Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Mothusi Palai (Botswana)
Afrique du Sud
87. I start by thanking our colleagues from the US for their comprehensive paper. We have not had an opportunity to study it in detail and are not yet in a position to respond in any definitive way. The paper is quite comprehensive and raises a number of issues, and there is also jurisprudence in it, so we will need time to study it in detail and to respond. Without prejudice, at this point we would say that we continue to be convinced that the TRIPS Agreement is a sui generis agreement, it is not intended to promote market access, nor is it intended, in our view, to be a harmonization agreement or to provide harmonization amongst Members. It simply provides a minimum level of protection for Members. We will revert to it at the next Council meeting with detailed comments. We are flexible as to the way forward, including how consultations should be conducted.
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