View source for TRIPS Agreement

{{Redirect|TRIPS|the microprocessor|TRIPS architecture|the German racing driver|Wolfgang von Trips|other uses|Trip (disambiguation){{!}}Trip}}
{{Infobox treaty
| name                =TRIP Agreement<br>Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization
| long_name           =Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
| rep                 = 
| image               =World Trade Organization Members.svg
| image_width         = 200px
| image_alt           or accessibility; see [[MOS:ACCESS]] -->
| caption             = {{legend|#008000|WTO members (where the TRIPS agreement applies)}}{{legend|#00FF00|Parties to the Agreement where also the membership of the European Union applies}} 
| type                = Annex to the [[Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization]]
| date_signed         = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->
| location_signed     = 
| date_sealed         = 
| date_effective      = 1 January 1995<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm |title=Overview: the TRIPS Agreement|accessdate=23 May 2016}}</ref>
| parties             = 162 (All WTO members)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iipa.com/trips.html|title=WTO TRIPS implementation|work=International Intellectual Property Alliance|accessdate=22 May 2012}}</ref>
| languages           = English, French and Spanish
| wikisource          = Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
}}

The '''Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights''' ('''TRIPS''') is an [[international agreement|international legal agreement]] between all the member nations of the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO). It sets down minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of many forms of [[intellectual property]] (IP) as applied to nationals of other WTO member nations.<ref>See TRIPS Art. 1(3).</ref> TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the [[General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]] (GATT) in 1994 and is administered by the WTO.

The TRIPS agreement introduced intellectual property law into the international trading system for the first time and remains the most comprehensive international agreement on intellectual property to date. In 2001, developing countries, concerned that developed countries were insisting on an overly narrow reading of TRIPS, initiated a round of talks that resulted in the [[Doha Declaration]]. The Doha declaration is a WTO statement that clarifies the scope of TRIPS, stating for example that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the goal "to promote access to medicines for all."

Specifically, TRIPS requires WTO members to provide [[copyright]] rights, covering content producers including performers, producers of sound recordings and broadcasting organizations; [[geographical indication]]s, including appellations of origin; [[Industrial design law|industrial designs]]; [[mask work|integrated circuit layout-designs]]; [[patent]]s;  [[plant breeders' rights|new plant varieties]]; [[trademark]]s; [[trade dress]]; and undisclosed or [[confidential information]]. TRIPS also specifies [[enforcement]] procedures, remedies, and [[dispute resolution]] procedures. Protection and enforcement of all intellectual property rights shall meet the objectives to contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

==Background and history==
{{refimprove|date=May 2012}}
TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the [[Uruguay Round]] of the [[General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]] (GATT) in 1994.   Its inclusion was the culmination of a program of intense [[lobbying]] by the [[United States]], supported by the [[European Union]], [[Japan]] and other [[developed nations]].  Campaigns of unilateral economic encouragement under the [[Generalized System of Preferences]] and [[Economic coercion|coercion]] under [[Section 301]] of the Trade Act played an important role in defeating competing policy positions that were favored by developing countries and [[United States-Brazil Section 301 Trade Dispute|Brazil]], but also including Thailand, India and Caribbean Basin states.  In turn, the United States strategy of linking trade policy to intellectual property standards can be traced back to the entrepreneurship of senior management at [[Pfizer]] in the early 1980s, who mobilized corporations in the United States and made maximizing intellectual property privileges the number one priority of trade policy in the United States (Braithwaite and Drahos, 2000, Chapter 7).

After the Uruguay round, the GATT became the basis for the establishment of the World Trade Organization.  Because ratification of TRIPS is a compulsory requirement of World Trade Organization membership, any country seeking to obtain hard access to the numerous international markets opened by the World Trade Organization must enact the strict intellectual property laws mandated by TRIPS.  For this reason, TRIPS is the most important multilateral instrument for the globalization of intellectual property laws.  States like Russia and [[China]] <ref>Farah, Paolo Davide & Cima, Elena (2010) '[http://ssrn.com/abstract=1527992 SSRN.com  China’s Participation in the World Trade Organization: Trade in Goods, Services, Intellectual Property Rights and Transparency Issues" in Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez (ed.), El comercio con China. Oportunidades empresariales, incertidumbres jurídicas, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia (Spain) 2010, pp. 85–121.] ISBN 978-84-8456-981-7.</ref> that were very unlikely to join the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]] have found the prospect of WTO membership a powerful enticement.

