentina and Brazil lead the Development
Agenda for WIPO, which emphasizes technology transfer to developing countries and ensuring
IPR not only benefits the economy, but also society as a whole. In 2013, WIPO Members
approved the Marrakesh Agreement which facilitates access to materials adapted for the blind
without permission from the copyright holder
Developing countries have tried hard to overcome TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights) regulations, especially in terms of access to medicines. In 1994, many poor
countries felt that TRIPS limited their ability to produce or import more affordable generic
medicines. This is especially true for medicines that are vital and can save lives. Many
developing countries feel that strict IPR rules, such as those set out by TRIPS, prevent them from
getting more affordable generic medicines, especially for serious diseases such as HIV /AIDS.
South Africa is at the center of this debate as it faces serious problems with HIV/AIDS
and demands access to more affordable generic medicines. Africa faces an alarming HIV/AIDS
epidemic. Patent-protected antiretroviral drugs are very expensive, around $15,000 per patient.
Only the richest people in South Africa can afford this treatment. However, India produces a
generic version of this drug for only about $200. The South African government in 1997 decided
to allow the import of generic drugs from India and introduced mandatory licensing for
antiretroviral drugs patented in their country.
 At a ministerial meeting in Doha in November 2001, developing countries pressed WTO
officials to insist that TRIPS did not prevent them “from taking action to protect public health.”
They argue that in situations of national emergency, such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis
epidemics, they have the right to issue compulsory licenses. This interpretation of the TRIPS
agreement, known as the Doha Declaration, was a breakthrough for the poorest countries. This
ensures that developing countries can take steps to ensure access to necessary medicines without
violating TRIPS regulations.
Despite progress, there are still disputes over intellectual property rights (IPR) and the
right to health. Many developing countries do not have sufficient technological capacity to
produce generic drugs under compulsory license for their domestic markets. Therefore, they seek
to import generic versions of patented drugs from countries like India and Brazil. After pressure
from the United States, the European Union and large pharmaceutical companies, WTO
members in 2003 agreed to a waiver that allows developing countries to import generic drugs
without violating trade laws. The Doha Declaration was officially incorporated into the TRIPS
agreement in 2017.
A global coalition known as the Campaign for Access to Medicines, led by NGOs and
developing countries, emerged after the debate in South Africa with the aim of achieving several
important things. They first aim to criticize Big Pharma for focusing too much on profits over
saving lives, in hopes of pushing their attention to access to medicines. Next, they tryinfluence
global policy by advocating for the exemption of the poorest countries from the implementation
of TRIPS related to pharmaceuticals until 2033 by the TRIPS Council at the WTO. Under
pressure, pharmaceutical companies pledged major aid to tackle the HIV/AIDS problem in
developing countries and reduced prices of vital antiretroviral drugs through discount programs
and voluntary licensing. Collaboration also occurs with multilateral initiatives such as the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunization. It is hoped that with a combination of more generic drugs, voluntary cooperation
from pharmaceutical companies, foreign funding, and flexibility in IPR laws, essential medicines
will become more accessible worldwide. India's role is also very important in ensuring the
generic medicines industry remains dynamic, as happened with the introduction of the Solvaldi
vaccine by Gilead Sciences in 2013, where pressure from various parties succeeded in reducing
prices and increasing access for global patients.

Struggles over Traditional Knowledge

One of the debates in intellectual property rights (IPR) between countries in the South
and North is regarding traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge and
practices that have developed among indigenous peoples related to plants, plant use, agriculture,
folklore, and spiritual matters. Indigenous peoples around the world have gained a deep
understanding of the physical environment and the plants used for food and medicine. Through
harvesting and breeding practices, they have also developed a wide variety of crops.
 Not only that, many of the major food crops in North America and Europe actually
originate from these local communities. However, companies in Northern countries often
appropriate this traditional knowledge for their own purposes. Countries such as Brazil, India,
the Philippines, and Indonesia are now demanding that those wishing to discover local plants
with compounds that can be used in medicine must obtain permits, acknowledge the source of
ingredients that are then patented, and share the benefits with local communities that originally
relied on them. this traditional knowledge.
This struggle also includes protecting traditional knowledge from misuse by
non-indigenous groups. Several countries in the South are attempting to grant copyrights to
folklore and indigenous works of art to their indigenous peoples. All of this is an effort to
provide new cultural rights to indigenous peoples and protect traditional knowledge from misuse,
because traditional knowledge is an important part of ensuring the continuity of knowledge and
cultural heritage from generation to generation.
 CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

Viewed from a liberal, mercantilist, or structuralist viewpoint, knowledge and technology

form the critical basis of wealth and power. In this era of global hypercompetition, companies
and policymakers understand that knowledge and technology provide significant advantages to
countries. Governments have the power to control the flow of information across borders by,
among other things, censoring the Internet and requiring data locality. Instead, they undermine
this control through often successful espionage against other governments, as revealed by
WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden. Multinational companies sometimes work with governments
to collect information about citizens and foreigners, with important consequences for human
rights.

Traditionally, countries have funded basic scientific research and fostered companies that
produce breakthrough technologies. However, in recent years, financial processes may have
weakened US companies' commitment to investing in long-term innovation. Meanwhile, China
and other countries in Asia are determined to become technological powers to reduce
dependence on Western multinational companies. Universities in the US, UK and Canada
continue to attract many of the brightest students from around the world. Countries strategically
use visa policies to attract skilled workers and wealthy entrepreneurs in the global talent race.

That Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection has risen to the level of a major foreign
policy concern for the United States, Europe, and Japan is not surprising. Knowledge structures
clearly constrain actors' choices and shape their behavior. This influences which countries will
turn innovation into higher productivity, greater market share, and increased exports. It also helps
determine the distribution of benefits by shaping prices and productive capacity. The debate
regarding IPR will continue for many years. There is greater recognition by some economic
liberals that too many IPRs can have negative consequences for development.