The final step was to continue the potential impact of the provisions on the main core policy objectives mentioned in the agreements (as noted above) by analyzing possible avenues, on the disciplinary expertise and research experience of authors in the field of trade agreements and pharmaceutical policy, as well as on published research results (available and relevant). The aim was to identify possible pathways and possible effects that should be at the heart of health and human rights assessment and scientific research. Investor-State Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRS) are included in each of the four agreements discussed here. ISDS offers foreign investors, including pharmaceutical companies, a way to challenge government policies, decisions and laws by instilling a right to compensation before an international arbitration tribunal and arguing that their investment rights were violated under the agreement. In particular, after a three-year period (in which all claims filed under the old NAFTA provisions) are filed, the USMCA provides for ISDS only between the United States and Mexico; In addition, the grounds for which a right can be invoked are significantly limited compared to other agreements and do not apply to drugs. The provisions of the CETA ISDS have been suspended until they are approved by each EU member state. Following the signing of CETA, its ISDS rules were also radically revised by calling for the creation of an “investment judicial system” with professional and independent judges (instead of interim tribunals), opening hearings to the public and publishing documents filed in advertising cases. BITs limit the imposition of performance requirements, such as. B local content objectives or export quotas, as a precondition for the establishment, acquisition, extension, management, behaviour or operation of an investment. Bollyky, T. TPP and drug prices: why U.S.
trade agreements have not exported drug prices to the United States. Foreign Affairs, 2016. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-03-23/dose-tpps-medicine. Access May 19, 2019. Health Impact Assessment (EAH) and Human Rights Impact Analysis (HRIA) are two interdependent but different approaches that can be used to assess the potential or real impact of trade agreements. The methods follow similar steps, but the EEA identifies health effects, including distribution effects, while LRIA explicitly refers to the potential impact on states` legal obligations on health law.  Gleeson D, Forman L. Effects of trade and investment agreements on access to affordable medicines and the right to health. Canadian Yearbook of Human Rights, In Press. The DG conceived the idea for the document, led the development of the analytical framework, reviewed all the texts of the trade agreements and wrote the manuscript. JL, RL, BT, MAG, JK, LF and KS contributed to the development of the analytical framework and shared the role of second reviewer of commercial contract texts.
All authors critically examined the draft manuscripts with respect to important intellectual content and made contributions to proposals that were discussed together. All the authors accepted the final manuscript. There is no doubt that future trade agreements will continue to highlight a wide range of potential intersections with pharmaceutical policy that negotiating countries will face as part of efforts to achieve SDG 3.8. However, the analysis presented here shows that there is no mere progression in deepening the commitments from one trade agreement to another.