The agreement allows for compulsory licensing under the agreements to strike a balance between promoting access to existing medicines and promoting research and development on new drugs. However, the concept of a compulsory licence is not included in the ON TRIPS agreement. Instead, the term is another use without the permission of the rights holder in the title of section 31. Mandatory licences are only part of it, as other uses include government use for their own purposes. Following the Doha Declaration, several compulsory licences were granted for the general production of patented medicines.19,20 Some countries, particularly Thailand, have developed an explicit strategy for the use of compulsory licenses to reduce health costs21. It is outside the scope of this document to discuss the legitimacy of these strategies or the retaliatory measures of other countries that have been the subject of in-depth discussions elsewhere.19 „22 On the contrary, this paper focuses on how compulsory licences in rich countries could be used to help countries that are unable to produce medicines. Under Article 31, point (f), of the ON TRIPS agreement, countries with production capacity have been limited to their capacity to assist, as they require that production under the compulsory licence be primarily for domestic procurement, even if the licence is granted in the event of a national emergency or in other extreme emergency or non-commercial public purposes. This problem was well identified during the Doha negotiations and led to the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the Doha Declaration, which called on the TRIPS Council to find a „quick solution“. After a long period of negotiations, the enforcement decision was adopted in August 2003 under paragraph 6 (execution decision) of Doha.23 One of the key aspects of the enforcement decision was the agreement to waive Article 31, point f). Some time later, the protocol amending the ON TRIPS (Protocol) agreement was adopted by the WTO General Council on 6 December 2005.24 A wide range of comments on the potentially negative effects of the TRIPS package on public health and development, particularly in low- and low-income countries, there has been wide commentary.8-10 The lack of basic public health care remains at issue in many of these countries.