International law of the sea/seed: Public domain versus private commodity

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 841-866

  Thompson, Carol B ^a  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; DEEP SEA; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW; LAW OF THE SEA; RESOURCE USE; SEED;

EID: 13644262422     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (130)

1. Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multinational Trade Negotiations, April 15,1994, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1995), 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1995) [hereinafter WTO].
2. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 818 (enacted Dec. 29,1993) [hereinafter CBD].
3. Although there are other international agencies addressing policy toward control over germplasm, this article focuses on the two because they define the debates. The U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources is trying to elaborate the principles of the CBD, with some variance. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is promoting the TRIPs regime and UPOV 1991 on plant breeders' rights is integral to enforcing TRIPs.
4. Pat Mooney, Dag Hammerskjold Found., The Law of the Seed -Another Development and Plant Genetic Resources, 1-2 Development Dialogue 54 (1983).
5. James B. Morrell, The Law of the Sea: A Historical Analysis of the 1982 Treaty and Its Rejection by the United States 174 (1992).
6. I b i d.
7. I b i d.
8. S. Sreenivasa Rao, The Public Order of Ocean Resources: A Critique of the Contemporary Law of the Sea 389, 410 (1975).
9. Levan B. Imnadze, Common Heritage of Mankind: A Concept of Cooperation in Our Interdependent World, in The Law of the Sea in the 1990s: A framework for Further Cooperation 312, 314 (Tadao Kuribayashi & Edward Miles eds., 1992).
10. Steven Forde, Natural Law, Theology and Morality in Locke, 45 Amer. J. Pol. Sci. 396, 401-02 (2001).
11. Morrell, supra note 5, at 182.
12. R.P. Arand, Changing Concepts of Freedom of the Seas: A Historical Perspective, in Freedom for the Seas in the 21st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony 72, 77 (Jon Van Dyke et al. eds., 1993).
13. Morrell, supra note 5, at 176.
14. Id. at 177.
15. Shigeru Oda, Some Reflections on Recent Developments in the Law of the Sea, 27 Yale J. Int'l L. 217,217 (2002).
16. I b i d.
17. I b i d.
18. The resolution passed by 108 to 0 with 14 abstentions. G.A. Res. 2749, U.N. GAOR, 25th Sess., ¶¶ 1,7,9, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2749(XXV) (1970), available at http://www.dal.ca/~wwwlaw/kindred.intllaw/ Res2749.htm (last visited May 16,2004).
19. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, U.N. Conf. on Straddling Fish Stocks & Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 6th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/CONF.164/37 (1995, enacted Dec. 11, 2001), available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ convention_agreements/texts/fish_stocks_agreement/CONF164_37.htm (last visited May 16, 2004).
20. Oda, supra note 13, at 220.
21. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, U.N. GAOR, Annex II, Agenda Item 21, ¶ 17.72, U.N. Doc. A/Conf.151/26, (1992), available at http://www.un.org/ documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-2.htm (last visited May 16,2004).
22. Jean Pierre Lévy, The International Sea-Bed Area, in A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea 587, 598, 602 (René-Jean Dupuy & Daniel Vignes eds., 1991). See also Lawrence Juda, International Law and Ocean Use Management: The Evolution of Ocean Governance 188-89 (1996); Malcolm Shaw, International Law 339 (1986).
23. See also Lawrence Juda, International Law and Ocean Use Management: The Evolution of Ocean Governance 188-89 (1996); Malcolm Shaw, International Law 339 (1986).
24. Malcolm Shaw, International Law 339 (1986).
25. See Juda, supra note 20, at 188.
26. John L. Mero, A Legal Regime for Deep Sea Mining, 7 San Diego L. Rev. 488, 497 (1970).
27. See also John L. Mero, The Mineral Resources of the Sea (1965).
28. The ocean waters' average depth is four times the average elevation of land, making the sea the largest ecosystem on earth.
29. United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Final Act, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, 21 I.L.M. 1245 (1982) (also reproduced as U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/121) [hereinafter UNCLOS].
30. Elizabeth Mann Borgese, The Process of Creating an International Ocean Regime to Protect the Ocean's Resources, in Freedom for the Seas in the 21st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony 23, 28 (Jon Van Dyke et al. eds., 1993).
