The TRIPS Agreement introduced intellectual property rights into the multilateral trading system for the first time and remains the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property to date. In 2001, developing countries, concerned about the industrialized countries` insistence on an overly narrow interpretation of TRIPS, launched a round table that resulted in the Doha Declaration. The Doha Declaration is a WTO declaration that clarifies the scope of TRIPS and, for example, states that TRIPS can and should be interpreted with the aim of “promoting access to medicines for all”. The 1994 World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) aims to establish uniform protection of intellectual property in Member States in order to ensure greater stability in international economic relations. Critics argue that the TRIPS agreement offers unnecessarily strong protection of intellectual property rights, in order to prevent patients in developing countries from having access to affordable essential medicines. The provisions of the TRIPS Agreement range from everyday life to controversy. Its conditions provide for a minimum term of patent protection of twenty years from the date of filing of a patent. It is significant that the TRIPS Agreement also invalidates the use of procedural patents by stating that patent protection for a procedure extends to the product of that procedure. In addition to these provisions, the TRIPS Agreement includes two mechanisms dealing with international crises in the field of public health: compulsory licences and parallel imports (5). A 2003 agreement eased the requirements of the domestic market and allows developing countries to export to other countries where there is a national health problem as long as the exported medicines are not part of a trade or industrial policy.
 Drugs exported under such a regime may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from harming the markets of industrialized countries. Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement lays down the conditions for the use of compulsory licences by the Member States. It begins with the finding that `the right of a member permits another use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorisation of the rightholder` (6) as regards compulsory licences. The language of this article clearly allows Member States to adopt national legislation on intellectual property without mandatory import provisions, while respecting the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration and the Decision of 30 August 2003. The concept of compulsory licensing has very little value for public health if the only nations that assume it are those that do not have the capacity to produce pharmaceutical products. While it is true that parallel imports are also formulated as an option and not as an obligation, they do not constitute such a serious problem, since in order for a country to benefit from parallel imports, it is sufficient for it to amend its own national legislation to allow it; It does not depend on the cooperation of other nations. On the other hand, a developing country can only benefit from compulsory licenses if more developed nations transpose them into their own legislation. WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi called the decision in a press release a “historic agreement.” . . .