3. The representative of China agreed with Brazil and said that it had always been the understanding of China and other developing Members that enforcement was a temporary item on the Council's agenda. The item did not become a permanent item only because several developed country Members continued to make submissions on the issue. It was his delegation's firm belief that discussions on enforcement were inconsistent with the spirit of Articles 1.1 and 41 of the TRIPS Agreement, which provided that Members could determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the Agreement within their own legal system and practice. Article 1.1 was a recognition of the relationship between appropriate protection of IPRs and the economic and social development objectives of developing countries and this broader context for TRIPS should be respected by all Members.
4. He said that there were already many important issues on the Council's agenda, such as the relationship between IPR protection and transfer of technology, TRIPS and public health, and the relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as well as the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. These were mandated items in need of focused discussion and Members had no time to deal with issues outside the existing mandate. There had already been a considerable degree of duplication with WIPO activities and with initiatives regarding border measures within the WCO and Interpol. China urged developed country Members to respect the opinion of many developing country Members that the heading of enforcement did not fall within the mandate of the Council, and to cease further tilting the balance of TRIPS implementation in favour of developed countries. China's respect for the proposed agenda at this time was without prejudice to its position that there should not be any substantial position under this agenda item.
