Judgment

Judgment

Explaining the Concept and Function of "Distributive Justice" in the Realm of Intellectual Property Rights

Document Type : Scientific

Author
Amid Mohammadi
Assistant Professor in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of humanity, Jahrom University, Jahrom, Iran,amid_mohammadi@jahromu.ac.ir
10.22034/judg.2026.2067212.1550
Abstract
Distributive justice constitutes a fundamental pillar of political and social theories, examining the modalities for the equitable allocation of scarce resources and social opportunities within institutional structures. Despite its theoretical connections to legal philosophy, its role in justifying the intellectual property system has been underexplored and frequently marginalized. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, this study investigates whether the principles of distributive justice are reflected in the architecture of this legal regime. Findings indicate that while early legislative practices in this domain were influenced by distributive considerations, the subsequent trajectory of developments has been dominated by an economic discourse centered on efficiency-based criteria. Nevertheless, distributive justice, as a normative framework, tempers excessively proprietarian approaches through mechanisms such as exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights. The existing literature presents two primary interpretations of this relationship: an externalist approach, which views distributive justice as a factor conflicting with the intrinsic values of the intellectual property system, and an internalist approach, which perceives the internal mechanisms of intellectual property norms as instrumental in achieving it. Critiquing this dichotomy, the present study proposes a dialectical model wherein policymakers, through an analytical approach, modulate laws along a spectrum between these two poles. The hallmarks of this model include ensuring non-discriminatory access to knowledge, the equitable distribution of economic benefits, striking a balance between public and private interests, and formulating targeted exceptions for the exploitation of intellectual works. The study concludes that, contrary to national, economistic discourses, recent instruments of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have explicitly recognized distributive justice as one of the principal objectives of this legal system, signaling a fundamental transformation in global intellectual property governance.




 
Keywords
Allocation
Distributive Justice Theory
Egalitarianim
Hybrid Approach
Intellectual Property
Monopolism