Furthermore, unlike other agreements on intellectual property, TRIPS has a powerful enforcement mechanism.  States can be disciplined through the WTO's [[WTO Dispute Settlement Body|dispute settlement]] mechanism.

==The requirements of TRIPS==

TRIPS requires member states to provide strong protection for intellectual property rights. For example, under TRIPS:

* Copyright terms must extend at least 50 years, unless based on the life of the [[author]]. (Art. 12 and 14)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm |title=intellectual property (TRIPS) - agreement text - standards |publisher=WTO |date=1994-04-15 |accessdate=2012-04-16}}</ref>
* Copyright must be granted automatically, and not based upon any [[copyright formalities|"formality,"]] such as [[copyright registration|registrations]], as specified in the [[Berne Convention]]. (Art. 9)
* Computer programs must be regarded as "literary works" under copyright law and receive the same terms of protection.
* National [[limitations and exceptions to copyright|exceptions to copyright]] (such as "[[fair use]]" in the United States) are constrained by the [[Berne three-step test]]
* Patents must be granted for "inventions" in all "fields of technology" provided they meet all other patentability requirements (although exceptions for certain public interests are allowed (Art. 27.2 and 27.3)<ref>{{Citation
|title=Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
|author=World Trade Organization
|authorlink=World Trade Organization
|chapter=Part II — Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights; Sections 5 and 6
|chapterurl=http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm}}</ref> and must be enforceable for at least 20 years (Art 33).
* Exceptions to exclusive rights must be limited, provided that a normal exploitation of the work (Art.&nbsp;13) and normal exploitation of the patent (Art&nbsp;30) is not in conflict.
* No unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the right holders of computer programs and patents is allowed.
* Legitimate interests of third parties have to be taken into account by patent rights (Art&nbsp;30).
* In each state, intellectual property laws may not offer any benefits to local citizens which are not available to citizens of other TRIPS signatories under the principle of [[national treatment]] (with certain limited exceptions, Art. 3 and 5).<ref>{{Citation
|title=Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
|author=World Trade Organization
|authorlink=World Trade Organization
|chapter=Part I — General Provisions and Basic Principles
|chapterurl=http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_03_e.htm}}</ref>  TRIPS also has a [[most favored nation clause]].

Many of the TRIPS provisions on copyright were copied from the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works]] and many of its trademark and patent provisions were modeled on the [[Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property]]. It is the case of the protection of software and database.

Article 10 of the treaty stipulates:

"1. Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).
2. Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself."

===Access to essential medicines===<!-- This section is linked from [[Patent]] -->

The most visible conflict has been over [[AIDS]] drugs in [[AIDS in Africa|Africa]].  Despite the role that patents have played in maintaining higher drug costs  for public health programs across Africa, this controversy has not led to a revision of TRIPS. Instead, an interpretive statement, the [[Doha Declaration]], was issued in November 2001, which indicated that TRIPS should not prevent states from dealing with public health crises.  After Doha, [[PhRMA]], the United States and to a lesser extent other developed nations began working to minimize the effect of the declaration.<ref>cf. Timmermann, Cristian, and Henk van den Belt. 2013. Intellectual property and global health: from corporate social responsibility to the access to knowledge movement. Liverpool Law Review 34 (1):47-73. [http://edepot.wur.nl/252885 also available at http://edepot.wur.nl/252885]</ref>

A 2003 agreement loosened the domestic market requirement, and allows developing countries to export to other countries where there is a national health problem as long as drugs exported are not part of a commercial or industrial policy.<ref>{{Citation
|title=Implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health
|url=http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/implem_para6_e.htm
|date=1 September 2003
|author=World Trade Organization
|authorlink=World Trade Organization}}</ref> Drugs exported under such a regime may be packaged or colored differently in order to prevent them from prejudicing markets in the developed world.

In 2003, the Bush administration also changed its position, concluding that generic treatments might in fact be a component of an effective strategy to combat HIV.  Bush created the [[PEPFAR]] program, which received $15 billion from 2003–2007, and was reauthorized in 2008 for $48 billion over the next five years.  Despite wavering on the issue of [compulsory licensing], PEPFAR began to distribute generic drugs in 2004-5.

