Following the Doha Declaration, several compulsory licences were granted for the general production of patented medicines.19,20 Some countries, particularly Thailand, have developed an explicit strategy for the use of compulsory licenses to reduce health costs21. It is outside the scope of this document to discuss the legitimacy of these strategies or the retaliatory measures of other countries that have been the subject of in-depth discussions elsewhere.19 “22 On the contrary, this paper focuses on how compulsory licences in rich countries could be used to help countries that are unable to produce medicines. Under Article 31, point (f), of the ON TRIPS agreement, countries with production capacity have been limited to their capacity to assist, as they require that production under the compulsory licence be primarily for domestic procurement, even if the licence is granted in the event of a national emergency or in other extreme emergency or non-commercial public purposes. This problem was well identified during the Doha negotiations and led to the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the Doha Declaration, which called on the TRIPS Council to find a “quick solution”. After a long period of negotiations, the enforcement decision was adopted in August 2003 under paragraph 6 (execution decision) of Doha.23 One of the key aspects of the enforcement decision was the agreement to waive Article 31, point f). Some time later, the protocol amending the ON TRIPS agreement (the protocol) was adopted by the WTO General Council on 6 December 2005.24 The conditions for TRIPS plus, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, were also reviewed. [38] These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for promoting protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS. The U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco and Bahrain have expanded patentability by making patents available for new uses of known products. [39] The TRIPS agreement authorizes the granting of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country. The terms of trips plus in the U.S.
Free Trade Agreement with Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have limited the application of mandatory licences to emergencies, remedies for cartels and abuse of dominance, and cases of non-commercial public use. [39] Article 69 of the agreement requires members to establish and inform the points of contact of their administrations in order to cooperate with each other in order to eliminate trade in goods that were edsuing the violation of rights. A broad set of comments has been developed on the potentially negative impact of various aspects of the TRIPS package on public health and development, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.8-10 The lack of basic public health care continues to be affected in many of these countries. The United Nations (UN) clearly recognizes this. In 2001, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights declared that national and international human rights regulations must comply with state human rights obligations11. In 2011, the UN General Assembly recognized the need to maintain flexibility to facilitate measures to improve access to health care, and UN member states agreed. that the intellectual property rights provisions in trade agreements must not undermine these flexibilities12 In the TRIPS agreement, the INTELLECTUAL property law was incorporated into the multilateral trading system. for the first time, and remains the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property to date. In 2001, developing countries, fearing that developed countries had insisted on too narrow a reading of the TRIPS trip, launched a series of discussions that culminated in the Doha Declaration.
Comments are closed.