107. On this item, I think, my delegation has been consistent in the past and has indicated some sort of flexibility to have an open-ended discussion, specifically in our last intervention in this particular house. We indicated that, as articulated by the TRIPS Council Chairperson in May 2003, there are four possible outcomes to discussion of NVSCs. Some Members have had the opinion that such complaints should not apply as India has indicated, other Members have indicated that these types of claims should apply.
108. To this delegation's thinking, there may be some basis for discussion as to possibly identifying how modalities could apply, should we get to a situation once again in 2019 that we have had two years to discuss the matter and at the last Council meeting we still do not have any recommendations to make to our Ministers. In this respect, discussions should be at least amongst those delegations that are situated and that are able to do so to identify possible modalities and what they would mean. From this delegation's perspective, it would seem that proponents of the application of NVSCs under the TRIPS Agreement have not provided concrete examples of the kind of scenarios under which an otherwise TRIPS consistent measure would impair or nullify benefits beyond those arising from the obligations set out in the Agreement. Thus, it may be useful to clarify what situations proponent Members wish to avoid by having a non-violation remedy available under the TRIPS Agreement and, on the other hand, to ensure that non-violation remedies in the TRIPS context would not be so broad as to have the effect of expanding the existing TRIPS obligations or nullifying flexibilities that have accrued to Members in this regard.