===Software and business method patents===
{{main article|Software_patents_under_TRIPs_Agreement}}
Another controversy has been over the TRIPS Article 27 requirements for patentability "in all fields of technology", and whether or not this necessitates the granting of [[software patent|software]] and [[business method patent]]s.

According to article 10 of the TRIPS Agreement the appropriate instrument to protect software protection is author right. The importance of this instrument has recently been confirmed by the US Supreme Court ([[Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.]]).

== Implementation in developing countries ==

The obligations under TRIPS apply equally to all member states, however [[developing countries]] were allowed extra time to implement the applicable changes to their national laws, in two tiers of transition according to their level of development.  The transition period for developing countries expired in 2005. The transition period for [[least developed countries]] to implement TRIPS was extended to 2013, and until 1 January 2016 for pharmaceutical patents, with the possibility of further extension.<ref>World Trade Organisation, IP - http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tripfq_e.htm</ref>

It has therefore been argued that the TRIPS standard of requiring all countries to create strict intellectual property systems will be detrimental to poorer countries' development.<ref>{{Citation
|title=IP Justice policy paper for the WIPO development agenda
|publisher=IP Justice
|url=http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/WIPO_DA_IP_Justice_Policy_Paper.shtml}}</ref> It has been argued that it is, ''prima facie'', in the strategic interest of most if not all underdeveloped nations to use the flexibility available in TRIPS to legislate the weakest IP laws possible.<ref>{{cite book|author=Blouin, Heymann & Drager|title=Trade and Health|date=2007|publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press|page=33}}</ref>

This has not happened in most cases.  A 2005 report by the [[WHO]] found that many developing countries have not incorporated TRIPS flexibilities (compulsory licensing, parallel importation, limits on data protection, use of broad research and other exceptions to patentability, etc.) into their legislation to the extent authorized under Doha.<ref>{{Citation
|last1=Musungu
|first1=Sisule F.
|last2=Oh
|first2=Cecilia
|title=The use of flexibilities in TRIPS by developing countries: can they promote access to medicines?
|url=http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/studies/TRIPS_flexibilities/en/index.html
|publisher=Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH)
|date=August 2005}}</ref>

This is likely caused by the lack of legal and technical expertise needed to draft legislation that implements flexibilities, which has often led to developing countries directly copying developed country IP legislation,<ref>{{Cite journal
|first=J. Michael
|last=Finger
|title=The WTO's special burden on less developed countries
|url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj19n3/cj19n3-9.pdf
|format=PDF
|journal=Cato Journal
|volume=19
|issue=3
|year=2000
}}</ref> or relying on technical assistance from the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO), which, according to critics such as [[Cory Doctorow]], encourages them to implement stronger intellectual property monopolies.

Banerjee and Nayak<ref>Banerjee and Nayak, Effects of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights on the R&D Expenditure of Indian Pharmaceutical
Industry,2014 'Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research.</ref> shows that TRIPS has a positive effect on R&D expenditure of Indian pharmaceutical firms.

==Post-TRIPS expansion==

In addition to the baseline [[intellectual property]] standards created by the TRIPS agreement, many nations have engaged in bilateral agreements to adopt a higher standard of protection.  These collection of standards, known as TRIPS+ or TRIPS-Plus, can take many forms.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195390124.001.0001/acprof-9780195390124-chapter-8|title=Overview of "TRIPS-Plus" Standards - Oxford Scholarship|publisher=}}</ref>  General objectives of these agreements include:

* The creation of [[anti-circumvention laws]] to protect [[Digital Rights Management]] systems.  This was achieved through the 1996 [[World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty]] (WIPO Treaty) and the [[WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty]].
* More stringent restrictions on [[compulsory license]]s for patents.
* More aggressive patent enforcement. This effort has been observed more broadly in proposals for WIPO and [[European Union]] rules on intellectual property enforcement. The 2001 [[EU Copyright Directive]] was to implement the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty.
* The campaign for the creation of a [[WIPO Broadcasting Treaty]] that would give broadcasters (and possibly webcasters) exclusive rights over the copies of works they have distributed.

== Panel reports ==

According to ''WTO 10th Anniversary, Highlights of the first decade, Annual Report 2005'' page 142,<ref>{{cite web
|title=Annual Report 2005
|author=World Trade Organization
|authorlink=World Trade Organization
|url=http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep05_e.pdf
|year=2005}}</ref> in the first ten years, 25 complaints have been lodged leading to the panel reports and appellate body reports on TRIPS listed below.

