Asian Borderlands and the Legal Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 1403-1433 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPH ANTONS
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nuanced Understanding

AbstractTraditional knowledge related to biodiversity, agriculture, medicine and artistic expressions has recently attracted much interest amongst policy makers, legal academics and social scientists. Several United Nations organizations, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity under the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), have been working on international models for the protection of such knowledge held by local and indigenous communities. Relevant national, regional or provincial level legislation comes in the form of intellectual property laws and laws related to health, heritage or environmental protection. In practice, however, it has proven difficult to agree on definitions of the subject matter, to delineate local communities and territories holding the knowledge, and to clearly identify the subjects and beneficiaries of the protection. In fact, claims to ‘cultural property’ and heritage have led to conflicts and tensions between communities, regions and nations. This paper will use Southeast Asian examples and case studies to show the importance of concepts such as Zomia, ‘regions of refuge’ and mandala as well as ‘borderlands’ studies to avoid essentialized notions of communities and cultures in order to develop a nuanced understanding of the difficulties for national and international lawmaking in this field. It will also develop a few suggestions on how conflicts and tensions could be avoided or ameliorated.

Power Relations in the Traditional Knowledge Debate: A Critical Analysis of Forums

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Kamau Maina
Keyword(s):  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
The World ◽  
International Decade

AbstractAn ongoing debate on the protection of traditional knowledge was prompted by the United Nations General Assembly declaration of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples in 1995 and the declaration of the Second International Decade in 2004. These two declarations challenged governments and the international community to address, nationally and internationally, issues that affect indigenous communities. One such issue is the protection of traditional knowledge. The three key international multilateral forums that are debating traditional knowledge issues are the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Using a political economy framework, this study analyzes the policymaking processes and mandates of the three multilateral forums in order to highlight stakeholders' levels of involvement in these processes. The study found that the multilateral forums' power structures, mandates, and decision-making processes disadvantage indigenous peoples and hinder their full participation in the forums' processes. The study recommends establishing a forum that would take into account indigenous peoples' worldviews; otherwise policy outcomes from these discussions will probably disadvantage indigenous peoples.

Protecting Traditional Knowledge Holders' Interests and Preventing Misappropriation—Traditional Knowledge Commons and Biocultural Protocols: Necessary but Not Sufficient?

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Prior Informed Consent ◽  
Knowledge Commons

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.

Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract In Part I of this two-part article, we explained why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool, as a way of protecting traditional knowledge (tk) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (tce) of indigenous peoples. Part II of this article aims to: 1) provide a brief review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the Nagoya Protocol, and examine the evolution of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (trips Agreement) to the cbd to the Nagoya Protocol; and 2) examine possible core principles, inducted (rather than deduced) from actual practices already in place in the areas of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in relation to protecting tk and EoF. These explorations could allow for discussions regarding indigenous peoples, human rights and international trade law to become less adversarial.

scholarly journals Positive Protection: Protecting Genetic Resources Related to Traditional Knowledge in Indonesia

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
Rohaini Rohaini ◽  
Nenny Dwi Ariani
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
International Pressure

Genetic Resources is a foundation of human life, as a source of food, industrial raw materials, pharmaceuticals, and medicines. From its utilization may provide a financial benefit to the provider and the user of it. Unfortunately, most of it obtained from developing countries through biopiracy, including Indonesia. Furthermore, in the early 1980s, access and benefit sharing (ABS) to genetic resources became an international issue. It leads to the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. However, since it was approved, the whole ideas of excellence of it could not be implemented, a problem on it still arises. Intellectual property right laws, in certain aspects, are possible for using to protect traditional knowledge from their utilization. However, at the same time, intellectual property regime also becomes “a tool” to legitimate of biopiracy practices. Due to massive international pressure, mostly in developing countries, it proposes two kinds of protections, which are positive protection and defensive protection. This paper will examine one of it, which is positive protection. By using the normative method and qualitative approach, this paper identified at least two kinds of positive protections that we can develop to protect genetic resources related to traditional knowledge, which are optimizing the patent law and developing the sui generis law. Furthermore, it can be done by some revision by adding new substances, an improvement on the articles, or even by doing the deletion on certain articles. Moreover, in order to develop the sui generis law, it identified several minimum elements that shall be contained on it, inter alia: the purposes of protection; scope of protection; criteria of protection; the beneficiaries of protection: the holder of traditional knowledge; the kind of rights to be granted; how the rights acquired; how to enforce it; how the rights lost or expired; and dispute resolution.  Keywords: Positive Protection, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge.