31. Because discussions to formulate UNCLOS extended from 1958 to 1994 and the United States still offers new interpretations, this section cannot address all of the diplomatic efforts by many experts. For more thorough discussions of the changing discourse, see Ross D. Eckert, The Enclosure of the Ocean Resources: Economics and the Law of the Sea (1979);
32. Freedom for the Seas in the 21st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony (Jon Van Dyke et al. eds., 1993);
33. Clyde Sanger, Ordering the Oceans: The Making of the Law of the Sea (1986);
34. J.M. Spectar, Elephants, Donkeys, or Other Creatures? Presidential Election Cycles and International Law of the Global Commons, 15 Am. U. Int'l. L. Rev., 975 (2000).
35. Markus G. Schmidt, Common Heritage or Common Burden? 37 (1989) (quoting U.S. Department of State Statement on Claim of Exclusive Mining Rights by Deepsea Ventures, Inc., 14 ILM. 66 (1975)).
36. I b i d.
37. See Hasjim Djalal, Law of the Sea Conference: Other Alternatives for Seabed Mining?, 3 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 39,42-43 (1981).
38. Id. at 43-44.
39. Erin Clancy, The Tragedy of the Global Commons, 5 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 601, 612 (1998); Ctr. for Defense Info., The Law of the Sea, 29 Defense Monitor 4 (Feb. 2000), available at http:/ /www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue2/law-of-sea.html (last visited May 16, 2004).
40. Bureau of Oceans & Int'l Envil. & Sci. Aft., U.S. Dep't of State, Fact Sheet: U.S. Oceans Policy and the Law of the Sea Convention (May 28, 1998), at http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/oceans/ fs_oceans_los.html (last visited May 16, 2004) [hereinafter Fact Sheet: U.S. Oceans Policy].
41. Ctr. for Defense Info., supra note 31
42. I b i d.
43. Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World 385 (1986).
44. Christopher C. Joyner, Biodiversity in the Marine Environment: Resource Implications for the Law of the Sea, 28 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 635, 648-49 (1995).
45. The United States initiated the discussions for the CBD in 1987 by proposing to the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) Governing Council that a group begin work on a global convention on biological diversity in order to rationalize relations among various secretariats representing multiple international conservation agreements. By 1989, the United States was strongly disputing the suggestion to include biotechnology; developing countries replied that, if biotechnology were excluded, they would oppose any new convention. Pamela S. Chasek, Earth Negotiations: Analysing Thirty Years of Envitonmental Diplomacy 117-18 (2001);
46. see generally Fiona McConnell, The Biodiversity Convention: A Negotiating History (1996).
47. CBD, supra note 2, pmbl. and art. 8(j).
48. Thirteen major U.S. corporations formed the Intellectual Property Committee to lobby for a comprehensive intellectual property rights (IPRs) agreement within the WTO. The industry hails the TRIPs agreement as a great success in seed development, with the corporations obtaining the protection they wanted. A representative from Monsanto stated, " What I have described to you is absolutely unprecedented in GATT. Industry has identified a major problem [IPRs] in international trade. It crafted a solution, reduced it to a concrete proposal [TRIPs] and sold it to our own and other governments." Susan K. Sell, The Origins of a Trade-Based Approach to Intellectual Property Protection, 17 Sci. Comm. 163, 181(1995).
49. The 13 corporations were the following: Monsanto, DuPont, (chemical); Bristol-Myers, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer (pharmaceuticals); IBM, Hewlett-Packard, GM (computers); GE, Rockwell, FMC Corp (aerospace); Warner Communications (entertainment). Robin Pistorius & Jeroen Van Wijk, The Exploitation of Plant Genetic Information - Political Strategies in Crop Development 155 (1999).
50. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
51. Marjorie Cohn, The WTO: A New World Government Dedicated to the Principle that Property Interests Are More Sacred Than Human Rights, 57 Guild Prac. 134, 139 (2000).
52. Christopher May, A Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures? (2000).
53. Diamond, 447 U.S. 303.
54. UNCLOS, supra note 24.
55. I b i d.
56. The United States gained domain over 4.82 millions of nautical square miles; France, 2.86; Australia 2.41; Indonesia, 1.57; New Zealand, 1.41; United Kingdom, 1.34; Canada, 1.29; Japan, 1.13. The United States further demanded, and won, rights for economic purposes over the full extent of the continental shelf, if it extended beyond the 200 nautical miles. Sanger, supra note 26, at 66.
57. Id. at 67.
58. Brian Groombridge & Martin D. Jenkins, Global Biodiversity: Earth's Living Resources in the 21st Century 176 (2000); William T. Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries: Unclos 1982 and Beyond (1994).
