1994 Pharmaceutical Agreement

The 2002 Doha Declaration reaffirmed that the TRIPS Agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary measures to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as compulsory licensing, are almost impossible to enforce. Less developed countries, in particular, cited their young domestic manufacturing and technology industries as evidence of the imprecision of the policy. TRIPS conditions that impose more standards beyond TRIPS were also discussed. [38] These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to create competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for encouraging protection far beyond the standards imposed by TRIPS. U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain have extended patentability by requiring patents to be available for new uses of known products. [39] The TRIPS Agreement allows for the issuance of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country. The more ad hoc conditions provided for in the free trade agreements between the United States and Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have limited the application of compulsory licenses to emergency situations, antitrust measures and cases of non-commercial public use. [39] 3.

The government can also ask pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development in the health sector. The money can be invested directly by the companies themselves, it can be redirected to a national R&D fund run by the health authorities, or there can be a combination of both. The mandatory reinvestment process has many advantages. The country can determine the overall level of research and development, and this can be done without taking into account the views of the private sector on patent policy, price controls or other areas in which we often see a form of industry blackmail. After all, it is the consumers who fund the pharmaceutical companies, and this approach simply ensures that an acceptable amount of revenue from the sale of medicines will actually be spent on research and development. This is not just an idea for developing countries, although I have proposed it in Argentina and Brazil. This is an idea that we are also trying to promote in the United States. 10.The government`s EU-Cross Whitehall withdrawal analysis briefing identifies pharmaceuticals as the sector, In 2016, the UK exported £24.9 billion of pharmaceuticals, of which £11.9 billion (48%) entered the EU22, a market of more than 446 million patients and potential consumers23. In £24.8 billion, of which £18.2 billion (73%) came from the EU, a trade deficit of £6.3 billion.24 In oral evidence, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) told us that this reflected « 45 million boxes of medicines leaving the UK each month to go to Europe. and 37 million packages of medicines leaving the continent and arriving in the UK ».25 The pharmaceutical deal is one of many sectoral initiatives agreed in the Uruguay Round. Several parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have agreed to eliminate and/or reduce tariffs on certain sectors (TN/MA/S/13).

Unlike multilateral agreements, these sectoral agreements, as they are called, were signed by groups of participants and not by all WTO members and apply to them. . . .