{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019250253292806486, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.861111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Local Working Requirement: Reconciling TRIPS Agreement with the Paris Convention

The current controversy regarding the validity of local working requirement in domestic legislations rises from the contradictory provisions under the Paris Convention and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement. While the former recognizes 'failure to work' as a ground for granting compulsory licenses, the latter specifically requires non-discrimination on the basis of 'whether products are imported or locally produced'. The question, then, remains whether these two provisions can be reconciled with each other as the provisions of Paris Convention were specifically incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement through reference. In this paper, I would attempt to analyse the intent, effect and legislative history of these seemingly conflicting provisions, to arrive at a plausible reconciliation of local working requirement under the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.