Impact of the Biodiversity Provisional Measure on Biotechnology Patenting in Brazil

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 5583-5599
Author(s):  
FREITAS J. E. B. ◽  
◽  
BEZERRA T. T. ◽  
ALMEIDA M. O. ◽  
LIMA N. M. A. ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (31) ◽  
pp. 209
Author(s):  
Joaquim Shiraishi Neto

Para atender os interesses de um “poder global difuso”, os países ricos em biodiversidade passaram a reformar suas leis de proteção da natureza, já que ela é tida como “vantagem comparativa” em relação aos demais países. O direito cumpre um papel estratégico nesse cenário, ao construir uma unidade global dos dispositivos, “homogeneizando” estruturas, leis e procedimentos; e legitimando essa nova ordem. No Brasil, as leis de proteção da natureza têm  sido reformadas, decompondo o seu conteúdo jurídico. Este artigo objetiva analisar a lei 13.123/2015, que se encontra inserida na lógica denominada “globalização do direito americano”. A pretexto da necessidade de reformar a medida provisória 2.186/2001, aquela lei modificou a proteção, o acesso e a repartição dos benefícios. A metodologia se baseou no levantamento e análise de dados de fontes secundárias, como documentos e tratados – especificamente: a Convenção sobre a Diversidade Biológica, o Protocolo de Nagoya, e o projeto da referida lei.Palavras-chave: Conhecimento tradicional. Biodiversidade. Protocolo de Nagoya. “Globalização do direito americano”. Pilhagem da natureza.The protection of traditional knowledge in the context of globalization of lawAbstractIn order meet the interests of a “diffuse global power”, biodiversity-rich countries have reformed their nature protection rights, as it is seen as a “comparative advantage” compared to other countries. The law plays a estrategic role in this scenario, by building a global unit of devices, “homogenizing” structures, righs and procedures; and legitimizing this new order. In Brazil, nature protection right have been reformed, breaking down their legal contente. This article aims to analyze right 13.123/2015, which is inserted in the logic called “globalization of american law”. Under the pretext of the need to reform provisional measure 2.186/ 2001, that right modified the protection, acess and distrbution of benefits. The methodology was based on the collection and analysis of data from secondary sources, such as documents and treaties – specifically: the convention on biological diversty, the nagoya protocol, and project of said right.Keywords: Traditional knowledge. Biodiversity. Protocol of Nagoya. Globalization of american law. Plunder of nature.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Arlindo Júnior Corrêa ◽  
Bruno Monteiro Duarte

Neste artigo procura-se produzir uma análise sobre os mecanismos de avalições educacionais desenvolvidas em âmbito nacional. Para isso o objeto de estudo foi o Índice de Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica - Ideb. Esse trabalho parte da hipótese de uma possível desestruturação do ensino médio, tendo em vista que, como demostrado nos resultados do Ideb, esta etapa da educação básica sofre os sintomas de uma estagnação ou de um retrocesso em seus índices de avaliação externa. Diante desse cenário surgiu a polêmica medida provisória n. 746/16, que visa a reformar o ensino médio brasileiro, dando a ele um novo perfil.Palavras-chave: avaliação externa, Ideb, ensino médio. EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION: THE IDEB AND THE SYMPTOMS OF THE DISTRUCTURATION OF HIGH SCHOOLAbstractThis article aims to produce an analysis on the mechanisms of educational evaluations developed at the national level. For this, the object of study was the Basic Education Development Index - Ideb. This article started from the hypothesis of a possible distructuration of the High School, considering that, as demonstrated in Ideb's results, this stage of basic education suffers from the symptoms of a stagnation or a regression in its external evaluation indices. Given this scenario, the controversial provisional measure n. 746/16, which aims to reform the brazilian high school, giving it a new profile.Key-words: external evaluation, Ideb, high school.


Author(s):  
Tullio Treves

ITLOS has handed out in 2015 two provisional measures orders and an advisory opinion. The Provisional Measures Order of 25 April 2015, in the maritime delimitation case between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, was adopted by an ad hoc Chamber of the Tribunal. It accepts for the first time in ITLOS jurisprudence the “plausibility” test for the merits submission as a prerequisite of a provisional measures order In the Provisional Measures Order of 24 August 2015 on the Enrica Lexie incident between Italy and India, the provisional measure prescribed consists in that both parties suspend or refrain from initiating proceedings which might aggravate the dispute submitted to the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal. The Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015, upon the request of a West African fisheries commission, rejects the view that ITLOS in its full formation lacks advisory jurisdiction. It throws light on the obligations of the flag state of vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone of another state and on the role of the European Union.


Author(s):  
Andreas von Falck ◽  
Stephan Dorn

Rule 213 is based on Art 50(4) TRIPs, Art 9(5) Enforcement Dir, and Art 60(8) UPCA to which Art 62(5) UPCA refers. Rule 213 attempts to balance the interests of the applicant and of the defendant who is the addressee of decisive measures ordered in summary proceedings where the facts and the legal questions could not be scrutinized to the fullest extent. In the interest of the defendant, a provisional measure is justified only if the applicant has started proceedings on the merits of the case before the Court.


Author(s):  
Andreas von Falck ◽  
Stephan Dorn
Keyword(s):  

The provisional measures listed in Rule 211 are not the only provisional measures the Court can order. This follows from the words ‘in particular’. The Court has discretion not only on whether it orders a provisional measure but also on which measure it orders.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 457-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth ◽  
Ofra Friesel

In 2003 Israel adopted the Nationality and Entry into Israel (Provisional Measure) Law, 5763-2003. The Provisional Measure deals generally with entry into Israel; at first it dealt only with entry into Israel of residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and later it was extended also to nationals and residents of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. It is particularly relevant for cases of unification of families and immigration for the purpose of marriage.The following article offers a short summary of the law as it has been amended in 2005 and 2007, as well as its interpretation by the government (since 2008) and then examines its conformity with international law. The Provisional Measure involves a clash between the right of the individual to marry the person of his choice and establish a family on the one hand, and the right of the state to regulate freely immigration and entry into its territory on the other hand. Since international law has not established a right to family unification nor to immigration for the purpose of marriage, the right of the state prevails in this matter. Yet, the Provisional Measure deviates from international law in a different aspect, as it leads to a de facto discrimination, mostly of Israeli Arabs. This discrimination is not permitted by the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Israel is a party. It is recommended that Israel amends the law in order to bring it into conformity with international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document