Geoeconomic Fragmentation and the Erosion of TRIPS Flexibilities in Technology Access and Distributive Justice in the Global South
This paper argues that the rise of geoeconomic fragmentation and techno-nationalism is eroding TRIPS flexibilities and the policy space of Global South nations to access critical technologies, thereby transforming intellectual property from a development tool into an instrument of technological hierarchy that necessitates a reconstruction of equitable global technology governance.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine a global marketplace where the rules for sharing new inventions were designed to help everyone, from the wealthiest nations to the poorest, grow together. For decades, a set of international agreements known as TRIPS acted as the rulebook for this marketplace. It promised that while inventors would be protected, developing countries would still have the freedom to access and adapt critical technologies like medicines, clean energy tools, and digital systems. This balance was the foundation of a system that assumed the world would keep trading and integrating. However, the world has changed. A new force, driven by nations viewing technology as a matter of national survival rather than just commerce, is reshaping how these rules work. This shift, often called geoeconomic fragmentation, is turning the global economy into a series of isolated blocks where security concerns override the promise of shared progress.
The core question researchers Hamza Khan, Ahmar Afaq, and Maryam Ishrat Beg set out to answer is whether the safety valves built into the original rulebook still work when the world is no longer cooperating. They examined how major economies are now treating advanced technologies—such as the chips that power computers, the tools needed to fight climate change, and the software behind artificial intelligence—as strategic weapons. By restricting the flow of these items under the guise of national security, these nations are effectively closing the door on the very mechanisms that were supposed to help developing countries catch up. The researchers found that while the legal right to access these technologies remains written in the treaties, the practical ability to use those rights is being eroded. The result is a system where the gap between rich and poor nations is widening, not because the rules changed on paper, but because the material conditions needed to follow them have vanished.
To understand the problem, one must first look at the original deal. When the World Trade Organization was formed, developing nations agreed to stricter rules for protecting intellectual property—the legal rights that give inventors control over their creations. In exchange, they were promised that technology would flow to them, helping them build their own industries and improve public health. The agreement included specific "flexibilities," or safety measures, that allowed countries to bypass strict patent rules in emergencies, such as a health crisis, or to force companies to share technology if it was needed for the public good. These tools were designed to ensure that the system did not become a one-way street where wealth only moved from poor to rich.
The researchers argue that a new wave of "techno-nationalism" is dismantling this balance. This is a mindset where countries view technological superiority as essential to their national security, similar to how they view military strength. Consequently, nations are increasingly using export controls and investment screenings to stop advanced technologies from leaving their borders. They are not just blocking weapons; they are blocking dual-use items that can serve both civilian and military purposes, such as high-performance computer chips and specific software algorithms. This creates a situation where a developing country might legally have the right to produce a generic version of a life-saving drug or a green energy device, but it cannot do so because the raw materials, the machinery, or the technical knowledge required to build it are now locked behind security barriers.
The paper highlights that this is not a theoretical issue but a concrete reality affecting specific sectors. In the world of semiconductors and artificial intelligence, the researchers point out that a tiny group of wealthy nations and a few massive corporations control the vast majority of computing power. Recent data suggests that a small number of American companies hold roughly 71 percent of the global capacity to run advanced artificial intelligence, while Chinese ownership accounts for only about 5 percent. The rest of the world, particularly the Global South, is left with very little access. Similarly, in the fight against climate change, more than 90 percent of trade in low-carbon technologies happens only between high-income countries and China. Other developing nations are excluded from these production networks, leaving them as mere importers who cannot build their own capacity to adapt to a changing climate.
The impact of these restrictions varies depending on a country's existing strength. The researchers used India, Brazil, and South Africa as case studies to show how different nations are coping. India, with its long history of using the legal safety valves to produce affordable medicines, has built up a strong institutional knowledge that helps it navigate these new barriers in other sectors like digital infrastructure. However, even India faces limits when it comes to the most advanced hardware, which remains under strict export controls. Brazil and South Africa face even steeper challenges. Their attempts to build renewable energy industries are hampered because the proprietary technology needed to decarbonize their economies is controlled by a few suppliers who are unwilling to share it with nations that are not political allies. For countries with weaker industrial bases, the situation is dire; they lack the local capacity to innovate and are increasingly dependent on imported solutions that are becoming harder to obtain.
The study emphasizes that this erosion of access is a profound injustice. It transforms intellectual property from a tool meant to foster development into a mechanism that enforces a technological hierarchy. When a country cannot access the tools to make medicine, generate clean energy, or participate in the digital economy, its people suffer. The researchers argue that this undermines the very concept of distributive justice, which asks whether the benefits and burdens of global cooperation are shared fairly. By allowing security concerns to override development needs, the current system is creating a world where the rich get richer in terms of capability, while the poor are left behind, unable to catch up even when the rules say they should be allowed to try.
The authors conclude that simply waiting for the old rules to work is no longer an option. They suggest that the international community must find new ways to reclaim the policy space that was promised to developing nations. This could involve reinterpreting the existing agreements to prioritize the public interest over strict security claims, creating new funds to help countries buy and adapt technologies, and fostering stronger cooperation between developing nations themselves. While the legal text of the treaties remains unchanged, the researchers warn that without addressing the new reality of security-driven restrictions, the promise of a fair and integrated global economy will remain unfulfilled. The path forward requires acknowledging that technology is no longer just a commodity to be traded, but a critical resource that must be governed with a renewed commitment to equity and shared human progress.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.