Wto Agreement On Drugs
But this still meant that the poorest countries without production capacity could not have access to these medicines because there were no arrangements for imports. Despite the obvious limitations and numerous constraints imposed by the revised decision, countries that need to purchase patented medicines should test the viability of the system. In accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the decision should be interpreted in such a way as to increase the supply of medicines to poor countries. It is also necessary, on the basis of an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement, to reach a permanent solution to the problem affecting countries with limited or no production capacity in this area. Such a change should be based on an increasingly simple approach26 that provides economic incentives for the effectiveness of the solution. The Doha Declaration called on the TRIPS Council to « find a rapid solution to this problem and report to the General Council before the end of 2002 ». An agreement was not reached until August 30, 20037, after a diplomatic battle, when the United States finally accepted a text covering all diseases, as required by the Declaration.8 The agreed « solution » is based on a compromise worked out by the President of the TRIPS Council9 and a « President`s Declaration » adopted by the United States as a condition for the adoption of the agreement and the satisfaction of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. was proposed. Azevedo said WTO agreements should not operate in silos and should also support the development and improvement of livelihoods around the world, complementing other objectives such as environmental policy and public health. (1) The TRIPS Agreement provides for minimum standards for the protection of patents, trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property rights. See the text of the agreement in www.wto.org.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)1 has brought about very important changes to international standards on intellectual property rights. Because of its profound implications, particularly with regard to developing countries, the agreement was one of the most controversial elements of the WTO system. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, there were strong differences of opinion on the scope and content of the agreement, both between developed and developing countries and between industrialized countries themselves. The implementation of the agreement and its consideration under the « Integrated Programme » have also been controversial.2 16. However, section 168 of the Australian Patent Act and section 55(2) of the New Zealand Patent Act permit exports under an agreement with a foreign country to supply products necessary for the defence of that country. Section 48B(d) and (i) of the UK Patents Act provides for a compulsory licence for a patent which the holder does not hold under the WTO if the licensee`s default on reasonable grounds means that a market for the export of a patented product manufactured in the UNITED Kingdom is not supplied. Article 45.g of argentina`s Patent Law authorizes the granting of a compulsory license that is not primarily applicable to the domestic market if this is necessary to remedy anti-competitive practices or in the event of a health or national security emergency. Similarly, changes in national legislation will be necessary in potential exporting countries. Compulsory licences are granted for reasons defined in national legislation. The provision of export markets is not an accepted reason in most national legislation.16 In addition, by implementing Article 31(f) of the TRIPS Agreement,17 WTO Members have « primarily » introduced compulsory licensing for the domestic supply. .