TRIPs v. Human Rights

Using a system of objectives and rules formalized into agreements, the World Trade Organization (WTO) regulates international trade among the governments of member countries. In 1994, the WTO introduced the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement. This agreement established international patent laws and obligated member countries to adopt the United States’ intellectual property policies, which include twenty years of exclusivity for patented medicines.

Because the exclusivity granted by patents creates a monopoly, the application of TRIPs standards to developing and developed countries alike prevents developing countries from providing affordable medicines to patients. For this reason, the TRIPs Agreement has become a growing source of tension in international economic relations between the developed nations of the Global North and the developing nations of the Global South.

A pragmatic defense of international patent laws is that of economic fairness. Indeed the major objection to the Global South’s position comes from the pharmaceutical industry’s trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), saying investments in the research and development of medicines require “incentives.”

At the root of this debate stems a fundamental disagreement—the Global North defends intellectual property as a right to property, while the Global South argues that it is simply a question of economic policy. In August 2000, the UN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights adopted a resolution declaring that apparent conflicts exist between the TRIPs standards and human rights. Since the adoption of the resolution, the differing views of the Global North and Global South have stressed two competing values—property rights and human rights.

In response to the UN resolution, the 2001 Doha Declaration set forth new international patent standards by promising that the TRIPs Agreement does not and should not prevent WTO member countries from protecting public health, and that it can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of member countries’ rights to protect public health and to promote universal access to medicines. The declaration has been hailed as a rare chance to raise the standard of living of millions; however, the declaration has yet to be adhered to by developed nations.

Meanwhile, two fundamental problems affecting developing nations remain unresolved —access and innovation. Patents make medicines unaffordable and inaccessible. Furthermore, patents do not stimulate innovation of medicines needed to treat patients with diseases that predominately affect developing countries.

To reconcile this problem, I propose that we demand global trade systems that more accurately represent and address the disease burden of the majority. Rather than applying the same standards to all countries and industries, despite factual differences in intellectual property laws and other areas of development, the WTO and international patent laws should reflect these differences by prioritizing research and development according to the need of the global disease burden and increasing access to affordable medicines where they are needed most.

We have the technology to treat health as a human right and we should. Our global society cannot continue treating health as just another commodity in the world economy. Policies regarding intellectual property, innovation and public health should be evaluated according to their contribution to the protection, fulfillment and realization of a universal right to health.

Can our current global patent system achieve access and innovation for those that need it most?