Subjects

1.      بادینی، حسن. (1384). فلسفۀ مسئولیت مدنی، چاپ اول، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
2.      جعفری‌تبار، حسن. (1386). مُلک معنی در کنار: گفتاری در فلسفۀ حقوق مالکیت فکری، فصلنامۀ حقوق، سال 37، شمارۀ 2، 82-41.
3.      حبیبا، سعید و شهبازی، مسعود. (1396). رویکرد نظری به اسباب تملک آثار فکری، فصلنامۀ حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ 14، شمارۀ 1، 49-27.
4.     حبیبی‌ کندسر، مصطفی؛ دیلم صالحی، بهروز و اسلامی، سعید. (1398). سیر تطور اندیشۀ جان رالز و زمینه‌های شکل‌گیری نظریۀ عدالت، فصلنامۀ غرب‌شناسی بنیادی، سال 10، شمارۀ 2، 88-63.
5.      حکمت‌نیا، محمود. (1387). مبانی مالکیت فکری، چاپ دوم، تهران: انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشۀ اسلامی.
6.      حکمت‌نیا، محمود و موحدی ساوجی، محمد. (1385). جایگاه مبانی نظری در فهم و ترسیم نظام مالکیت فکری، فصلنامۀ حقوق اسلامی، دورۀ 2، شمارۀ 8، 104-89.
7.      سلطان ‌احمدی، جلال. (1398). حقوق قرارداد و عدالت توزیعی، فصلنامۀ دانش حقوق مدنی، دورۀ 8، شمارۀ 2، 116-98.
8.      شاکری، زهرا. (1397). معاهدۀ مراکش؛ تحولی در نظام حقوق مالکیت فکری؟! سخنی در استثنای استفادۀ معلولان، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ 48، شمارۀ 2، 284-265.
9.      صاحب، طیبه. (1397). کثرت‌گرایی ارزشی در نظام بین‌المللی حقوق مالکیت فکری، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال هفتم، شمارۀ 25، 205-171.
10.    لطفی، حسن. (1397). مبنای دخالت دولت در قراردادها: عدالت تصحیحی یا توزیعی؟، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 48، شمارۀ 3، 567-547.
11.    نادران، الیاس، نعمتی، محمد. (1391). نقد و بررسی مبانی و روش‌شناسی نظریۀ عدالت جان‌ رالز، دوفصلنامۀ مطالعات اقتصاد اسلامی، سال 5، شمارۀ 1، 27-7.
12.       Ajibade, I. (2016). “Distributive justice and human rights in climate policy: the long road to Paris”, AFE Babalola University: J. of Sust. Dev. Law & Policy, Vol.7, No.2.
13.       Ayoubi, L. (2015). “The Marrakesh Treaty: Fixing International Copyright Law for the Benefit of the Visually Impaired Persons”, N.Z. J. Pub. & Int’l L., Vol.13.
14.       Benoliel, D; Yu, P. K; Gurry, F. and Lee, K. (2024). Intellectual Property, Innovation and Economic Inequality, Cambridge University Press & Assessment: Texas A&M Law Scholarship, Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/2172.
15.       Benoliel, D. (2007). “Copyright Distributive Injustice”, Yale J. L. & Tech., Vol. 10.
16.       Blankfein-Tabachnick, D. (2020). “Maximizing Intellectual Property: Optimality, Synchronicity, and Distributive Justice”, ST. John’s Law Review, Vol.94, No.1.
17.       Blankfein-Tabachnick, D. )2013(. “Intellectual Property Doctrine and Midlevel Principles”, California Law Review, Vol. 101.
18.       Boer, N. J. de. (2013). “Fundamental Rights and the EU Internal Market: Just How Fundamental Are the EU Treaty Freedoms? A Normative Enquiry Based John Rawls’ Political Philosophy”, Utrecht L. Rev., Vol.9.
19.       Chon, M. (2007). Intellectual Property “from Below”: Copyright and Capability for Education, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev., 803, 805–08.
20.       Cohen, G. A. (2015). Distributive Justice and Access to Advantage.
21.       Cohen, M. R. (1927). “Property and Sovereignty”, Cornell L. Q. Vol.13.
22.       Cook, K. S. and Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). “Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality”, Annual rev. Sociology, Vol.9.
23.       Dagan, H. (2011). Property: Values and Institutions, Oxford University Press.
24.       Deane, F. and Bodimeade, C. (2024). Renewable Energy Technology and Intellectual Property Rights: Global Public Goods, The Elgar Companion to Intellectual Property and the SDGs, doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803925233.00017.
25.       DeCamp, M. W. (2007). Global Health: A Normative Anlysis of Intellectual Property Rights And Global Disttributive Justice, Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Duke University.
26.       Dziedziak, W. (2022). An Essay on Natural and Distributive Justice, Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, Vol. XXIX, 4, DOI: 10.17951/sil.2020.29.4.71-83.
27.       Ekardt, F. and Hövel, A. (2009). “Distributive Justice, Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate Protection: One human – one emission right”, Carbon & Climate Law Review 2009, 102 ff.
28.       Elmahjub, E. (2017). “Fair Use and Fairness in Copyright: A Distributive Justice Perspective on Users' Rights”, Monash University law review, Vol. 43, No. 1.
29.       Falkner, R. (2019). “The Unavoidability of Justice – and Order – in International Climate Politics: from Kyoto to Paris and Beyond”, Forthcoming in: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 21.
30.       Feldman, Y. (2002). “An Experimental Approach to the Study of Social Norms: The Allocation of Intellectual Property Rights in the Workplace”, J. Intell. Prop. L., Vol.10, 59, 66–67.
31.       Fisher, W. (2001). Theories of Intellectual Property, in New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property 168, 169–75 (Stephen R. Munzer ed.: 2001).
32.       Fleischacker, S. (2004). A Short History of Distributive Justice, Harvard University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2fcct3g.
33.       Grinvald, L. C. (2020). “Against Progress: The Value of Distributive Justice in Intellectual Property”, Boston University Law Review Online, Vol. 102.
34.       Hodgson, H. (2010). “Theories of Distributive Justice: Frameworks for Equity”, J. Australasian Tax Tchrs, Ass'n, 5, 86.
35.       Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: ITs Elementary Forms.
36.       Hughes, J. and Merges, R. P. (2017). “Copyright and Distributive Justice”, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol.92, Issue.2.
37.       Kapczynski, A. (2012). “The Cost of Price: Why and How to Get Beyond Intellectual Property Internalism”, UCLA L. Rev., Vol. 59, 970, 977–79.

  • Receive Date 29 July 2025
  • Revise Date 17 August 2025
  • Accept Date 17 February 2026