Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
article 7 states that the intellectual property protection, while contributing to
technological innovation, should also contribute to 'the transfer and dissemination
of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological
knowledge' (wto 1994). Furthermore, it says that this should be 'in a manner
conducive to social and economic welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations'.
the evidence to date on this provision has been paltry.
Sometimes, these values need to be cleared up, strengthened, or even changed.
the Declaration on the trIPS agreement and Public Health was one of these
interpretative clarifications. It was a result of pressure from developing country
governments and health activists who expressed concerns that the so-called health
safeguard provisions in the trIPS agreement were simply inadequate to guarantee
access to medicines. Whether the declaration was a clarification, strengthening, or
change is debatable. but, more importantly, articles 1 to 5 of the declaration were used
to interpret articles 31 of the trIPS agreement, in particular, articles 31(b) and 8
(wto 2001; 1994). the declaration even stated that, in article 5(a), 'in applying
the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, each provision
of the trIPS agreement shall be read in the light of the object and purpose of the
agreement as expressed, in particular, in its objectives and principles'. Moreover,
the declaration boldly asserted health as a value in international agreements, even
those ostensibly outside the health sector.
Putting Health First? The Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public
Health
In view of the real and perceived imbalances expressed in the trIPS agreement,
the Declaration on the trIPS agreement and Public Health was drafted in order
to provide more security to developing countries so that public health priorities
would not be threatened by the exigencies of the agreement. the declaration boldly
asserts:
we agree that the trIPS agreement does not and should not prevent members from
taking measures to protect public health. … we affirm that the Agreement can and should
be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of wto members' right to protect
public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all (wto 2001).
M. Gregg bloche (2002, 831) points out that health has emerged as a value in
international trade law. He has also underscored that the main wto agreements are
vague regarding balancing public health against other trade-related concerns (825).
the declaration was partially an effort to interpret article 31(f) of the trIPS
agreement, which states that compulsory licensing shall be 'predominantly for the
supply of the domestic market' (wto 1994). this highly debated provision was
futile for the poorest countries that do not have manufacturing capacity. that means,
under wto rules, countries with a public health crisis are able to forgo patent
