Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
breached the trIPS agreement and South africa's constitutional property protection.
It also argued that the proposed act threatened the industry's incentive to develop new
medicines. the response of industry and the U.S. government, and the implications
for access, attracted very unflattering media attention, partly generated by domestic
and international protests. In 2000 the U.S. withdrew its trade pressures after al
Gore was embarrassed by aIDS advocates during his campaign for the presidency.
However, the pharmaceutical companies went to court in South africa. In april
2001 South african treatment advocates joined the government's case, showing the
weakness of corporate arguments both against the legislation's trIPS legality and
the necessity of research and development (r&D) in opposing the legislation. South
africa's constitutional framework considerably assisted activist claims, particularly
because it entrenches a justiciable right of access to healthcare services. Using this
framework, activists brought human rights arguments drawn from international and
domestic law and argued that the right to health provided constitutional authority
for the legislation itself and a legal interest that should be prioritized over corporate
property rights.
at the same time, an extraordinary level of public action accompanied the
case. on the day the case began, there was an international day of action with
demonstrations held in 30 cities around the world. a petition opposing the litigation
signed by 250 organisations from 35 countries was published in
Business Day
, a
national South african newspaper. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) initiated an
international petition that collected 250 000 signatures and persuaded the european
Union and the Dutch government to pass resolutions calling for the case to be dropped,
followed by the German and French governments (McGreal 2001). the wHo not
only stated its support for South africa's defence of the litigation but also provided
legal assistance (de la vaissière 2001), and in the days before the hearing, nelson
Mandela, the former South african president, received considerable media attention
for criticising the pharmaceutical companies for charging exorbitant prices on aIDS
drugs (Denny 2001). This confluence of activism attracted an extraordinary amount
of global censure against the corporations, which recognised that they had far more
to lose through reputational damage than anything the legislation in question
could
possibly lead to. In april 2001, the pharmaceutical companies withdrew their case.
A Changing Environment for AIDS Medicines
the PMa case precipitated a discernable shift in the way that governments,
pharmaceutical companies, and international organisations addressed the question
of aIDS treatment in Africa. The first outcome was a sharp upsurge at the United
nations in international statements on treatment as a human right and articulations
of state obligations to provide art (see, for example, Un economic and Social
council commission on Human rights 2001c; 2001b; 2001a; 2002; 2003; ceScr
2001; UNHCHR 2006; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 2004;
UnaIDS 2002). this process moved later that year to the wto (2001) in the
Declaration on the trIPS agreement and Public Health, which articulated the use
