Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T03:03:48.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and treaties protecting genetic resources and traditional knowledge

from Part II - The protection of genetic resources in intellectual property law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Jonathan Curci
Jonathan Curci
Affiliation:
Touro International University, Rome
Get access

Summary

This section analyzes the legal impact of the TRIPS Agreement on the implementation of other related international legal instruments in the field of environmental law and human rights. In order for States to implement all the applicable international law, these treaties need to be analyzed and interpreted. Accordingly, one cannot study the field of IP in clinical isolation from other fields of international law as well as diplomatic and international political relations. The very existence of Article 27 of TRIPS has evoked strong criticism by NGOs and indigenous communities in DCs that try to resist the alleged practice of “biopiracy” and market control over biodiversity through industrialized countries' use of the patent system. This campaign has resulted in a diplomatic strategy to modify the international norms of patentability contained in the TRIPS Agreement and other patent treaties. In sum, the rhetoric used by TK holders and some DCs is that they are having to pay for IP protected products, including royalties, that are based on the use of their own resources and knowledge.

The differences between the IP and environmental legal regimes dealing with this subject-matter are wide. A patent under TRIPS requires novelty, whereas community rights under the CBD are founded on pre-existing rights to biodiversity and associated knowledge. IPRs on biodiversity-related “inventions” are therefore dependent upon the prior “rights” of communities. TK holders argue that these latter rights are undermined by the very existence of the rights detailed in TRIPS and inspired by “myopic” industrial interests.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property , pp. 50 - 86
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

