Implemented or ignored? The paradox of international IP conventions in Angola and Zambia

International property conventions are formal agreements - treaties or protocols - established between States or regional entities to create common rules, standards, and procedures for the protection, enforcement, and administration of intellectual property rights across borders.

International conventions are simultaneously a technical framework providing legal certainty and an instrument for the advancement of global creative and economic progress. Examples include the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), the TRIPS Agreement (1994) and the Madrid Protocol (1989).

International conventions operate in close connection with national laws. This interaction underscores the interdependent nature of the international and national IP regimes, where international conventions often act as a guiding authority. As Michel Virally notes “Every legal order asserts itself as superior to its subjects, or it is not… International law is inconceivable except as superior to the States, its subjects. To deny its superiority is to deny its very existence.)” [1].

Yet, the relation between international and national laws is far from evident and frequently becomes a source of significant legal friction. Out of the many questions this relationship raises, the application of international IP conventions in each State is a key issue on which we will focus.

In general, international law does not specify how it should be incorporated into domestic law. Indeed, States are free to act as they consider appropriate, in accordance with the principle of sovereignty on which all international law is founded. However, how can this approach be reconciled with the legal certainty and predictability that international law seeks to ensure?

To illustrate this issue, we will concentrate on Angola and Zambia, examining their respective positions with regard to the Paris Convention in the case of Angola and the Madrid Protocol in the case of Zambia.

1.     The Direct application of the International IP Conventions: The Paris Convention in Angola

The first time Angola mentions the Paris Convention in a legal document is 1984, specifically in Resolution No. 9/84, when it accedes the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). However, it was through Resolution No. 22/05, in 2005, that Angola formally approved the Paris Convention, although its accession only took effect on 27 September 2007.

The Paris Convention has never been implemented into domestic law; this means that its provisions have never been transposed into the national legal framework. This is because Angola follows a monist legal system. Indeed, according to the article 13 of the Angolan Constitution “International treaties and agreements that are duly approved or ratified shall have force within the Angolan legal order upon their official publication and entry into force under international law, and for as long as they bind the Angolan State internationally.”

As a result, Angola’s international commitments directly bind the State internally, implying that government authorities and courts must apply these treaties without the need for additional implementing legislation.

This solution could bring the inconvenience of the Paris Convention potentially conflicting with existing domestic law. However, this overlooks the fact that, in addition to its obligation to be prepared to apply the Paris Convention as stated in Article 25 of the Convention, Angola’s own IP law, - Law No. 3/92 of February 28 - addresses this issue in Article 77, which provides that “the provisions of international conventions relating to intellectual property and industrial property, in particular those to which Angola is a contracting party, shall take precedence in the event of a conflict between these and the provisions of this law”.

This alignment enhances coherence between national and international law, enabling the country to comply efficiently with global standards, provide legal security to international investors, and simultaneously address weaknesses or gaps in domestic legislation.

On the other hand, such a system may reduce legislative control and create interpretative challenges for the courts. Furthermore, the automatic incorporation of IP conventions not only presumes that their provisions are sufficiently clear to be applied without further intervention, but may also necessitate rapid adjustments to national law, which can be politically or administratively sensitive.

2.     The Necessity of Incorporating IP Conventions into Domestic Law: The Case of the Madrid Protocol in Zambia

Contrary to Angola, the Constitution of Zambia does not mention the status of international law. In fact, the country has the Ratification of International Agreements Act (No.34 of 2016), which, particularly in article 12, establishes that international law is not self-executing but need to follow a process of domestication by way of an Act of Parliament in order to be effective. This makes Zambia a country that follows the dualist system, which is commonly adopted by Commonwealth countries.

Consequently, for international conventions, such as the Madrid Protocol, to be enforceable in the country, they must be incorporated into domestic law, and it is in this sense that the High Court of Zambia decided in a judgment of 2017 (Johnson and Johnson v Aardash Pharma Limited). In this case, the High Court implicitly recognized that international registrations (IRs) have no effect in Zambia because the Madrid Protocol has not been specifically incorporated into national legislation, despite having been ratified. Indeed, the Court held that unregistered marks, including well-known marks under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, are not protected, as Zambia has not domesticated TRIPS. By extension, IRs under the Madrid Protocol may likewise lack enforceability.

This position creates considerable uncertainty for all applicants holding IRs designating Zambia, which explains why it is regarded as problematic among legal scholars and practitioners. For instance, the Registry, which concluded in 2019, in Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite v Amina Limited, that international registrations designating Zambia are valid under the Zambian Trade Marks Act, contradicts the judgment of the High Court.

It is true that the decisions of the High Court prevail over those of the Registrar, and any uncertainty arising from this Registrar’s pronouncement could be resolved by this principle. Nevertheless, the case has the merit of highlighting a situation that remains unsatisfactory for both international trademark owners and local legal practitioners.

The Zambian approach undeniably provides the advantage of clarity and legislative control. It enables national parliaments to scrutinize international treaties thoroughly and adapt their provisions to the domestic context, thereby minimizing potential conflicts between domestic and international law. Nevertheless, this approach may also give rise to delays and legal uncertainty, as it depends on legislative action, which can be protracted and time-consuming.

Both monist and dualist systems, as exemplified by Angola and Zambia, have their respective merits. However, in our view, the challenges posed by dualist frameworks tend to be more pronounced, in light of a recent case in Tanzania. On 26 September 2025, the Court of Appeal held that the Banjul Protocol under ARIPO has no legal force in mainland Tanzania because it has not been either ratified and/or domesticated, which prompted ARIPO to remove Tanzania from its list of designated countries.

As for IRs in Zambia, this development creates uncertainty for all ARIPO trademarks designating Tanzania, further demonstrating that the monist approach, as exemplified by Angola, remains the most effective means of ensuring predictable and enforceable IP rights.

Additionally, this case provides an opportunity to question the role of international and regional IP organizations in ensuring that marks are enforceable domestically before including countries on their designated lists, thereby safeguarding both investors and the integrity of the system.