It's not intended to, but it seems to me like a worst case interpretation could cast some doubt about the scenario where a government agency (perhaps a university) contributes to GPL software. Now when another TPP member wants to distribute that software, the government of the first country is exactly "requiring" transfer / access to the source code as a condition of distribution by the second TPP member.
The big problem is the use of "require", because it's a very loose general term. It doesn't matter what basis the "requirement" comes, so even just ordinary old copyright law seems to come into scope there.
I don't think it's a real problem but I do think it is close enough to one that it's a horrible thing to have in the agreement.
EDIT: further to those thoughts, the result would not be that the GPL is unenforceable, rather, the result would be that people would lose the right to distribute GPL software in the country. A working GPL is the only thing that gives them the right to do that in the first place. I doubt there is any nation left on earth that can actually now operate without access to GPL software, this is unlikely to play out even if there is a way to interpret it that seems to violate the GPL.
The big problem is the use of "require", because it's a very loose general term. It doesn't matter what basis the "requirement" comes, so even just ordinary old copyright law seems to come into scope there.
I don't think it's a real problem but I do think it is close enough to one that it's a horrible thing to have in the agreement.
EDIT: further to those thoughts, the result would not be that the GPL is unenforceable, rather, the result would be that people would lose the right to distribute GPL software in the country. A working GPL is the only thing that gives them the right to do that in the first place. I doubt there is any nation left on earth that can actually now operate without access to GPL software, this is unlikely to play out even if there is a way to interpret it that seems to violate the GPL.