McConnel, F., The Biodiversity Convention: A Negotiating History (Kluwer, The Hague, 1996)Google Scholar
Correa, C. M., Sovereign and Property Rights over Plant Genetic Resources, FAO Background Study Paper No. 2 (Commission on Plant Genetic Resources – First Extraordinary Session, Rome, 1994)Google Scholar
Joyner, C., “Legal Implications of the Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind” (1986) 35 International and Comparative Law Quarterly190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagedan, B. L., The Biodiversity Convention, Intellectual Property Rights, and Ownership of Genetic Resources: International Developments, prepared for Industry Canada, International Property Policy Directorate (Industry Canada, Ottawa, January, 1996)Google Scholar
Janzen, D., “A New Lease on Life”, in Reid, W.et al. (eds.), Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development (World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 1993)Google Scholar
McConnel, F., The Biodiversity Convention. A Negotiating History (Kluwer, The Hague, 1996)Google Scholar
Curci, J., ‘The New Challenges to the International Patentability of Biotechnology: Legal Relations Between the WTO Treaty on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (2005) 2 International Law and Management Review16 ffGoogle Scholar
Noiville, C., “Biodiversité et propriété intellectuelle. L'impossible conciliation?”, in Vivien, F.-D. (ed.), Biodiversité et appropriation: les droits de proprieté en question (Elsevier, Paris, 2002)Google Scholar
Maljean-Dubois, S., “Biodiversité, biotechnologies, biosécurité: le droit international désarticulé” (2000) 127(4) Journal du Droit International966–67Google Scholar
Atibasay, J. F. Badimboli, ‘The International Legal Regime for Biotechnology Patenting: An Appraisal from the Standpoint of Developing Countries’ (2001) 31 Revue générale de droit291–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoki, K., “Neocolonialism, Anticommons Property, and Biopiracy in the (Not-So-Brave) New World Order of International Intellectual Property Protection” (1998) 6Indiana Journal for Global Legal Studies11Google Scholar
Mooney, P., “Why I Call It Biopiracy”, in Svarstad, H. and Dhillion, S. S. (eds.), Responding to Bioprospecting: From Biodiversity in the South to Medicines in the North (Spartacus Press, Oslo, 2000) 37–43Google Scholar
Cottier, T., “The Protection of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Towards More Specific Rights and Obligations in World Trade Law” (1998) 1 Journal of International Economic Law555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, K. A., “Compensation for Use of Biological Resources Under the Convention on Biological Diversity: Compatibility of Conservation Measures and Competitiveness of the Biotechnology Industry” (1994) 25 Law and Policy International Business695Google Scholar
Prakash, S., “Towards a Synergy Between Biodiversity and Intellectual Property Rights” (1999) 2 Journal of World Intellectual Property821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correa, C., Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property: Issues and Options Surrounding the Protection of Traditional Knowledge 3 (Discussion Paper, Quaker UN Office, Geneva, 2001)Google Scholar
Dutfield, G., “The Public and Private Domains: Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge” (2000) 21(3) Science Communication276–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., “Biotechnology and International Law” (2001) 42 Harvard International Law Journal77Google Scholar
Girsberger, M., Biodiversity and the Concept of Farmers' Rights in International Law (Peter Lang, Berne, 1999) 172Google Scholar
El-Saghir, H., Mwijukye, J. and Issahaque, G., “Plant Varieties, Biodiversity and Developing Countries”, Collection of Papers of the LL.M and Post-Graduate Specialization Course on Intellectual Property (WIPO Worldwide Academy and University of Turin, 2003) 535Google Scholar
Cottier, T. and Biber-Klemm, S. (eds.), Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (CABI, London, 2006) 176
Philips, J., “The Diminishing Domain” (1997) 8 European Intellectual Property Review429–30Google Scholar
Ewens, L. E., “Seed Wars: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property, and the Quest for High Yield Seeds” (2000) 23(2) Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 285–310Google Scholar
Cullett, P., et al., “Intellectual Property Rights, Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge”, in Cottier, T. and Biber-Klemm, S. (eds.), Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (CABI, London, 2006) 112Google Scholar
Bostyn, S. J. R., “One Patent a Day Keeps the Doctor Away? Patenting Human Genetic Information and Health Care” (2000) 7 European Journal Health Law229, 248–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavoni, R., “Accesso alle risorse fitogenetiche e diritti di proprietà intellettuale dopo il trattato dalla FAO del 2001” (2003) 3 Comunità internazionale369, 382–83 (2003)Google Scholar
Jackson, H. J., The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1997) 121–22Google Scholar
Chua, A., “Precedent and Principles of WTO Panel Jurisprudence” (1998) 2(16) Berkeley Journal of International Law171–95, 183Google Scholar
Cattaneo, O., “Interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement: Considerations for the WTO Panels and Appellate Body” (2000) 3 The Journal of World Intellectual Property627–81, 675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marceau, G., “A Call for Coherence in International Law: Praises for the Prohibition Against ‘Clinical Isolation’ in WTO Dispute Settlement” (1999) 33 Journal of World Trade87–152 especially 123Google Scholar
Jackson, J., “Dispute Settlement and the WTO. Emerging Problems” (1998) 1(3) Journal of International Economic Law342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posey, D., “International Agreements for Protecting Indigenous Knowledge”, in Sanchez, V. and Juma, C. (eds.), Biodiplomacy: Genetic Resources and International Relations (ACTS, Nairobi, 1994) 125Google Scholar
Stoll, T. P. and Hahn, A., “Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Knowledge and Indigenous Resources in International Law”, in Lewinski, S. (ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property (Kluwer, The Hague, 2nd edn, 2008) 5–28Google Scholar
Axt, J. R., Corn, M. L., Lee, M. and Ackerman, D. M., Biotechnology, Indigenous Peoples and Intellectual Property Rights, Congressional Research Service 27 (The Library of Congress, Washington DC, 1993)Google Scholar
Verma, S. K., “Protecting Traditional Knowledge. Is a Sui Generis System an Answer?” (2004) 7(6) Journal of World Intellectual Property765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abi-Saab, G., “Cours général de droit international public” (1987) 207 Le Recueil de cours de l'Académie de droit international160–169, 171Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×