Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The rise of geoeconomic fragmentation and techno-nationalism is fundamentally reshaping the global intellectual property (IP) regime. While the TRIPS Agreement was originally presented as a carefully balanced bargain that preserved flexibilities for developing countries, contemporary security-driven export controls, investment screening, industrial subsidies, and strategic technology restrictions are increasingly constraining those flexibilities. This paper critically examines how the securitisation of technology and the weaponisation of supply chains are eroding the policy space of Global South countries to access, adapt, and diffuse critical technologies in pharmaceuticals, green energy, digital infrastructure, and artificial intelligence. Drawing on international trade law, political economy, and distributive justice frameworks, the paper analyses the interplay between TRIPS Articles 7, 8, 31, and 66.2 and the expanding use of national security exceptions. It argues that the current trajectory risks transforming IP from a development tool into an instrument of technological hierarchy and proposes pathways for reclaiming regulatory sovereignty and reconstructing a more equitable technology governance architecture in a multipolar world.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: