On 29 January 2017, one of Myanmar's most noted constitutional lawyers and legal_x000D_ adviser to Aung San Suu Kyi's ruling National League for Democracy ("NLD") was_x000D_ shot dead in broad daylight atYangon International Airport. Coming only three days_x000D_ after the publication of Constitutionalism and Legal Change in Myanmar (2017),_x000D_ U Ko Ni's shocking assassination graphically highlighted the ongoing fragility of_x000D_ the transition to democracy and the perils continuing to face those who speak out_x000D_ for constitutional reform, human rights and the rule of law in one of South East_x000D_ Asia's most complex countries. The cautious optimism advocated by Daw Suu_x000D_ in the wake of the NLD's election victory in November 2015 has in the intervening_x000D_ two years been increasingly tested. The political power still evidently wielded by the_x000D_ military, continuing sporadic armed conflict in the ethnic states despite the nationwide_x000D_ ceasefire agreement, and international condemnation of widely reported allegations_x000D_ of government-perpetrated mass human rights violations in Rakhine State have all_x000D_ strained Myanmar's nascent democratic credentials.

It is true that the term "intellectual property" ("IP") may give to the uninitiated_x000D_ the impression that it refers to a homogenous or unified subject matter. It is also_x000D_ true that not too long ago, at most a couple of decades, the then-prevailing thought_x000D_ leadership in IP was that in order to promote trade and to create a level playing field,_x000D_ a gradual harmonisation of IP rights in the world by the incorporation of minimum_x000D_ standards into international trade agreements was both necessary and justifiable. It_x000D_ is further true that the IP protection regime, perceived as a unified body of law, has become an integral part of international trade negotiations and has never been more economically and politically important than the present day. Nevertheless, the quest for a "one size fits all" regime in the IP system has increasingly been subject to question particularly in light of the fact that IP comprises historically distinct regimes of patent, copyright and trade mark law which differ greatly in terms of historical origins, policy objectives, scope of protection as well as social and commercial impact; even as we acknowledge that the rationale for protection is based primarily on theories of utilitarian incentives. Considered from this perspective, diversity is thus an integral and unique trait of IP that must be constantly borne in mind as well as embraced as we navigate the plethora of issues in this complex area.