Objectives Of Trips Agreement
Since the TRIPS agreement came into force, it has been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of this criticism is generally opposed to the WTO, many proponents of trade liberalization also view TRIPS policy as a bad policy. The effects of the concentration of WEALTH of TRIPS (money from people in developing countries for copyright and patent holders in industrialized countries) and the imposition of artificial shortages on citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws are common bases for such criticisms. Other critics have focused on the inability of trips trips to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, a benefit that WTO members achieved prior to the creation of the agreement. The World Bank`s statements indicate that TRIPS have clearly not accelerated investment in low-income countries, whereas they may have done so for middle-income countries.  As part of TRIPS, long periods of patent validity were examined to determine the excessive slowdown in generic drug entry and competition. In particular, the illegality of preclinical testing or the presentation of samples to be authorized until a patent expires have been accused of encouraging the growth of certain multinationals and not producers in developing countries. Article 7 (Principles) and Article 8 (Goals) are at the forefront of the text of the WTO`s ON-TRIPS agreement, but have been sparsely illustrated in the statement of the dispute resolution body`s (DSB) reasons. This disparity is further accentuated by taking into account three key factors. First, the pioneering step of trips negotiators, which involves including comprehensive statements of intent in the operational text. Second, the strengthening of these provisions in the Doha DECLARATION on TRIPS and Public Health in 2001.
Finally, the literal transposition of these provisions into other international ip instruments, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement and WIPO`s development agenda. Taken together, these factors require a more in-depth analysis of the importance and application of Sections 7 and 8. This article is intended to contribute to this study by making available the different elements of each provision of a detailed text analysis. It will appear that necessity, adequacy, coherence and good faith are legal principles contained in Articles 7 and 8. In addition, these provisions recognize a principle of central interpretation – that of national regulatory autonomy. This means, but also, taking into account national political choices, recognizing a state-centered calibration method that must guide the application of TRIPS and any other agreement in which they are integrated. Trips-plus conditions, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, have also been verified.  These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for promoting protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS. The U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco and Bahrain have expanded patentability by making patents available for new uses of known products.
 The TRIPS agreement authorizes the granting of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country.by