Trips Agreement Health
This paper begins with a brief review of the progress made on the public health safeguards available under the TRIPS ON Agreement. It describes how, despite these important clarifications, concerns remain about BMI`s ability to implement specific measures. The document then discusses the continued threat of TRIPS plus measures and calls for their critical assessment. Debates on implementation and TRIPS-plus focus on understanding fundamental imbalances of power and influence at home and abroad, in order to define which interests may or may not influence trade policy decisions. The document concludes by re-re-ifying possible ways to ensure that the poor have access to medicines in all trade agreements. These current activities of international organizations are essential to address the growing public health crisis in the world`s poorest countries. However, relevant domestic activity in most industrialized countries has not been able to compete with this international activity. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to determine whether rich countries are able to put in place strong and viable legal frameworks to facilitate the provision of essential medicines to their poorest neighbours as part of the FLEXIBILITy premiums for TRIPS. It is argued that this is necessary because the responsibility for health care of the most needy should not be left to only middle-income countries with thriving generic industries, such as Brazil (higher middle income) and India (lower middle income).
It is contrary to the principles and spirit of TRIPS Sections 66 and 67 to assign this task exclusively to middle-income countries; The purpose of these articles is to facilitate the transfer of technology to low- and middle-income countries and, where appropriate, to provide technical assistance to rich countries. It is also important to note that the system in paragraph 6 appears to be based on the assumption that a patent holder is legitimized to prevent access to products under his control, even if there are compelling humanitarian reasons. This is certainly not in line with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS and Public Health Agreement (particularly paragraph 4) or the commitments made by States under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in particular Article 12 (recognizing the “human right of all to the highest possible physical and mental health standards” and the obligation to take the necessary measures to achieve right. , including “the costs of … Prevention, treatment and control of epidemics, endemic, … and other diseases”). The adoption of the decision cannot therefore prevent the use of other means if the holder of the patent or patents in question refuses to provide a necessary drug. Countries should be encouraged to develop disciplines to deal with such refusals under the “essential bodies” doctrine 27 or other approaches to competition and health law. Article 31 of the TRIPS agreement sets out the conditions for the use of compulsory licences by Member States. It begins with the finding” “If a member`s right authorizes the use of the subject of the patent without the authorization of the patent holder” (6) with respect to compulsory licences.
The language of the article clearly allows Member States to adopt national intellectual property legislation without any mandatory import provision, while complying with the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration and the 30 August 2003 decision.