[Ip-health] How broad is the USTR mandate to respect Doha?

Michael H Davis m.davis at csuohio.edu
Tue Apr 5 13:14:02 PDT 2016

Everybody knows that we demand MORE than Trips requires. Some, like me, would say that is disregarding trips. Others, certainly nuts, would say it is not disregarding trips to demand more. The reason that's nuts is that it has been traditional in ip to regard unprotected or less protected areas as intentionally less so and that to extend protection to unprotected areas violates the intent of the ip regime. So trips+ is anti trips.

Your real question is whether we have a legal regime or something else. Something else. The last five or ten administrations have totally disregarded ip laws in favour of ip interests

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Chase Perfect <chaseperfect at gmail.com>
Date: 05/04/2016 08:54 (GMT-05:00)
To: Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
Subject: [Ip-health] How broad is the USTR mandate to respect Doha?

Hi everyone,

An observation/question:

Bollyky's recent Foreign Affairs article made mention of a Congressional
mandate that US trade negotiators should push to include IP provisions that
"reflect a standard
of protection similar to that found in United States law". However, upon
further review of said mandate, the 2015 Congressional guidelines for Trade
Promotion Authority (attached below) also instruct the USTR:

(C) to respect the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health, adopted by the World Trade Organization
at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar
on November 14, 2001, and to ensure that trade agreements
foster innovation and promote access to medicines.


Even if amendments to the 1974 US Trade Bill do indeed allow for the
executive's unilateral sanctioning of trade partners on matters concerning
IP, it would seem this provision of the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority bill
should reign in aggression towards countries' use of CLs. Put another way,
would one say that the above provision is simply ignored by the USTR, or
that it's in fact not binding on the USTR's activity outside of
negotiations (e.g. in crafting the Special 301 Report)?

As a non-lawyer, perhaps I'm missing something that reconciles or
prioritizes mandates/actions that otherwise seem in conflict.  Or perhaps,
as I suspect, de jure considerations have been trumped by de facto
political factors of the process. Any insight from the group on this matter
would be much appreciated.


Chase Perfect

MA in International Relations* Johns Hopkins (SAIS)*
MsPH in International Health *Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg)*
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org

More information about the Ip-health mailing list