Compulsory Licensing and Access to Medicines in Post Doha Era: What Hope for Africa?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the importance of compulsory licensing – using a human rights lens – to facilitate access to life-saving medications for Africans and its use after the historic decision at Doha in 2001 (popularly called ‘Doha Declaration’). It further considers the August 2003 Decision of the Council for TRIPS and the subsequent December 2005 amendment of the TRIPS Agreement in an attempt to resolve paragraph 6 of Doha Declaration. It submits that both are not faithful to the spirit of Doha or the provisions of human rights instruments, which guarantee the rights to health and life. Also, the article reasons that recent developments in the world on the use of compulsory licensing, such as the new Canadian legislation on this issue, have not in any way brought succour to Africans. The article further argues that in view of the above situations, particularly the failure of both the August 2003 Decision of the Council for TRIPS and its amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to find a lasting solution to the unresolved paragraph 6 of Doha, African countries may need to be creative in invoking other provisions of the TRIPS such as Article 31(k) so as to ensure affordable medicines for their citizens. The article then considers the likely tension that may exist between human rights and intellectual property rights, and submits that the obligations of states under the former should supercede the latter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".