Trips Plus Agreements

Second, a TRIPS Plus effect may relate to the extension of certain protection periods beyond the requirements of the TRIPS agreement and the way forward for certain benefits related to the consumption of transitional periods by certain countries. An example of the previous scenario clearly shows the free trade agreement between the United States and Morocco, which provides that copyright protection should be calculated on the basis of the author`s lifespan plus seventy years, [33] a clear extension of the WTO TRIPS agreement, which proposed that the protection of the author be fifty years longer. [34] Trip-plus conditions, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, were also examined. [38] 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. [39] 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.

[39] [55] It can be seen that there are limited and subliminal benefits and benefits to the United States under such agreements. For example, U.S. exports to Jordan are minimal ($404 million in 2002), as are U.S. shipments to Morocco ($565 million in 2002) and Bahrain ($419 million last year). Sidney Weintraud joked, „A free trade agreement is not necessarily an agreement in which all parties benefit from trade expansion, but rather a favor based on support for American foreign policy.“ S. Weintraud, The Politics of US Trade Policy, September 3, 2003, available at In addition, Jackson said the U.S. has moved toward a „more pragmatic – some might say, ad hoc exchanges with trading partners on a bilateral basis and a reward of friends.“ J. Jackson, The Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2nd edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., London. 1997, around 173. The „competitive liberalisation“ policy advocated by the United States and the European Union undermines the global multilateral framework.

The discriminatory nature of such agreements, combined with the policy of rewarding allies for their political and international support [62], instead of creating their trade qualities, creates more complex opportunities for the global multilateral framework. Recent free trade agreements with Arab countries should not be seen as a separate development in international relations, but as part of an organized political network that is exercised by developed countries.