55. The representative of Argentina said that the joint proposal's provisions on participation respected the mandate in Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement by proposing a voluntary system, a viewed shared by many Members, including those which did not have any geographical indications. In addition, the joint proposal's requirement of a notification of the intention to participate would result in greater legal certainty for the entire system, by avoiding any misunderstanding as to whether or not a Member would have any obligation under the system. None of the Ministerial Declarations adopted after the entry into force of Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement had included any change in the mandate of that provision but rather had reaffirmed it.
56. As to the principle of territoriality, she disagreed with the point made by the European Communities that, if their proposal was "extraterritorial", as claimed by some Members, then the WTO and WIPO agreements should also be in this same category. She pointed out that the WIPO agreements carried international obligations only for those countries which had ratified them, contrary to the EC proposal. One example of the extraterritorial effect in the EC proposal was the fact that a non participating Members that had not lodged a reservation against a notified geographical indication and had not entered in bilateral negotiations would nevertheless bear the effects of this notification in its territory. Such a Member, which had not lodged a reservation for capacity, budgetary or administrative reasons, would have to protect the geographical indication, even though according to its own legislation such indication would not be eligible for protection, for example on the ground that it did not meet the definition of Article 22.1. It would no longer be able to invoke Articles 22.1, 24.4 or 24.6. In other words, the proposal would deny the right to invoke TRIPS provisions. That was an example of the extraterritorial effect of the legislation of the notifying country in the territory of the non-participating one. Regarding the amendments made by the European Communities to their proposal in order to minimize the costs, such as by limiting the number of notifications or by extending the time-limit for reservations, she said that they might not allay all the concerns because there were other costs involved, for example those related to the examination of a notified geographical indication. Even if the costs and burdens were minimized as proposed by the European Communities, they would still be too heavy for developing country Members to bear. In contrast, the joint proposal would not create any additional costs and burdens.
