Access to medicines: intellectual property rights, human rights and justice

Author(s):  
Keren Bright ◽  
Lois Muraguri
2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-182
Author(s):  
Philippe Cullet ◽  
Hu Yuanquiong

The coming into force of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in the mid-1990s led to a massive strengthening of intellectual property rights in the global South. This was particularly controversial concerning restrictions on access to medicines and set the stage for spirited debates concerning the impacts of medical patents on the realisation of the right to health in the context of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Efforts to reconcile the right to health and medical patents led to a minor amendment of the TRIPS Agreement that has hardly had any impact on the ground while further strengthening of patent protection was obtained, for instance, through bilateral agreements. In the human rights field, attempts to strengthen the protection afforded by the right to health have been partly diluted by efforts to strengthen the claims of inventors under human rights law. At this juncture, two main elements need to be taken forward. The first is to revisit our understanding of the human right to health to ensure, for instance, that there is no compromise in the liberal promise of universality, in particular access to medicines for every person who needs them. The second element is the need to rethink the way in which legal incentives are given to innovate. In a context where patents are the only recognised legal incentive to innovate in the medical field, this discourages the development of medicines for diseases that may affect mostly poor patients, since companies need to recoup their investments. Further, it militates against giving attention to other systems of medicine whose innovations can usually not be protected under the patent system, even where treatments are effective. Keywords: TRIPS Agreement, Access to Medicines, Right to Health, ICESCR


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sarah Meads

<p>Restrictive provisions in international trade agreements, particularly trade related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), are impeding access to essential medicines in developing countries, making medicines unaffordable to poor people. The extent to which trade restrictions have adverse effects on health and economic development in Fiji and the Pacific region may depend critically on how Pacific Island Countries cope with the forces of regionalism and the realities of joining the global trading system, where there are pressures to make concessions in TRIPS. Yet awareness is relatively low. A central question to be asked here is what underlying factors shape how Pacific islanders view trade and access to medicines, notably in the area of trade, health, local culture, and human rights and what are the regional and national responses to mitigate potential trade impediments. By combining a public health lens with a multi-sector review of population health trends, intellectual property rights law, trade policymaking, and human rights, this research elaborates multidisciplinary findings that are usually less evident because they are conventionally researched and managed on a sector-by-sector basis. The findings suggest human rights are less significant in this debate, with challenges associated with small island developing states, local cultural preferences and pressures from regionalism, having more of a direct influence. The combined effect of these factors may be creating a unique context that is leading the Pacific region not to deal with these issues as well as some other developing countries might. This paper also discusses the emergence of two new challenges for human rights theory; to promote the collective rights of individual countries in the 'new regionalism', and the relationship with traditional knowledge.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sarah Meads

<p>Restrictive provisions in international trade agreements, particularly trade related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), are impeding access to essential medicines in developing countries, making medicines unaffordable to poor people. The extent to which trade restrictions have adverse effects on health and economic development in Fiji and the Pacific region may depend critically on how Pacific Island Countries cope with the forces of regionalism and the realities of joining the global trading system, where there are pressures to make concessions in TRIPS. Yet awareness is relatively low. A central question to be asked here is what underlying factors shape how Pacific islanders view trade and access to medicines, notably in the area of trade, health, local culture, and human rights and what are the regional and national responses to mitigate potential trade impediments. By combining a public health lens with a multi-sector review of population health trends, intellectual property rights law, trade policymaking, and human rights, this research elaborates multidisciplinary findings that are usually less evident because they are conventionally researched and managed on a sector-by-sector basis. The findings suggest human rights are less significant in this debate, with challenges associated with small island developing states, local cultural preferences and pressures from regionalism, having more of a direct influence. The combined effect of these factors may be creating a unique context that is leading the Pacific region not to deal with these issues as well as some other developing countries might. This paper also discusses the emergence of two new challenges for human rights theory; to promote the collective rights of individual countries in the 'new regionalism', and the relationship with traditional knowledge.</p>


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox

Abstract This article is the first part of a two-part piece, which considers the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. After establishing pragmatic working definitions of who “indigenous peoples” are and what folklore (or “traditional cultural expression”) is, as compared with, but dialectically related to, “traditional knowledge,” this article does the following: 1) explains why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool for protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (TCE) of indigenous peoples; and 2) creates a general sketch of human rights related legal instruments that could be and have been harnessed, with varying degrees of success, in the protection of the intellectual property of indigenous peoples.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document