The biggest problem with compulsory licensing, as described in the TRIPS Agreement and its amendment, is that they are not drafted as a minimum standard that countries must apply in their national legislation to be TRIPS compliant. Rather, it is an option available to Member States for transposition into their national legislation. As a result, only five countries and territories that have the pharmaceutical capacity to be exporting countries under compulsory licences have actually made progress in transposing these measures into their national law (18). If the Doha Declaration is considered to be an accurate reflection of the feelings of nations, provisions on compulsory licensing should be included in the TRIPS Agreement as an obligation for Member States. At the very least, where separate categories of medicinal products are created, as set out in the first Recommendation, provisions on compulsory licensing of essential medicinal products should be required in order to comply with TRIPS. The TRIPS Agreement has played a central role in the debate on developing countries` access to essential medicines. The TRIPS Agreement is a WTO agreement negotiated in the Uruguay Round negotiations from 1986 to 1994 by WTO Members (80% of the world`s countries and the vast majority of the world`s trading nations) which lays down certain rules on intellectual property rights (5). Once member countries have accepted the provisions, it becomes an official WTO agreement, which must be ratified by the governments of member countries in their own parliaments. As a result, a global standard for the protection of intellectual property is created. Agreements ratified by the WTO set certain minimum standards; Member States reserve the right to go beyond the provisions of the agreements as long as national legislation does not call into question the conditions laid down in the WTO agreements. Since the entry into force of travel, it has been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations.

While some of these criticisms are directed at the WTO in general, many proponents of trade liberalization also view the TRIPS Agreement as bad policy. The concentration effects of the TRIPS Agreement`s wealth (money from people in developing countries to copyright and patent holders in developed countries) and the imposition of artificial scarcity on citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws are common ground for such criticism. Other criticisms have focused on TRIPS` inability to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, an advantage advanced by WTO members in the run-up to the agreement. World Bank statements suggest that the TRIPS Agreement has not led to a demonstrable acceleration of investment in low-income countries, although this may have been the case for middle-income countries. [33] The long duration of TRIPS patents was assessed for an unreasonable slowdown in generic substitute market entry and competition. In particular, the illegality of preclinical studies or the submission of samples for approval until a patent expires have been accused of stimulating the growth of a few multinationals rather than producers in developing countries. The TRIPS Agreement is the bright spot on the World Trade Organization`s punch bag. Just or not, the TRIPS agreement is supposed to be a monstrosity of modern capitalism. Noam Chomsky, a renowned academic, says: “There is nothing liberal about [the TRIPS agreement]. It is a highly protected system designed to ensure that private tyrannies, which are corporations, monopolize the technology and knowledge of the future. (14) Dr. Zafar Mirza, executive coordinator of The Network, a Pakistani health group, asks: “You talk about harmonizing trade policy, but no one says a word about harmonizing global socio-economic conditions.

All countries are at different stages of development, how could they be subject to the same law? (15) These remarks contrast sharply with the remarks quoted above by senior officials. Why is one group so strongly opposed to the TRIPS Agreement, while another shows seemingly infallible support? The second part of this document attempts to reconcile these two points of view. – There is reason to be optimistic about the TRIPS Agreement. The Doha Declaration, which reaffirms WTO members` commitment to improving public health in developing countries, is only five years old, a very short period during which profound changes in international law are to be expected. By influencing our governments with creative but pragmatic ideas, equitable global health care can become a reality. Paragraph 6, known as the Doha Mandate, is clearly the most progressive aspect of the Doha Declaration; it calls for a review of one of the greatest barriers to access to medicines under the TRIPS Agreement. .