جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « convention on biological diversity » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

The legal concept of "genetic resources" is a subject of central importance, casting its influence over various domains of genetics, including the utilization of genetic resources, the benefits derived from them, legal frameworks governing access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, and the obligations of involved parties. However, despite its critical role, the definition and interpretation of genetic resources remain enigmatic. The understanding of governments and legislatures concerning genetic resources holds profound implications for the development of legal articles and systems regulating access and benefit sharing. Any interpretation of this concept resonates within the legal framework, leaving discernible impacts on the mentioned domains. The nature of interpretation regarding genetic resources holds the power to either expand or restrict the scope of legal systems governing access and benefit sharing. A narrow interpretation of genetic resources limits the reach and subject matter of the legal framework, whereas a broader interpretation  leads to its expansion and the inclusion of obligations within the access system. In a narrow interpretation, access to many genetic resources carries no legal obligation to share the benefits arising from them and their derivatives. Conversely, a broad interpretation subjects access to any genetic resource, its derivatives, and products to a legal obligation for benefit sharing. Within a narrow interpretation, products and derivatives derived from genetic sources fall outside the scope of legal obligations for benefit sharing. In contrast, a broad interpretation challenges the legal status of these derivatives and products, even when removed from their original source. The legal framework for sharing profits from future products and derivatives originating from genetic resources poses questions about the legal forms of profit sharing. Can future sales, fluctuating pricing, or contractual conditions provide legal solutions for sharing future benefits? Furthermore, the article explores how many stages of products and derivatives remain subject to legal obligations for profit sharing and how to calculate the extent of these obligations among subsequent parties who produce new products. One of the complexities of this issue is the sheer variety of products and derivatives obtainable from genetic resources. It becomes challenging for the owner of the genetic resource to track the emergence of new products from the primary source. A mere commitment in the initial contract to notify the owner, even in cases involving subsequent parties, may be insufficient. The owner lacks a criterion to establish that the new product originates from their genetic source. This complexity arises from two different criteria used for identifying genetic resources. Despite these theoretical challenges, research findings reveal that the Nagoya Protocol, established in 2010 and implemented in 2014, has practically expanded the scope of genetic resources by diminishing the relevance of the functional criterion of heredity. In contrast, domestic law appears to lag behind these legal developments. While the legislator was not oblivious to the evolving concept of genetic resources, the definition of genetic resources remains anchored in the old criteria of the functional unit of heredity. In doing so, the national law neglects a significant portion of genetic resources, including those beyond plants, animals, and microorganisms, such as artificial biology. This oversight may result in a substantial gap within Iran's legal system concerning the sharing of benefits from their use, both on the national and international fronts. Further examination of Iran's domestic law reveals that certain articles within the Law on the Protection of Genetic Resources extend beyond the legislative criteria for genetic resources. The article aims to leverage these openings in domestic law to broaden the scope of genetic resources. It is important to note that although the Nagoya Protocol included cell metabolic derivatives and products as examples of genetic resources in 2010, Iran has yet to become a party to the protocol, leaving this issue unresolved and adding to the complexity of legal analysis. This article employs a descriptive, analytical-comparative method and legal analysis to clarify the concept of genetic resources in international documents and domestic laws, resolving conflicts between criteria for defining genetic resources and their examples. The research findings suggest that the legislator's incomplete definition of genetic resources should not overshadow the potential for using other articles within domestic law to expand the scope of genetic resources. Additionally, the article questions why products from non-human genetic sources are not included in commercialization or the obligations system, even though the legislator did not explicitly address this matter.

Creation of Marine Protected Areas on the High Seas is one of the United Nations goals in new executive agreement that its dimensions are subject of this study. Main question is that the UN's ahead Challenges in the creation and management of Marine Protected Areas on the High Seas? Findings of this study indicate that the achievement of this goal requires the prediction of effective enforcement mechanisms and the obligation of all governments and the International Maritime Organization, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and the International Seabed Authority to identify, implement and adhere to constraints governing of Marine Protected Areas on the High Seas. However, the requirement and coordination between different parts of the law of the seas faces challenges that are rooted in dispersed, different, and inconsistent mechanisms. Establishing a consensus and balance between ahead capacities and covering it in High Seas requires a present missing’ serious will and consensus.

Biodiversity is the source of human life on Earth and consist of microorganisms, plants, and animal living on land, in water and air, interacting with each other. The oceans contain most of the biodiversity on the planet but our knowledge and conservation of this habitat and its species is scarce. As technology progress advances more opportunities to access resources beyond national jurisdiction, threats to biodiversity are also increasing. Concerns about the protection of biodiversity in the international community have increased due to the importance of biodiversity, overuse of oceanic ecosystem services and the over-exploitation of oceans. The vacuum existing in legal system and implementing existing frameworks in areas beyond national jurisdiction doubles the necessity of effective acts for conservation of marine environment in these areas. UN General Assembly Resolution 292/69 on June 19th 2015 is a historic step in the creation of the Third Implementing Agreement to the Convention of the law of the sea and a response to the existing vacuum in international framework.

