Edward Said’s powerful words: “Humanism is the only, and I would go so far as to say, the final resistance we have against inhuman practices and injustices that disfigure human history,” speak the language of the UN Charter – “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples…”
What would happen if we reimagined international trade, making dignity and understanding the measure of every deal, tariff and dispute?
We have moved beyond shipping containers to digital transmissions and a streaming culture. These data flows are a reality – music, film, music, design crossing borders instantaneously. Could cultural intellectual property (cultural IP) be a counter-hegemonic influence, transforming intellectual property from a creative cultural commodity to a tool enabling equitable trade and cooperation?
I introduce the term AnimEnomics (an expression I have coined– distinct from a website reporting on Japan’s anime market) to describe cultural, creative and economic interaction by media – driven cultural products within a humanist legal framework to show how commerce and creative cultural assets intertwines societal fabrics and may be aligned with human rights. This framework treats cultural IP as a public good, capable of advancing communication, inclusive development and trade justice and not leveraged merely as a commodity. It argues that cultural assets are important drivers of international trade and an important carrier of social meaning. It should be noted that AnimEnomics has not previously been recognized nor acknowledged in legal scholarship, economic literature nor media studies.
To situate this argument, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994), the WTO agreements and principles regulating trade and intellectual property (IP) are addressed in conjunction with international human rights law which provides normative substance through the protections for culture, development, health and to participation and protection of scientific, literary and artistic progress. These commitments are grounded in the moral and legal framework of dignity, justice and international cooperation articulated in the UN Charter (1945) and core human rights covenants.
Yet, trade rules are often interpreted through a hegemonic trade paradigm, privileging market access and capital expansion. A counter hegemonic perspective might enable us to see these instruments as international constitutive structures, capable of advancing equity among nations and people.
Beyond import–export: completing the framework
By focusing only on regulations and market access, the cultural and emotional dimensions of exchange, trade’s humanist dimension, and the interpretive constructs that inform trade are often overlooked. In fact, the creative cultural IP addressed here is different from the cultural IP associated with traditional heritage knowledge and the cultural expressions of a country and Indigenous Peoples, who have a defined legal niche. Creative cultural expressions, from anime, memes, art, and media to storytelling, as well as the cultural narratives and emotional connections embedded in exchange itself, are often dismissed as incidental to “serious” trade policy.
These modern creative cultural assets are vital cultural infrastructure. They influence diplomacy, shape preferences, mobilise public awareness, and give meaning to what might otherwise remain abstract legal structures. They are not simply entertainment, but act as cultural equity agents. They are not just tools for profit, but make culture a medium of access and a significant channel for cultural and economic exchange, shaping how people build connections, understand one another, and relate across borders. This model enables cultural and social identities to be respected and exchanged as part of global justice.
These cultural forms function as instruments of “soft power,” which Joseph Nye recognised when he stated that “the soft power of a country is dependent on three sources: its culture, in places where it is attractive to others; its political values, when it lives up to them at home and abroad; and its foreign policies, when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority.”
Cultural intellectual property
Cultural IP operates as a bridge between these regimes, generating economic value while carrying intrinsic human rights significance. This analysis reflects the cultural theory of intellectual property, in which Professor William Fisher of Harvard Law explains how the rule of law both protects and enables our appreciation of the arts and innovation.
Cultural IP advances the view that international trade must evolve beyond profit maximisation toward dignity, as enshrined in Article I of the UDHR: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Culture should be understood as an essential component of identity, diversity, human development, and global understanding, not reduced to a tradable commodity in global supply chains. Market rules should not erase communicative access. The protection of cultural IP must be justified against broader objectives of social welfare, cultural participation, and parity in development. Article 8 of the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity states that cultural goods must not be treated merely as commodities, but recognised as transmitters of identity, values, and meaning.
China Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products
This omission is visible in the WTO dispute on cultural goods in China Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (WT/DS363, 2009), particularly in relation to China’s restrictions on foreign distribution and trading rights for audiovisual products.
The dispute was settled primarily through the lens of market access, ignoring context. Cultural products were treated as tradable commodities rather than as expressions of identity and meaning. China’s prohibition on foreign-invested entities distributing sound recordings, audiovisual home entertainment, theatrical films, and reading materials was found inconsistent with national treatment obligations. The settlement failed to address culture as a public good or to consider the public interest benefits of promoting social values, morals, and cultural identity.
Global perspectives
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry aims to expand international content and creative industry sales to ¥20 trillion by 2033 under its revised Cool Japan Strategy. Anime exports do more than generate revenue; they circulate narratives, artistic expression, and values that expand Japan’s global influence. Anime, originally emerging from Japan as hand-drawn or digitally produced comic-style animation, has since become a global cultural force shaping visual language worldwide. In this discussion, the term “anime” is used both in its specific Japanese cultural context and in its broader international animation and media dimension.
South Korea’s specialised body, the Korea Creative Content Agency (KOCCA), similarly reflects state investment in cultural IP as a strategic export sector. This has enabled the Hallyu wave, covering K-pop, television dramas, gaming, and film, to be integrated into trade and soft power. Both cases demonstrate that cultural creative assets, once deemed peripheral to trade, now sit at the centre of trade and diplomacy. International law has yet to fully acknowledge their normative and legal weight.
The rights paradigm
When we disentangle cultural impact from market forces, it is like separating the art and words of a story from the medium in which they are presented, similar to separating the narrative and visuals from the screen or platform itself. Cultural interplay determines the meaning and value of the exchange. Hayao Miyazaki, the Japanese animator, creates films that are both protected by copyright and commercially mobilised. They illustrate cultural IP as a public good while addressing social issues. His works generate shared cultural value and ethical meaning across borders, engaging with themes of greed, capitalism, the environment, gender, and war. One may ask whether Spirited Away can be seen as a cultural force that aligns with Said’s philosophy of humanism.
Legal frameworks require careful application across borders, and this does not require hypothetical scenarios.
Socio-cultural issues relate to the social welfare function of intellectual property under TRIPS Article 7 and the right to participate in cultural life under ICESCR Article 15, as clarified by CESCR General Comment No. 17.
Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS frame intellectual property protection as instrumental to technological innovation, social and economic welfare, and a balance of rights and obligations, while promoting the public interest. This confirms that intellectual property rights are not ends in themselves, but regulatory frameworks serving broader public objectives.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in General Comment 17, provides insight into the relationship between intellectual property and human rights, distinguishing moral and material interests from corporate rights. This reflects an understanding of intellectual property rights as rights-bearing, not simply revenue-generating.
A normative shift situates cultural IP within a human rights and public goods framework. AnimEnomics builds on this jurisprudential rationale, framing cultural IP as a regulated public good whose value lies not only in commercial exchange but also in its socially regenerative function, contributing to social welfare and cultural exchange in line with TRIPS and related treaty regimes.
If international law is to serve people as well as states, the central question is whether AnimEnomics can guide trade governance toward global understanding and justice alongside formal treaty regimes. A counter-hegemonic approach may reframe international trade law, with dignity and global understanding as interpretive anchors of economic relations.
Culture speaks. Cultural IP may represent a humanist turn in international trade law.