The WTO website has a gateway to all TRIPS disputes  (including those that did not lead to panel reports) here [http://www.wto.int/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm#trips].

* ''2005 Panel Report'':<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news05_e/panelreport_174_290_e.htm |title=2005 News items - Panel reports out on geographical indications disputes |publisher=WTO |date=2005-03-15 |accessdate=2012-04-16}}</ref>
** [[European Communities]] - Protection of [[Trademark]]s and [[Geographical indication|Geographical Indication]]s for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs.
* ''2000 Panel Report'':<ref>http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/1391da.pdf</ref> Part 2<ref>http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/1391db.pdf</ref> and 2000 Appellate Body Report<ref>http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/170abr_e.pdf</ref>
** [[Canada]] - Term of Patent Protection.
* ''2000 Panel Report'', Part 1:<ref>http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news00_e/1234da.pdf</ref> and Part 2<ref>http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news00_e/1234db.pdf</ref>
** [[United States]] - Section 110(5) of the [[United States Copyright Law|US Copyright Act]].
* ''2000 Panel Report'':<ref>http://www.worldtradelaw.net/reports/wtopanelsfull/canada-pharmaceuticals(panel)(full).pdf</ref>
** Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products.
* ''2001 Panel Report'':<ref>http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/176r_e.pdf</ref> and 2002 Appellate Body Report<ref>http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/176abr_e.pdf</ref>
** United States - Section 211 [[Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998]].
* ''1998 Panel Report'':<ref>http://www.worldtradelaw.net/reports/wtopanelsfull/india-patents(panel)(ec)(full).pdf</ref>
** [[India]] - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products.
* ''1998 Panel Report'':<ref>http://www.worldtradelaw.net/reports/wtopanelsfull/indonesia-autos(panel)(full).pdf</ref>
** [[Indonesia]] - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry.

==Criticism==

Since TRIPS came into force, it has been subject to criticism from [[developing countries]], [[academic]]s, and [[non-governmental organization]]s. Though some of this criticism is against the WTO generally, many advocates of trade liberalisation also regard TRIPS as poor policy. TRIPS's wealth concentration effects (moving money from people in developing countries to copyright and patent owners in developed countries) and its imposition of [[artificial scarcity]] on the citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws, are common bases for such criticisms. Other criticism has focused on the failure of TRIPS to accelerate investment and technology flows to low-income countries, a benefit advanced by WTO members in the lead-up to the agreement's formation. Statements by the World Bank indicate that TRIPS has not led to a demonstrable acceleration of investment to low-income countries, though it may have done so for middle-income countries.<ref>Ping Xiong ‘Patents in TRIPS-Plus Provisions and the Approaches to Interpretation of Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS: Do They Affect Public Health?’ (2012) 46(1) Journal of World Trade 155</ref> Lengthy patent periods under TRIPs have been scrutinised for unduly slowing the entry of generic substitutes and competition to the market. In particular, the illegality of pre-clinical trials or submission of samples for approval until a patent expires have been blamed for driving the growth of a few multinationals, rather than developing country producers.

[[Daniele Archibugi]] and [[Andrea Filippetti]]<ref>Archibugi, D. and Filippetti, A. (2010) '[http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/IPRglobalization.pdf The globalization of intellectual property rights: Four learned lessons and four thesis]', Journal of Global Policy, 1: 137-49.</ref> argue that the importance of TRIPS in the process of generation and diffusion of knowledge and innovation has been overestimated by its supporters. This point has been supported by United Nations findings indicating many countries with weak protection routinely benefit from strong levels of [[foreign direct investment]] (FDI).<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Collins-Chase |first1=Charles |title=The Case Against TRIPS-plus protection in developing countries facing AIDs epidemics |journal=[[University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law]] |date=Spring 2008|volume=29|issue=3|url=http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jil/vol29/iss3/6/|accessdate=23 June 2015}}</ref>  Analysis of OECD countries in the 1980s and 1990s (during which the patent life of drugs was extended by 6 years) showed that while total number of products registered increased slightly, the mean innovation index remained unchanged.<ref>Patrice Troullier et al 'Drug Development for Neglected Diseases: A Deficient Market and a Public Health Policy Failure' (2002) 360 The Lancet, 2188</ref>

The 2002 Doha Declaration affirmed that the TRIPS agreement should not prevent members from taking measures necessary to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less-developed countries have argued that TRIPS's flexible provisions, such as compulsory licensing, are near-on impossible to exercise. In particular, less developed countries have cited their infant domestic manufacturing and technology industries as evidence of the policy's bluntness.

