ppt for company law presentation

7/31/2019 Ppt for Company Law Presentation

1/14


2/14

CHAPTERIZATION: -

THE WTO, DOMESTIC HEALTH POLICY, ANDTHE RIGHTTO HEALTH

. WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM:THE "HORMONE-BEEF" AND "ASBESTOS"CASES

THE TRADE-RELATED ASPECTSOFINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (TRIPS)AGREEMENTAND ACCESSTOPHARMACEUTICALS

WTO AGREEMENTSANDTHE RIGHTTO FOOD

CONCLUSION


3/14

THE WTO, DOMESTIC HEALTH POLICY, ANDTHERIGHTTO HEALTH

The right to health is clearly protected by anumber of international legal instruments,including the World Health OrganizationConstitution, the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),the African Charter on Human and Peoples'Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Discrimination Against Women

(CEDAW). But (TRIPs) may limit Members' access to essential

drugs.


4/14

WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM: THE

"HORMONE-BEEF" AND "ASBESTOS" CASES

Under GATT it was assumed that a country wasfree to set its own health standards as long as it

respected GATT's nondiscrimination principles,

i.e. that it treated all imported like products in thesame way, and in the same way as its own like

products.

GATT originally focused on tariffs. Since states

have increasingly turned to nontariff measures to

regulate trade, the WTO regulates nontariff

measures more strictly than the GATT did.


5/14

According to the SPS Agreement, WTO Members mustensure that sanitary and phytosanitary measures only beapplied to the extent necessary to protect human, animal,

or plant life or health, and that such measures be basedon scientific evidence and on an assessment of the risks tolife or health. If scientific evidence is insufficient, aMember may adopt an SPS measure provisionally, aslong as at the same time it seeks more scientific evidenceand then reviews the measure within a reasonable periodof time.

SPS measures are not applied in a manner which wouldconstitute a disguised restriction on international trade.


6/14

HARMONE BEEF CASE

Canada and the United States complained to the WTO's DSMagainst a European ban imposed in the 1980s on the sale ofmeat produced with several growth hormones, on thegrounds that the hormones might be carcinogenic. The banapplied in conjunction with an EU-wide ban on the use of thesame hormones, so in effect prohibited imports of beef fromCanada and the United States. The main findings of the WTOdispute settlement panel were that the import ban wasinconsistent with the WTO's SPS Agreement as the EC's

sanitary measures were not based on a risk assessment asrequired by Article 5.1 of the Agreement, and that theEuropean Community (EC) had not met the conditionsfor applying a level of health protection that was stricterthan international standards.


7/14

The Appellate Body acknowledged that hormone abuse couldconstitute a health risk, but did not agree with the EC that if there isthe potential for harm, it is better to take precautionary steps andadopt protective measures even in the absence of full scientificcertainty, to give consumers the benefit of the doubt over the

interests of farmers and pharmaceutical companies.

EC- ASBESTOS CASE This case concerns a challenge by Canada of France's ban on the

import and use of white (chrysotile) asbestos. France had introduced

this ban which was later backed by the EU in 1996 on the groundsthat certain asbestos fibers can cause cancer. Canada's primaryargument was that a less trade-restrictive alternative was availableto France, namely to ban only the most harmful type of asbestosand to require wearing of protective clothing and other measureswhen using other, less harmful, types of asbestos. Canada also

argued that the asbestos ban could not be considered the leasttrade restrictive alternative until France had determined that thesubstances that would replace asbestos posed no health risksthemselves. The WTO Panel ruled that the ban was legitimatebecause WTO rules allow countries to restrict trade where necessaryto protect human health or the environment.


8/14

However, Canada has appealed the WTO Panel'sdecision.

Findings of the Appellate Body.

TRIPS AGREEMENT

Prior to the Uruguay Round, countries had various

approaches to drug patents, suited to their policies and

needs, and many did not grant patents for pharmaceutical

products per se. The situation was similar in several

industrialized countries which did not have patent laws

until the 1960s.


9/14

The TRIPs Agreement introduced the obligation on allMembers to provide patents for pharmaceuticals. Therole of patents in reducing access to drugs include the

fact that they hamper production of the usually lessexpensive generic versions of patented drugs, and reducethe possibility for governments to allow compulsorylicensing, and parallel imports of pharmaceuticals.

Generic medicines, parallel imports and developingcountries.

Terms of protection disadvantageous to developingcountries.

Pharmaceutical companies tend not to invest as much inresearch and development of drugs to treat diseases thataffect people in developing countries as they do inresearch for treatment of rich-country afflictions.


10/14


11/14

RIGHT TO FOOD


12/14

AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE


13/14

CONCLUSION


14/14

THANKING YOU

ppt for company law presentation

Documents