Actas - Consejo de los ADPIC - Ver detalles de la intervención/declaración

Ambassador Mothusi Palai (Botswana)
7 NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS
92. We do appreciate the US for the valuable contribution. Thanks also to the US delegation for the elaboration. As we have just received this document, we would relay it to our capital and come back at the next meeting. 93. My delegation has a well-known position and I'd like to reiterate the following points: • TRIPS Agreement is a unique agreement and hence its analogy with other agreements will not be logical. • Legal grounds for NV&SC under TRIPS are not founded, hence unnecessary and weak. • There is even no conceptual clarity as regards to scope of NV&SC in view of the unique nature and structure of the TRIPS Agreement – let alone the procedural issue. • Any such measure will upset the delicate balance of rights and obligations and threaten the flexibility, as well constrain the principles as provided under Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement. 94. Hence any bare minimum of NV&SC will dilute the sui generis system. Such measure will open the floodgate of questions, even allowing challenging any Member's legitimate measures that are based on the flexibility of the sui generis system.
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