Biopiracy in Human Rights and Patent Law

Biopiracy in Human Rights and Patent Law

Comparison of North and South Laws

The last decade has experienced a rising international impetus to set up legal administrations to control admittance to genetic resources (Mahop, 2010). From 1996 till 1999, the countries that had brought in policy and legislation on access or had discovered alternatives to do so augmented from only a few to more than forty (Mahop, 2010). This kind of momentum was impulsive by the access into strength of the CBD i.e. Convention of Biological Diversity which is a global legal structure that has wanted to support the formation of equally beneficial relations and dealings between users and providers of genetic resources derived from an idea of bilateral concord. CBD is best identified within the context of the innate and deep-rooted differences among nations concerned in the famous North-South debate that has subjugated the growth of modern global environmental law. Without a doubt, the concord by Contracting Parties to ease admittance to genetic resources in response for an equitable and fair share of the advantages founded on their use portrays a settled declaration between the rich in technology North and rich in biodiversity South and, therefore has been named the “grand bargain” of the Convention of Biological Diversity (Mahop, 2010).

Humanity has at all times counted on technical knowledge drawn from intellectual performance. The inducement for expansion may be seen as an intrinsic trait of human nature. Where financial and economic interests get in the way, this spirit for improvement and advancement is significantly conditioned (Francioni, 2001). Where humanity is founded on financial structures, economic success finds out the major interest for the advancement of new technologies; the development costs, more often than not inherent to ingenious accomplishment, make this unavoidable. Where this is not applicable for the originator, it indisputably is for his supporters.

It is entailed by this set-up that present knowledge is a valuable skill. Where there is not any kind of protection available for pioneering technologies, it is put through misuse by any third party or group. There is no inducement to put efforts and invest funds for latest technologies where there is the chance to take advantage of results available somewhere else. High development costs are finally considered pointless and needless where low-priced and economical reproduction brings about the similar results (Francioni, 2001). This shows a considerable restriction for research and development in the economy of a market. For this reason IP i.e. Intellectual Property has been formed as a way of protection and remuneration for ingenuity.

In contrast, there are interests of public use that ought to be measured while expanding IP legislation. Innovation is fundamentally a public advantage. It is a major duty for authorities setting up protection means for IP, to uncover a sustainable equilibrium between these aspects.

Legal Framework in Northern and Southern Countries

The present legal structure for bioprospecting is based on the political division between North and South on the subject of access to the genetic resources as well as ...