scholarly journals The Rooibos Benefit Sharing Agreement–Breaking New Ground with Respect, Honesty, Fairness, and Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-301
Author(s):  
DORIS SCHROEDER ◽  
ROGER CHENNELLS ◽  
COLLIN LOUW ◽  
LEANA SNYDERS ◽  
TIMOTHY HODGES
Keyword(s):  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Global Policy ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Major Benefit ◽  
Government Leadership

AbstractThe 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its 2010 Nagoya Protocol brought about a breakthrough in global policy making. They combined a concern for the environment with a commitment to resolving longstanding human injustices regarding access to, and use of biological resources. In particular, the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities was no longer going to be exploited without fair benefit sharing. Yet, for 25 years after the adoption of the CBD, there were no major benefit sharing agreements that led to significant funding streams for indigenous communities. This changed with the signing of the Rooibos Benefit Sharing Agreement in South Africa, described in this paper. As the authors report, the Rooibos Agreement is a superlative in two respects. It is the biggest benefit sharing agreement between industry and indigenous peoples to date. It is also the first industry-wide agreement to be formed in accordance with biodiversity legislation. This article is a co-production between traditional knowledge holders, the lawyer who represented their interests, the Co-Chair of the Nagoya Protocol negotiations, and an ethicist who analyzed the major challenges of this historic agreement. With no precedent in the benefit sharing world, the agreement stands as a concrete example of the ‘art of the possible.’ Although the rooibos case is unique in a number of aspects, the experience offers many transferable insights, including: patience; incrementalism; honesty; trust; genuine dialogue; strong legal support; a shared recognition that a fair, win-win deal is possible; government leadership; and unity amongst indigenous peoples. Such ingredients of success can apply well beyond southern Africa.

scholarly journals Traditional medicinal knowledge, recognition and regulation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Aylwin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
World Health ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Key Questions

As a number of global legal and political institutions grapple with ways to recognize and integrate TMK into their institutional frameworks, how traditional practices are 'recognized', and what work 'recognition's being asked to do become key questions. Three international frameworks that play a key role in recognizing TMK in the international arena are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Health Organization. By examining the way in which these three bodies have recognized and integrated TMK into their respective regimes, while and drawing on the scholarship of anthropologists, critical legal scholars, intellectual property experts and legal and policy literature, I will argue that the recognition of TMK in the international legal and political arena has led to the creation of complex legal and political spaces where recognizing traditional medicinal knowledge has fragmented it, siphoning off the social, cultural and spiritual aspects of it that remain incompatible with the current neoliberal paradigms. Simultaneously, recognition and integration have been used to co-opt traditional knowledge in order to extend governance regimes that integrate TMK and its holders without challenging the basic, outdated and highly unequal and unethical power relations on discourses of recognition are based.

scholarly journals The Patentability of Maori Traditional Medicine and the Morality Exclusion in the Patents Act 1953

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Young
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
International Obligations

Many indigenous peoples, including Maori, are offended by third parties 'appropriating' their traditional knowledge by means of intellectual property rights, such as patents. The author first surveys international debate about indigenous intellectual property rights in connection with the patenting of traditional indigenous medicine. The author examines the role of morality in New Zealand patent law and how this fits in with New Zealand's international obligations under the World Trade Organisation's TRIPs agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The author examines whether the patenting of Maori traditional medicine can be prevented under the morality exclusion in the Patents Act 1953 and outlines five arguments which might be used to justify various levels of intervention in the patenting process in order to protect Maori control over their traditional knowledge.

