Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism

Abstract

What is ‘relational theorizing’ in International Relations and what can it offer? This article introduces a thematic section that responds to these questions by showing two things. First, relational theorizing is not a doctrine or a method, but a set of analyses that begin with relations rather than the putative essences of constitutively autonomous actors. Second, relational theorizing has emerged from different geo-linguistic traditions, and a relational approach to International Relations (IR) can offer the language and space for increased and productive engagement beyond Anglophone scholarship. This thematic section takes a significant step in this direction by staging a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relational IR theorizing. Such an engagement shows points of comparison and contrast, convergence and divergence. In this way, the essays presented here contribute to developing a more ‘global’ IR.     

Representational Altruism: The Wary Cooperator as Authoritative Decision Maker

What drives policymakers to put the interests of others above their own? If human nature is inherently selfish, it makes sense to institutionalize incentives that counter decision makers' temptations to use their positions to benefit themselves over others. A growing literature rooted in evolutionary theories of human behavior, however, suggests that humans, under certain circumstances, have inherent predispositions towards “representational altruism,” i.e., to make an authoritative decision to benefit another at one's own expense. Drawing on Hibbing and Alford's conception of the wary cooperator, a theoretical case is made for such behavioral expectations, which are confirmed in a series of original laboratory experiments.     

Supplementary protection certificates: Advocate General's opinion on formulations

The opinion of Advocate General Léger, published on 24November 2005 in C-431/04, opens the way for extending the durationof certain pharmaceutical formulation patents by means of asupplementary protection certificate (SPC).     

Proof of use, continuity of functions in inter partes proceedings, and three-dimensional marks: Europe in review

Legal context: This article reviews the recent CFI and ECJ case law on proofof use and continuity of functions in the context of oppositionproceedings as well as the strict approach to three-dimensionalmarks. Key points: Unlike the situation in many common law jurisdictions, the Communitytrade mark regime is not a use-based system. Nevertheless, oncea mark has been registered for more than five years, the rightsthat it seeks to protect may only be enforceable to the extentthat the sign has been used for the goods and services it covers.In the context of opposition proceedings, applicants may callfor evidence that the opponent has actually used the mark onwhich the opposition is based. The concept of ‘genuineuse’ - which must be demonstrated in order to show thata mark has actually been used - has come before the Court ofJustice for further clarification. Where proof of use is adducedfor the first time before the Board of Appeal, the Court ofFirst Instance believes that, because of the principle of thecontinuity of functions, it is not out of time. That analysishas not been supported by the recent opinion of Advocate GeneralSharpston in the Arcol case and there is now considerable uncertaintypending a final pronouncement on the issue by the Court of Justice.In the meantime, the case law from Luxembourg continues to insiston three dimensional marks being like any other type of mark,whilst taking a very strict approach to the registrability ofsuch signs. Practical significance: The evidence of use to be adduced need not be quantatively significantand the ‘hurdle to be jumped’ is somewhat ‘lower’than was previously the case. Whether negligent representativesmay continue to use the continuity of functions principle tojustify recouping missed deadlines on appeal (particularly,when presenting proof of use), remains to be seen. However,what is certain is that three-dimensional marks will continueto be difficult to register.