The relationship between China and international intellectual property (IP) law is full of challenges. Western countries, in particular the United States and those in the EU, have continually accused China of not respecting international IP law. China, however, argues that it has done its best to comply and has achieved great success within a short period of time. This chapter tries to answer the question of whether China is a respected player of international IP law and a responsible stakeholder of the international IP system, or a challenger to it. The chapter argues that although the relationship between China and the international IP system is not always smooth, China has justified that IP has its own normative values and thus should be protected, taken part in negotiation of IP treaties, implemented its IP obligations in good faith and accepted judicial settlement of international IP disputes. China learns from the system, supports the system and contributes to the system. China is changing from a follower of international IP law to a key player that contributes to the international IP legal system, for which she deserves to be respected.

This chapter examines the relevant international law framework. Particular focus is given to the provisions of international intellectual property law, notably the TRIPS Agreement. The notion of minimum standards embedded in TRIPS is examined, with particular attention given to those aspects of the minimum standards impacting on the interoperability standard-setting landscape. The general lack of corresponding maximum standards is noted. Key flexibilities embedded in TRIPS are then discussed. The chapter then examines other provisions of international economic law with potential to address concerns associated with access to interoperability standards and SEIP: the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), the WTO Telecommunications Agreement (notably the GATS Telecommunications Annex and Reference Paper) and the WTO Informational Technology Agreement; international dimensions of competition law are also considered. The chapter concludes that there is no international agreement that is presently well-suited to address concerns associated with access to interoperability standards and SEIP.