TRIPS-plus conditions mandating standards beyond TRIPS have also been the subject of scrutiny. These [[Free trade area|FTA]] agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic producers. In particular, the United States has been criticised for advancing protection well beyond the standards mandated by TRIPS. The United States Free Trade Agreements with Australia, Morocco and Bahrain have extended patentability by requiring patents be available for new uses of known products.<ref name="auto">Richard Newfarmer, Trade, Doha, and Development (The World Bank, 1st ed, 2006) 292</ref> The TRIPS agreement allows the grant of compulsory licenses at a nation’s discretion. TRIPS-plus conditions in the United States FTA’s with Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have restricted the application of compulsory licenses to emergency situations, antitrust remedies, and cases of public non-commercial use.<ref name="auto"/>

==See also==
*[[List of parties to the TRIPS Agreement]]

=== Related treaties and laws ===
* [[Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement]] (ACTA)
* [[Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights|EU Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights]] (IPRED)
* [[Patent Law Treaty]] (PLT)
* [[Substantive Patent Law Treaty]] (SPLT)
* [[Uruguay Round Agreement Act]] of the United States (URAA)

=== Related organizations ===
* [[Intellectual Property Committee]]
* [[World Trade Organization]]

=== Other ===
* [[Confusing similarity]]
* [[Geographical Indication]]
* [[Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China]]
* [[List of international trade topics]]
* [[List of parties to international copyright agreements]]
* [[World Trade Organization Dispute 160]]
* [[Japanese Sound Recording Trade Disputes]]

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

==Sources==
* Braithwaite and Drahos, ''Global Business Regulation'', [[Cambridge University Press]], 2000
* Westkamp, 'TRIPS Principles, Reciprocity and the Creation of Sui-Generis-Type Intellectual Property Rights for New Forms of Technology' [2003] 6(6) The Journal of World Intellectual Property 827-859, {{ISSN|1422-2213}}
* Banerjee and Nayak, 'Effects of trade related intellectual property rights on the research and development expenditure of Indian pharmaceutical industry' [2014] 5 Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research 89-94.
* {{cite book
| author= Azam, M.
|year=2016
|title= Intellectual Property and Public Health in the Developing World
|publisher= Open Book Publishers
|url= http://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/476/intellectual-property-and-public-health-in-the-developing-world}} A '''free''' textbook for download.

== External links ==
{{wikisource|Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights}}
* [http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf TRIPS agreement] (PDF version)
* [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] (html version)
* World Trade Organization links
** [http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm World Trade Organization - Official Text]
** [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm World Trade Organization - TRIPs gateway]
* [http://waterfall.lis.uiuc.edu/dl/classes/auditorium/sellfeb08_08.ram Audio presentation by Professor Susan Sell, George Washington University, on intellectual property rights in the global context.]
* [http://shapingsustainablemarkets.iied.org/wto-trips-agreements WTO TRIPS Agreement profile on database of Market Governance Mechanisms]
{{World Trade Organization}}

