74. The representative of Argentina said that certain options put forward by the Chairperson were not an acceptable basis for negotiation. The document reflected that there was still no consensus, not even about a small part of it. It was littered with options that went beyond the mandate of the Doha Declaration, such as those relating to challenges, to settlement of disputes with binding legal effects, to mandatory effects for all Members and to removing competence from national jurisdictions. Nothing in Article 23.4 or elsewhere in the TRIPS Agreement provided a basis for negotiations to create an instrument which would remove from national authorities the competence of deciding, according to their national legislation, the eligibility of geographical indications for protection. For Argentina the system resulting from these negotiations should operate quite independently of how Members applied their obligations under the current TRIPS Agreement. For example, the challenge system clearly proposed standards of protection far beyond those set forth in the Agreement and which would involve a renunciation of sovereignty by Members. After so many years of discussions, where some delegations had repeated that the system would be voluntary, they had finally given clear signals that the system should be a system which is not voluntary. The proposals of these Members had affected the Draft Text, in particular Option B in paragraphs 4 and 5. In this regard, Argentina had indicated in previous informal consultations that depending on the proposals submitted, the distinction between legal effects for participants and for non-participants was absolutely artificial. Another important point was the distinction to be made between the right to participate and the will to participate in a system: a Member could elect to participate without being affected by the legal effects under the system.
