The Legal Effects of Requirements of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on Biotechnology Transfer Contracts

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, university of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student of Private Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

Abstract

The adhesion to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by different countries including Iran, will lead to some obligations for them in relation to contract for access and share of benefits arising from genetic resources that will 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) .In this article based on membership of Iran in CBD, above mentioned requirements, their applying criteria as to biotechnology transfer contracts and also their legal effects on these contracts will be studied. We will conclude that due to priority of requirements of CBD, biotechnology transfer contracts have a special legal nature and different legal rules and effects compared with traditional contract law.

Keywords

References

حسنی‌افروز، محمد (1390). قرارداد انتقال تکنولوژی، تهران، دادگستر.
2. راسخ، محمد (1383). «بیوتکنولوژی و انسان: مسائل و دیدگاه‌ها»، تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 40، 9 تا 92.
3. رهبری، ابراهیم (1392). حقوق انتقال فناوری، تهران، سمت.
4. صادقی، محسن (1387). حمایت از ابداعات دارویی و الحاق به سازمان تجارت جهانی، تهران: بنیاد حقوقی میزان.
5. مؤمنی‌راد، احمد و علی شهاب‌‌الدین و ناصر عزیزی (1392). حمایت از تنوع زیستی و دانش سنتی در نظام جهانی مالکیت فکری، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 49، 233 ـ 262.
6. Barry, Brian (1965). Political Argument, New York : Routledge and Kegan Paul,reprint originally published.
7. Bhatti, Shakeel, McGuire, Patrick, Young, Tomme, Carrizosa, Santiago (2009).The Legal and Scientific Implications of Bioprospecting Contracts, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 67/4, IUCN Publications Services, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.
8. Biber – Klemm, Susette, Marttinez, Sylvia (2006). Access and Benefit Sharing: Good practice for academic research on genetic resources, Switzerland: Swiss Academy of Sciences, first Edition. available at: www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/abs_swiss_abs_good_practice.pdf
9 .Biswajit, Dhar (2004). Access, Benefit Sharing and Intellectual Property Rights, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. available at: www.lead-journal.org/content /12019.pdf.
10. Brazil, Provisional Act No. 2.186-16, dated August 23,2001(Genetic Heritage & Traditional Knowledge).Available at: www.farmerarights.org
11 .Bram De Jonge (2010). What is Fair and Equitable Benefit-shairing, J Agric Environ Ethics, 24:127–146. avalable at:www.springerlink.com
12 .Feinberg, J (1970). The nature and value of rights, Journal of Value Enquiry, issue 4, 243–257. Avalable at: https://link.springer.com/article/1
13 .Hamilton, C (2007). Biodiversity, Biopiracy and Benefits: What Allegations of Biopiracy Tell Us About Intellectual Property, Developing World Bioethics, 6(3), 158–173.
14. Henninger, Thomas (2011). Disclosure Requirements in Patent Law and Related Measures. Available at: httsps://www.ictsd.org
15. Indian Central Government (2004). Biological Diversity Rules, New Delhi, available at: genecampaign.org/wp-content.
16. Lawson Charles (2010). Accessing and Benefit Sharing the Influenza Viruses: The Sting in the Conflict between the CBD and TRIPS, Cambridge University Press, pp 284-312, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract.
17. Medaglia, Cabrera Jorge and Silva, López Christian (2007). Addressing the Problems of Access: Protecting Sources, While Giving Users Certainty, Switzerland: IUCN,Gland, Switzerland in collaboration with the IUCN Environmental Law Center,Bonn,Germany.
18. Norwey Natur diversity Act (2004). available at: www.wipo.int
19. OAU Model Law Algeria (2000). African model legislation for the protection of the rights of local communities, farmers and Breeders and for the regulation of access to biological recourses, 2000, available at: www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/oau/oau001en.pdf.
20. Rimmer, Matthew (2009). The Sorcerer II Expedition: Intellectual Property and Biodiscovery, MqJICEL V 6, 147-188. available at : papers.ssrn.com.
21. Schroeder, D. (2007). Benefit sharing: It’s time for a definition, Journal of Medical Ethic, 33(4), 205-209. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc /articles/pmc2652775/
22. Storz ,Ulrich, Quodbach, Martin, Marty, Scott D, Constantine, Derek E & Matthew, Parker (2014). Biopatent Law: Euorupean vs. US Patent Law, London: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
23. Tvedt, Morten Walløe and Young, Tomme Rosanne (2007). Beyond Access: Exploring Implementation of the Fair and EquitableSharing Commitment in the CBD, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
24. World Trade Organization (2006). WTO document WT/GC/W/566, TN/C/W/42 and IP/C/W/473, The Relationship Between The TRIPS Agreement and The Convention on Biological Diversity, available at: https://www.wto.org.
Private Law
Volume 15, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2018
Pages 67-86

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics