Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador Mothusi Palai (Botswana)
7 NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS
88. I would like to thank the US delegation for preparing the document IP/C/W/599 that was circulated yesterday to all Members. As this was recently presented, my delegation would like to reserve its right to comment on the document in the next session of the Council. The debate on the applicability of non-violation complaints to the TRIPS Agreement has been part of the Council agenda for many years and our delegation would also like to recall the importance of addressing the concerns raised by Members for more than a decade in document IP/C/W/385. Since the Bali Ministerial Conference, our delegation has intensified work on the study of non-violation and situation complaints. Until now, we could not find cases in multilateral, plurilateral or bilateral fora in which non-violation situation complaints have been applied to IPRs complaints. For the time being, our position remains unchanged. Regarding your request on the way forward, we understand that we have a permanent, regular agenda item in the TRIPS Council under which we can discuss among ourselves this subject matter.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
7.1. The Chairman recalled that, at the Ninth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Ministers had directed the TRIPS Council to continue its examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided for under subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make recommendations to their next Session, which they had decided to hold in 2015. It had been agreed that, in the meantime, Members will not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. At its meeting in February 2014, the Council had had its first discussion of the matter after the Ministerial Conference. The United States had just submitted a paper entitled "Non-Violation Complaints under the TRIPS Agreement" (being circulated in document IP/C/W/599).

7.2. In opening the floor for comments, he said that he would particularly welcome any thoughts on how the Council could best move forward on this matter in order to be in a position to agree in a timely manner on its recommendations to the next Ministerial Conference. He recalled that the Council's original mandate under Article 64 of the Agreement was to provide recommendations on scope and modalities of such disputes to the Ministerial Conference by 1999, and that the Council had most recently been asked to work towards establishing recommendations for the Ministerial Conference that would be convened at the end of 2015.

7.3. The representatives of the United States, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Switzerland, South Africa, Brazil, China, Bangladesh, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, India, Japan, Egypt, the European Union, Korea, Cuba, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Canada, the Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru took the floor.

7.4. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/76, IP/C/M/76/Add.1