59. William T. Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries: Unclos 1982 and Beyond (1994).
60. Debates have begun to clarify the concepts of open pool resources, common pool resources, and common heritage. Open pool refers to resources that are unregulated and are located where efforts to exclude multiple users would be very costly. This approach to resource use assumes similar assets and skills, similar ability to access/use, and similar discount rates and cultural values. The commons or common pool resources, in contrast, are held in trust by a community of users and benefits are shared. Customs/traditions regulate use and, therefore, outsiders may be excluded. The common heritage of mankind is a principle affirming that the resource remain available to all humans, not to be privately owned, such as outer space and celestial bodies and deep seabeds. Elinor Ostrom, Reforming the Commons, in Protecting The Commons: A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas 17 (Joanna Burger et al. eds., 2001).
61. WTO, supra note 1, annex 1C, art. 27.3b.
62. Two other methods of resting plant fecundity are also being pursued by the biotech industry. The "terminator seed," a plant genetically modified (GM) to produce no offspring, was recalled after public outrage at creating sterile plants so the seed would have to be purchased each year. However, research is continuing on the technology and the next generations may appear on the market. Second, farmers in the United States and Canada have filed law suits accusing the seed companies of purposefully containing their fields with pollen from GM plants; these strains are often more virile than commercial hybrids and qyickly can take over a field. International trade already recognizes that "genetically modified free" shipments of grain are two percent (not zero percent) GM grain, an acknowledgement of the genetic pollution of world grain reserves. Of course, GM seed must be purchased every year.
63. Fikret Berkes, Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management 31-32 (1999);
64. Food & Agric. Org., International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 15-16 (June 17-23, 1996 );
65. Global Biodiversity Assessment (V.H. Heywood ed., 1995);
66. Hope Shand, Intellectual Property, in Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture 321 (Andrew Kimbrell ed., 2002);
67. Timothy Swanson, The Economics of Environmental Degradation: Tragedy for the Commons? (1996).
68. Among the top 150 prescribed drugs in the United States, 56 percent contain compounds attributable to plants and animals, a contribution that may be translated into an economic value of at least $80 billion per year. The UNEP study goes on to estimate, "In addition to direct use benefits, there are enormous other less tangible benefits to be derived from natural ecosystems.... A recent global review... produced a first-order approximation of some $33 trillion per year as the total value attributable to natural ecosystems, this being twice the global economy as expressed by the sum of gross national products ($18 trillion per year). Groombridge & Jenkins, supra note 47, at 69.
69. Andrew Mushita & Carol Thompson, Patenting Biodiversity? Rejecting WTO/TRIPs in Southern Africa, 2 Global Envt'l Pol. 65, 71-75 (2001).
70. Klaus Bosselmann, Plants and Politics: The International Legal Regime Concerning Biotechnology and Biodiversity, 7 Colo. J. Int'l. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 111, 128 (1996).
71. UNCLOS, supra note 24.
72. Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World 387 (1986). See also Ctr. for Defense Info., supra note 31.
73. See also Ctr. for Defense Info., supra note 31.
74. Fact Sheet: U.S. Oceans Policy, supra note 32, at 5.
75. José Luis Vallarta, Law of the Sea: Secrets of the Deep, 36 (No. 4) UN Chronicle, 1999, at 6, 7.
76. Oda, supra note 13, at 220.
77. UNCLOS, supra note 24, arts. 143,145.
78. CBD, supra note 2, art. 1, 31 I.L.M., at 823.
79. Chasek, supra note 37, at 119-20
80. See generally Vicente Sanchez & Calestous Juma, Biodiplomacy: Genetic Resources and International Relations (1994).
81. CBD, supra note 2, art. 1, 31 I.L.M., at 823.
82. Id. arts. 15,16,31 I.L.M.,at 828-29.
83. I b i d.
84. L.T. Chitsike, Food & Agric. Org., Policy and Legislative Guidelines on Benefit Sharing, Paper Presented at Workshop on Developing Sui Generis National Policies That Emphasize Community, Farmers' and Breeders' Rights, Zimbabwe (Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2000);
85. Kerry Ten Kate & Sarah A. Laird, The Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access To Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing 64, 109, 177, 251 (1999).
86. Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur (Feb. 9-20, 2004), available at www.biodiv.org/meetings/cop7/default.asp (last visited May 22, 2004).