<!-- please respect alphabetical order -->
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2011}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trips Agreement}}
[[Category:Intellectual property treaties]]
[[Category:World Trade Organization agreements]]
[[Category:Copyright treaties]]
[[Category:Patent law treaties]]
[[Category:International trade]]
[[Category:Business law]]
[[Category:Treaties concluded in 1994]]
[[Category:Treaties entered into force in 1996]]
[[Category:Treaties of Albania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Angola]]
[[Category:Treaties of Antigua and Barbuda]]
[[Category:Treaties of Argentina]]
[[Category:Treaties of Armenia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Australia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Austria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bahrain]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bangladesh]]
[[Category:Treaties of Barbados]]
[[Category:Treaties of Belgium]]
[[Category:Treaties of Belize]]
[[Category:Treaties of Benin]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bolivia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Botswana]]
[[Category:Treaties of Brazil]]
[[Category:Treaties of Brunei]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bulgaria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Burkina Faso]]
[[Category:Treaties of Burundi]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cambodia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cameroon]]
[[Category:Treaties of Canada]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cape Verde]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Central African Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Chad]]
[[Category:Treaties of Chile]]
[[Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of China]]
[[Category:Treaties of Colombia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Democratic Republic of the Congo]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of the Congo]]
[[Category:Treaties of Costa Rica]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ivory Coast]]
[[Category:Treaties of Croatia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cuba]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cyprus]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Czech Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Denmark]]
[[Category:Treaties of Djibouti]]
[[Category:Treaties of Dominica]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Dominican Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ecuador]]
[[Category:Treaties of Egypt]]
[[Category:Treaties of El Salvador]]
[[Category:Treaties of Estonia]]
[[Category:Treaties entered into by the European Union]]
[[Category:Treaties of Fiji]]
[[Category:Treaties of Finland]]
[[Category:Treaties of France]]
[[Category:Treaties of Gabon]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Gambia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Georgia (country)]]
[[Category:Treaties of Germany]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ghana]]
[[Category:Treaties of Greece]]
[[Category:Treaties of Grenada]]
[[Category:Treaties of Guatemala]]
[[Category:Treaties of Guinea]]
[[Category:Treaties of Guinea-Bissau]]
[[Category:Treaties of Haiti]]
[[Category:Treaties of Honduras]]
[[Category:Treaties of Hong Kong]]
[[Category:Treaties of Hungary]]
[[Category:Treaties of Iceland]]
[[Category:Treaties of India]]
[[Category:Treaties of Indonesia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Israel]]
[[Category:Treaties of Italy]]
[[Category:Treaties of Jamaica]]
[[Category:Treaties of Japan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Jordan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kazakhstan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kenya]]
[[Category:Treaties of South Korea]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kuwait]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kyrgyzstan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Laos]]
[[Category:Treaties of Latvia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Lesotho]]
[[Category:Treaties of Liechtenstein]]
[[Category:Treaties of Lithuania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Luxembourg]]
[[Category:Treaties of Macau]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of Macedonia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Madagascar]]
[[Category:Treaties of Malaysia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Malawi]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Maldives]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mali]]
[[Category:Treaties of Malta]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mauritania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mauritius]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mexico]]
[[Category:Treaties of Moldova]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mongolia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Montenegro]]
[[Category:Treaties of Morocco]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mozambique]]
[[Category:Treaties of Myanmar]]
[[Category:Treaties of Namibia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Nepal]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Netherlands]]
[[Category:Treaties of New Zealand]]
[[Category:Treaties of Nicaragua]]
[[Category:Treaties of Niger]]
[[Category:Treaties of Nigeria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Norway]]
[[Category:Treaties of Oman]]
[[Category:Treaties of Pakistan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Panama]]
[[Category:Treaties of Papua New Guinea]]
[[Category:Treaties of Paraguay]]
[[Category:Treaties of Peru]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Philippines]]
[[Category:Treaties of Poland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Portugal]]
[[Category:Treaties of Qatar]]
[[Category:Treaties of Romania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Russia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Rwanda]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saint Kitts and Nevis]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saint Lucia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]]
[[Category:Treaties of Samoa]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saudi Arabia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Senegal]]
[[Category:Treaties of Seychelles]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sierra Leone]]
[[Category:Treaties of Singapore]]
[[Category:Treaties of Slovakia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Slovenia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Solomon Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties of South Africa]]
[[Category:Treaties of Spain]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sri Lanka]]
[[Category:Treaties of Suriname]]
[[Category:Treaties of Swaziland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sweden]]
[[Category:Treaties of Switzerland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Taiwan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tajikistan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tanzania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Thailand]]
[[Category:Treaties of Togo]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tonga]]
[[Category:Treaties of Trinidad and Tobago]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tunisia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Turkey]]
[[Category:Treaties of Uganda]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ukraine]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United Arab Emirates]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United States]]
[[Category:Treaties of Uruguay]]
[[Category:Treaties of Vanuatu]]
[[Category:Treaties of Venezuela]]
[[Category:Treaties of Vietnam]]
[[Category:Treaties of Yemen]]
[[Category:Treaties of Zambia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Zimbabwe]]
[[Category:Treaties of Liberia]]