This article assesses the arguments and challenges that are likely to arise should investors file an investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) claim over measures taken in response to a waiver of obligations relating to intellectual property rights (IPRs) under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). After providing an overview of the proposed waiver of IPRs for COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments, it examines the jurisprudence relating to IP and investor–State arbitration and the grounds upon which investors would rely to make a case in ISDS and possible State defences. The analysis, which focuses on fair and equitable treatment and expropriation, concludes that it will be difficult for investors to succeed in claiming that measures taken in response to a TRIPS waiver of IPRs breach any substantive protection provision contained in an international investment agreement. States should, however, seek additional security by revisiting existing treaties and adding additional layers of safeguards to ensure legitimate and non-discriminatory measures taken in response to a TRIPS waiver do not lead to investor claims.

本文评估了如果投资者提出投资者与国家争端解决 (ISDS) 索赔，要求采取措施以回应世界贸易组织 (WTO) 协议下与知识产权 (IPR) 相关的义务的放弃，可能会出现的论点和挑战。与贸易有关的知识产权（TRIPS 协议）。在概述了关于 COVID-19 疫苗和治疗的知识产权豁免的提议后，它审查了与知识产权和投资者-国家仲裁有关的判例，以及投资者在 ISDS 和可能的国家辩护中提出诉讼的依据。该分析侧重于公平公正的待遇和征用，得出的结论是，投资者很难成功声称针对 TRIPS 放弃知识产权而采取的措施违反了国际投资协议中包含的任何实质性保护条款。然而，各国应通过重新审视现有条约并增加额外的保障措施来寻求额外的安全，以确保为响应 TRIPS 豁免而采取的合法和非歧视性措施不会导致投资者索赔。