87. Ten Kate & Laird, supra note 66, at 11.
88. Id. at 295.
89. Id. at 303, 312.
90. See generally Walter V. Reid et al., Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development (1993);
91. Peter Drahos, Indigenous Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Biopiracy: Is a Global Bio-collecting Society the Answer?, 22 Eur. Intell. Prof. Rev. 245 (2000).
92. This brief comparison cannot elaborate all the legal complexities in the ISBA or WTO. Please refer to the following for more thorough analyses of one or the other: Barry Hart Dubner, Recent Developments in the International Law of the Sea, 33 Int'l Law. 627 (1999);
93. Lakshman Guruswamy, The Promise of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Justice in Trade and Environmental Disputes, 25 Ecology L.Q. 189 (1998);
94. Jonathan L. Hafetz, Fostering Protection of the Marine Environment and Economic Development: Article 121(3) of the Third Law of the Sea Convention, 15 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 583 (2000);
95. Gary N. Horlick, Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Will the United States Play by the Rules?, 29 J. World Trade 163 (1995);
96. John Warren Kindt, Dispute Settlement in International Environmental Issues: The Model Provided by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, 22 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1097 (1989);
97. Norio Komuro, The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Coverage and Procedures ofthe WTO Understanding, 29 J. World Trade 5 (1995).
98. UNCLOS, supra note 24, art. 161, 21 I.L.M., at 1300-01.
99. Shaw, supra note 20, at 389
100. I b i d.
101. I b i d.
102. Vallarta, supra note 58, at 7.
103. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, A Response to Dr. Artemy A. Saguirian, in Freedom for the Seas in the 21st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony 388, 390 (Jon Van Dyke et al. eds., 1993).
104. Houston Putnam Lowry, Recent Developments in the International Law of the Sea, 35 Int'l Law. 787, 791 (2001).
105. Frederick S. Ringo, The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement in the GATT and Legal Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa, 28 J. World Trade 121, 135 (Dec. 1994).
106. Bhagirath Lal Das, The World Trade Organisation: A Guide to the Framework for International Trade 388-89 (1999).
107. WTO, supra note 1, art. X111. See also DAS, supra note 81, at 410-19;
108. Carrie P. Smith, Patenting Life: The Potential and the Pitfalls of Using the WTO to Globalize Intellectual Property Rights, 26 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com, Reg. 143, 167-69 (2000);
109. Lori Wallach & Michelle Sforza, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, Whose Trade Organization?: Corporate Globalization and the Erosion of Democracy 194-213 (1999);
110. Horlick, supra note 72;
111. Komuro, supra note 72, at 45.
112. WTO, supra note 1, art. XV.
113. Id. art. XVIL.
114. Id. art. XXIL.
115. Id. arts. XX, XXL.
116. Id. art. XVIIL.
117. Id. art. VIII.
118. I b i d.
119. I b i d.
120. Guruswamy, supra note 72, at 222-33.
121. Id. at 223.
122. Org. of Afr. Unity, African Model Legislation for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources (2000). Mushita & Thompson, supra note 53.
123. Farmers' Rights were formulated in 1989 by the FAO. The rights were not defined in a legal sense, because the term was considered political. They are rights arising from the past, present and future contribution of farmers in conserving, improving and making available plant genetic resources, particularly those in the centres of origin/diversity. These rights are vested in the international community, as trustee for present and future generations of farmers, for the purpose of ensuring full benefits to farmers, and supporting the continuation of their contributions.
124. Bella Mpofu, Food & Agric. Org., Farmers' and Breeders' Rights, 9, paper presented at workshop on Developing Sui Generis National Policies, Zimbabwe (Oct. 29-Nov.1 2000).
125. See also A. Patricia Kameri-Mbote & Philippe Cullet, Agro-Biodiversity and International Law - A Conceptual Framework, 11 J. ENVTL. L. 257 (1999).
126. Mpofu, supra note 94.
127. I b i d.
128. I b i d.
129. Interview with Joseph Matowanyika, Director, FAO-LinKS (Local Indigenous Knowledge Systems) in Harare, Zimbabwe (Aug. 23, 2000). Interview with Barry McCarter, General Manager, Seed Co. in Harare, Zimbabwe (May 24, 2001).
130. Treaty Initiative to Share the Genetic Commons (Consortium of Civil Soc'y Orgs.), Draft Treaty to Share the Genetic Commons (2002), available at http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=7 (last visited May 16, 2004).