The 2002 Doha Declaration reaffirmed that the TRIPS Agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary measures to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as compulsory licensing, are almost impossible to enforce. Less developed countries, in particular, cited their young domestic manufacturing and technology industries as evidence of the imprecision of the policy. In addition to the basic intellectual property standards established by the TRIPS Agreement, many nations have engaged in bilateral agreements to introduce a higher level of protection. This collection of standards, known as TRIPS+ or TRIPS-Plus, can take many forms.  The general objectives of these agreements are as follows: the TRIPS Agreement introduces 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”. 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. TRIPS conditions that impose more standards beyond TRIPS were also discussed.  These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to create competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for encouraging protection far beyond the standards imposed by TRIPS. U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain have extended patentability by requiring patents to be available for new uses of known products.  The TRIPS Agreement allows for the issuance of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country. The more ad hoc conditions provided for in the free trade agreements between the United States and Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have limited the application of compulsory licenses to emergency situations, antitrust measures and cases of non-commercial public use.  The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international agreement between all Member States of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation of different forms of intellectual property (IP) by national governments, as applied to nationals of other WTO member countries.
 TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990 and is managed by the WTO. Unlike other intellectual property agreements, TRIPS has an effective enforcement mechanism. States can be disciplined by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Since the entry into force of TRIPS, it has been the subject of criticism from developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of this criticism is directed at the WTO in general, many proponents of trade liberalization also view TRIPS as bad policy. . . .