Traditional Knowledge and Private Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 426-444
Author(s):  
Ruth L. Okediji
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Sustainable Growth ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Relational Harm

Many proponents of traditional knowledge (TK) seek legal protection comparable to the bundle of exclusive rights afforded creators of knowledge goods in the conventional intellectual property (IP) system. This chapter argues that the nature of the harm caused by such misuse differs meaningfully from the interests with which standard intellectual property law is occupied. It maps how private law claims have been applied, notably in Australia, to address TK misuse and highlights formal adherence by courts to the boundaries of private law subjects. Important aspects of the problem, such as how TK misuse disables cultural mechanisms designed to foster the production of knowledge goods for sustainable growth in Indigenous communities, while also posing a risk to cross-border scientific research important for pressing public health and environmental challenges, however remain beyond private law’s reach.The chapter identifies three types of harm that flow from the misuse of TK: relational harm, communal harm, and developmental harm. For such harms, individual private property—and common property for that matter—offers limited recourse. The chapter reflects on other private law tools that could extend to TK and that offer protection well beyond IP rights, but all are without the classic welfare limits attendant to knowledge goods under the IP system. The misalignment of harms, claims and remedies point to sui generis regimes as a more meaningful prospect for regulating TK.

scholarly journals DIREITOS DA NATUREZA: O RIO AMAZONAS COMANDA A VIDA

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (56) ◽  
pp. 445
Author(s):  
Valmir César POZZETTI ◽  
Leonardo Leite NASCIMENTO
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Amazon River ◽  
Intangible Cultural Heritage ◽  
Rights Of Nature ◽  
Biodiversity Convention

RESUMOO rio Amazonas constitui um objeto natural, cujas águas comandam a vida dos ecossistemas e das comunidades na Pan-Amazônia. As águas amazônicas nutrem a vida de uma diversidade de ecossistemas, que apresentam vastas espécies animais e vegetais, que dependem da integridade do rio Amazonas para existirem. Não é diferente a relação dos povos tradicionais e das comunidades indígenas com as águas amazônicas compartilhadas, pois ancestralmente dependem do rio e, culturalmente, têm uma relação de existência, vivem em e de suas águas, respeitando e integrando harmonicamente a Amazônia, há muitos anos e gerações. O objetivo da pesquisa foi o de analisar o reconhecimento dos Direitos da Natureza, frente ao colapso climático global e a inefetividade das normas internacionais que tutelam o meio ambiente. Foi utilizado o método de pesquisa dedutivo e técnicas de pesquisa bibliográfica. Conclui-se que é possível a tutela jurídica do rio Amazonas, como um bem ambiental, sujeito de direitos bioculturais, em face da existência de leis, constituições e decisões de Tribunais Constitucionais globais análogas, com base na Convenção da Biodiversidade e no seu reconhecimento como patrimônio cultural imaterial. Para tanto, o Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica deve ser interpretado de acordo com os princípios jurídicos bióticos da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica. E o rio Amazonas, em face das tradições, das práticas sociais e rituais das comunidades que vivem em suas margens, deve ser reconhecido como patrimônio cultural imaterial, por sua grandiosidade natural e pela diversidade cultural que nele existe e dele faz parte: o rio, somos nós, nós somos o rio.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Rio Amazonas; Direitos da Natureza; Biodiversidade; Patrimônio cultural imaterial.ABSTRACTThe Amazon River is a natural object whose waters command the life of ecosystems and communities in the Pan-Amazon. The Amazonian waters maintain the life of a diversity of ecosystems, which present vast animal and vegetal species, that depend on the integrity of the Amazon river to exist. It is not different the relationship of traditional peoples and indigenous communities with the shared Amazonian waters, since they ancestrally depend on the river and, culturally, have a relation of existence, live in and of their waters, respecting and harmoniously integrating the Amazon, many years ago and generations. The objective of the research was to analyze the recognition of the Rights of Nature in the face of global climate collapse and the ineffectiveness of the international norms that protect the environment. The method of deductive research and bibliographic research techniques was used. It is concluded that the legal protection of the Amazon River is possible, as an environment good, subject of biocultural rights, due to the existence of laws, constitutions and decisions of similar global Constitutional Courts, based on the Biodiversity Convention and it’s recognition as intangible cultural heritage. To this end, the Amazon Cooperation Treaty must be interpreted in accordance with the biotic legal principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity. And the Amazon River, in view of the traditions, social practices and rituals of the communities that live along its banks, must be recognized as intangible cultural heritage, for its natural grandeur and for the cultural diversity that exists in it and it is part of it: the river, it’s us, we’re the river.KEYWORDS: Amazon River; Rights of Nature; Biodiversity; Intangible cultural heritage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document