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

H Preparation for the Singapore Ministerial
52. The representative of India, in making preliminary remarks on the non-paper of the European Communities and their Member States, she wondered how the Community reconciled the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the document with the fact that the TRIPS Agreement was a minimum standards agreement, as followed from Article 1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Paragraph 2 contained a factual error in that the date referred to should be 1 January 1995. She agreed fully with paragraph 3, which stated that work in the TRIPS Council had for the last 18 months concentrated on procedural matters; she believed that this was what the report to Ministers should focus on. As regards paragraph 4, she asked for clarification of the term "the more advanced developing countries". As a general point concerning the document, she wondered what would be the effect of Ministers not addressing any of the suggested recommendations since the built-in agenda of the TRIPS Agreement would still remain. With regard to paragraph 7, she believed that it was too early to look at future developments; such issues first had to be discussed thoroughly in the TRIPS Council and the time before the report to the Singapore Ministerial had to be finalized was too short to do so. On paragraph 8, she agreed with the delegation of Australia. She asked for clarification of paragraph 9 of the document, in particular of the phrase "efforts are currently undertaken to try to weaken the provisions contained in the TRIPS Agreement". If the TRIPS Agreement was being discussed in any other body of the WTO, this was because such discussions had been mandated by the work programme of that WTO body, by consensus.