An agreement reached in 2003 relaxed domestic market requirements and allows developing countries to export to other countries with a public health problem as long as exported drugs are not part of a trade or industrial policy.  Drugs exported under such regulations may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from affecting the markets of industrialized countries. The fact is that the controversial TRIPS agreement, which in 1995 included ip rights in the trade debate, already offers flexibilities that countries can use to meet public health needs. A little history would be relevant here. The Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an agreement of international law between all World Trade Organization (WTO) member states. It sets minimum standards for the regulation of different forms of intellectual property by national governments, as is the case for nationals of other WTO member states.  The TRIPS agreement was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990 and is managed by the WTO. Ministerial Statement on the Travel Agreement and Public Health Back to the Top In addition to the basic intellectual property standards set out in the TRIPS agreement, many nations have entered into bilateral agreements to adopt a higher level of protection. This collection of standards, known as TRIPS or TRIPS-Plus, can take many forms.  Among the general objectives of these agreements are: the 2002 Doha Declaration confirmed that the TRIPS agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary measures to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as mandatory licensing, are almost impossible to obtain.
The least developed countries, in particular, have made their young domestic manufacturing and technological industries proof of the infallible policy. Reaffirming the General Council`s decision of 7-8 February 2000 (WT/GC/M/53) that the review of the TRIPS Agreement should include, among other things, the impact of the Agreement on the trade and development prospects of developing countries, trip-plus conditions, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, have also been verified.  These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for promoting protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS. The U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco and Bahrain have expanded patentability by making patents available for new uses of known products.  The TRIPS agreement authorizes the granting of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country. The terms of trips plus in the U.S.
Free Trade Agreement with Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have limited the application of mandatory licences to emergencies, remedies for cartels and abuse of dominance, and cases of non-commercial public use.  Unlike other IP agreements, TRIPS have an effective enforcement mechanism. States can be disciplined by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. With the TRIPS agreement, intellectual property rights have been integrated into the multilateral trading system for the first time and remains the most comprehensive multilateral IP agreement to date. In 2001, developing countries, fearing that developed countries had insisted on too narrow a reading of the TRIPS trip, launched a series of discussions that culminated in the Doha Declaration.