Trips Agreement And Public Health
– The TRIPS agreement will not be repealed in the near future and will continue to characterize international intellectual property law7, even if it is not part of this document, to examine a detailed assessment of all recommendations, options for the implementation of the Doha Declaration and the paragraph 6 decision, as well as threats related to bilateral and regional trade agreements. The limitations of the two agreements have clearly been demonstrated in efforts to treat them as a permanent amendment to Article 31, point (f) of the TRIPS agreement. Negotiations on the amendment began in early 2004, initially in the hope that they would be concluded within six months. Although the talks were not part of the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations on development, the issue was quickly seen as a mass of negotiation by powerful trade countries seeking concessions on other issues, including agricultural subsidies, ahead of the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. Efforts to find a “sustainable solution” to compulsory licensing at the WTO TRIPS Council in October 2005 were hampered by the growing number of LDCs acknowledging that the amendment tabled was too complicated (see Figure 1). According to Medicins sans Frontiéres (MSF), they represented a “burden on the supply of medicines that could discourage rather than encourage the production of generic drugs.”  For example, if a country wished to grant a compulsory license for effavirenz, tenofovir and lamivudine as ART for HIV/AIDS, this would require separate applications for each drug involving three different manufacturers (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences and GlaxoSmithKline). Since the drug and country-based procedure is necessary, economies of scale would also be lost, which would increase prices and reduce incentives for exporters. African countries supported by other LWIMC, including Brazil and India, unsuccessfully tabled an amendment to Article 31, point (f), which excluded such requirements. They also attempted to exclude the provisions of a statement by the President of the General Council, Carlos Pérez del Castillo, of 30 August 2003, accompanied by the decision referred to in paragraph 6 .
However, the United States strongly opposed the removal of the Presidency`s statement and considered it an integral part of the decision itself. Efforts by EU Member States to informally present a “fair ground” approach failed to break this deadlock and, after additional pressure on BMI, the initial ratification amendment was tabled. With a deadline of December 2007, only three countries (united States, Switzerland and El Salvador) of the two-thirds of the required WTO members have ratified the amendment.