The Doha Declaration acknowledged that « WTO members with insufficient or no production capacity in the pharmaceutical sector may have difficulty in using compulsory licences effectively. » It gave the Adhesive Council a mandate to extend the flexibilities that allow compulsory export licensing11. It was temporary at first,11, but it has recently become a permanent complement to the initial TRIPS agreement13. 16. However, Section 168 of the Australian Patent Act and Section 55, paragraph 2 of the New Zealand Patent Act allow exports under an agreement with a foreign country to provide products necessary for the defence of that country. Articles 48B (d) and (i) of the UK Patent Act provide for a compulsory licence for a patent whose holder is not the holder of the WTO if, for reasonable reasons, the patent holder does not lay off the patent, meaning that a market for the export of a patented product from the United Kingdom is not delivered. Article 45 G of Argentina`s patent law authorizes the issuance of a compulsory licence that does not apply primarily to domestic markets where necessary to remedy anti-competitive practices or in the event of a health or national security emergency. The ON TRIPS agreement required all WTO member states to provide a minimum of intellectual property rights. However, no global system has been created. Instead, international standards have been established for national IP protection systems.
Each WTO member state must create its own system, but can work with others to create regional systems. By 1995, when the TRIPS AGREEMENT came into force, Brazil and Thailand had already begun producing first-generation generic antiretroviral drugs that were not patent-protected at the time. The TRIPS agreement allowed low- and middle-income countries to wait until 2005 before the agreement was implemented. However, under international pressure, Brazil and Thailand previously offered patent protection and pharmaceutical companies acquired patents on recent antiretroviral drugs7. However, under pressure from industrialized countries, Thailand initially gave in, while Brazil was confronted with a WTO arbitration request from the United States.8 The TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration on increasing the availability of essential medicines have two obvious advantages over alternative mechanisms: it is already enshrined in international law and enjoys the political support of the Declaration of Sustainable Development. – There are reasons to be optimistic in the TRIPS agreement. The Doha Declaration, which reaffirms the commitment of WTO members to improve public health in developing countries, is only five years old, and this is a very short period during which significant changes in international law can be expected. By appealing to our governments with creative but pragmatic ideas, equitable health care can become a reality around the world.
With the TRIPS agreement, intellectual property rights have been integrated into the multilateral trading system for the first time and remains the most comprehensive multilateral IP agreement 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. The Doha Declaration is a WTO DECLARATION that clarifies the scope of the TRIPS agreement, which states, for example, that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the objective of « promoting access to medicines for all ». The World Trade Organization is the governing body for international trade between its member states.