The article explains that the interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement by WTO dispute-settlement panels and the Appellate Body has palpably shifted since the establishment of the WTO in 1995. Some of this shift is also arguably present in disputes concerning other WTO instruments. This progressive shift comes at a time when key debates about TRIPS waivers are taking place on the rue de Lausanne, namely a first for the COVID-19 pandemic and a second possible one for environmental protection measures related to climate change. According to the proposed pluralist analysis of TRIPS, it was less likely as of 2020 that the WTO dispute-settlement system would find unjustifiable inconsistencies between WTO commitments, on the one hand, and measures to protect public health or mitigate climate change, on the other hand. Whether future Appellate Body will follow that jurisprudence is an open question. Though the analysis contained in the article may make the COVID-related TRIPS waivers doctrinally unnecessary and allow Members to take measures now, its main aim is to inform the debates about the waivers and the future interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement, including the three-step test.

文章解释说，自 1995 年 WTO 成立以来，WTO 争端解决小组和上诉机构对 TRIPS 协议的解释发生了明显的转变。这种转变在与 WTO 其他文书有关的争端中也有争议。这一渐进式转变发生在洛桑街上关于 TRIPS 豁免的关键辩论之际，即第一次是针对 COVID-19 大流行，第二次可能是针对与气候变化相关的环境保护措施。根据提议的对 TRIPS 的多元分析，到 2020 年，WTO 争端解决机制发现 WTO 承诺与保护公众健康或减缓气候变化的措施之间存在不合理的不一致的可能性较小。手。未来的上诉机构是否会遵循该判例是一个悬而未决的问题。尽管文章中包含的分析可能使与 COVID 相关的 TRIPS 豁免在理论上不必要，并允许成员现在采取措施，但其主要目的是为有关豁免和未来对 TRIPS 协议的解释的辩论提供信息，包括三步测试。