Mechanism ofexploitation of genetic resources in the High Seas and its benefits-sharing is one of the neglected issues in the Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982). Therefore, this issue was later raised in the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) by identifying genetic resources and Nagoya Protocol (2010) by its benefits-sharing. However, the identification of genetic resources and the its benefits-sharing in these Conventions on the Law of the Sea are limited to areas in jurisdiction of coastal states. New United Nations’ model to address these rules, with the requirements of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Area and the High Seas, faces the challenge of giving priority free access and the principle of the common heritage of humanity or vice versa and enjoying privileges and adherence to its constraints in this area, which is the subject and goal of this article. This paper based on descriptive-analytic approach to respond to this question, what is the approach of the Convention on the Law of the Sea to exploitation of genetic resources in the Area and High Seas and the its benefits-sharing? The findings of this research show that the two approaches of the Convention on the Law of the Sea include free access and the principle of the common heritage of humanity, which are also contagious and generalizable to marine genetic resources. Choosing either of these approaches, gives rise to privileges and the necessity to comply with their requirements.

Herbalism as result of human being interactions with natural environment in the use of plants for treatment of diseases is a kind of intellectual property and cultural heritage that belong to the nations. With the occurrence of industrial revolution the use of herbalism had been forgotten, but after a while and revealing chemical drugs' harms, the world has returned to the use of herbalism again. This return has caused the occurrence of numerous bio-piracy and ignoring of sovereign right of nations on natural resources. So national and international legislators seek to find solutions to protect local and indigenous communities' rights regarding to herbalism and respect for sovereign right of nations to natural resources. The subject of present article is protection of herbalism in convention on biological diversity and Nagoya protocol. We will see although ratification of these international documents is a great step towards protection of local and indigenous communities' right regarding to herbalism, but has shortcomings that decrease their effectiveness.

The recognition of convention on biological diversity(CBD) by different countries including Iran, lead to some obligation for them in relation to access and benefit sharing contracts that be concluded in territory of those countries .The results of this research indicate that biotechnology transfer contracts in contrary of another fields of intellectual property, have a special legal condition and are under the requirements of CBD, specially article 16, such as prior informed consent of provider country of genetic resources (PIC), and mutually agreed terms (MAT) .
Considering Iran’s membership in CBD and the necessity to comply with its requirements, their applying criteria as to biotechnology transfer contracts and also their legal effects on these contracts will be studied in this article. We will conclude that due to provenance of requirements of CBD, biotechnology transfer contracts have a special legal nature and different legal rules and effects compared with traditional contract law.

The relationship between TRIPS Agreement and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is part of a broader relationship, that is, the correlation between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) together with the World Trade Organization (WTO).In spite of growing attention to biodiversity and its importance for human survival, there is a conflict between TRIPS Agreement and CBD. The environmental patents, such as biological and microbiological processes, micro-organisms in the framework of TRIPS, the possibility of environmental patentsand ignoring the rights of countries, which are the origin of genetic resources, are the most conflicting issues. TRIPS, without observing the objectives of the CBD, has authorized patent to inventions using genetic resources. In addition, the registration of some areas, such as biotechnology inventions, is allowed without considering the adverse effects on biodiversity. The continuity of this situation threatsthe world’s biodiversity. In addition to comparingthe controversial matters in these two documents, this article examines the current approach and presentssome solutions by focusing on TRIPS.

This paper examines the relationship between environmental law and intellectual property law in light of international documents and procedures. The key question is that what is the role of intellectual property law in conservation of global environment. In this regard we can express two general approaches: theneutral theory of intellectual property right and the systemical theory of intellectual property right. Transfer of environmentally friendly technologies، protection of traditional knowledge in preservation of environment، and protection of less polluting innovation and works are areas which challenges the neutral theory. The fundamental assumption of this paper is based on the principle that environmental aspects of intellectual property rights represents that this two area of law moving towards greater convergence in day to day. This matter is under influence of environmental concerns in contemporary legal systems. Necessity of attention to environmental considerations in the identification of intellectual property rights is the most important finding of this study.

Within the framework of the International human rights law, the right to work is the fundamental right of everyone to have permanent access to work, able to meet his/her welfare requirements. Rural communities are entitled to this right akin to urban communities. As a matter of fact, not enough attention has been paid to the members of rural communities’ right to work. The supply of transgenic crops to traditional farms within the control of biotechnological companies and their exclusive rights in this area and also the high price of transgenic crops have imposed extensive financial constraints on the poor and vulnerable farmers which may have some adverse effects on farmers’ conditions in the developing countries. Therefore, the main question is the contrast between the interests of the intellectual property rights of biotechnological companies and the farmer's right to work, security and welfare. Considering that the existing procedures could not tackle the problems at hand, the governments and companies must amend their existing practices alongside with their commitment to the fundamental principles of human rights and establish a balance between conflicting interests in national and international levels.