Journal of the Korean Geographical Society (대한지리학회지)

The Korean Geographical Society (대한지리학회)
권호 표지

Deconstructing Global Intellectual Property Rights Regimes over Biodiversity

생물다양성과 지적재산권, 그리고 국제통상에 관한 지리학적 고찰

  • Kim Sook-Jin (Department of Geography, The University of Minnesota)
  • Published : 2006.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

During the 1986-1994 Uruguay Round negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (later World Trade Organization), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was adopted by participating countries. TRIPS has not only allowed intellectual property to be introduced into international trade arenas, but also extended the scope of protection to biodiversity such as plant genetic material, arguing that intellectual property rights (IPRs) would help conserve biodiversity. In this paper, I aim to deconstruct the global IPRs regimes over biodiversity by adopting geographers' sensitivity to place and scale as an analytical window. By investigating how all the issues regarding IPRs over biodiversity that are raised by diverse disciplines, such as environmental ethics, environmental economics and political economy approach, are scale-related, I demonstrate how biodiversity IPRs, and its introduction into international trade agreements, though separate issues with no inevitable relationship to one another, have been put together for the construction of global IPRs regimes. I argue that the notion on the construction of scale (i.e., rhetorical and discursive construct of globalization) can contribute to revealing how fragile global environmental conservation regimes are.

무역과 관세에 관한 일반협정의 우루과이 라운드 교섭 하에 통과된 '무역관련 지적재산권에 관한 협정'은 지적재산권을 국제통상 분야에 도입시켰을 뿐만 아니라 지적재산권의 대상을 생물다양성에까지 확장시켰다는 중요성을 가진다. 본 연구는 지리학적 관점 (장소와 스케일의 중요성)이 생물다양성과 지적재산권에 관련된 다양한 이슈들을 분석하는데 있어 얼마나 중요성을 가지며, 환경윤리학, 환경경제학, 정치경제학과 같은 다른 학문분야의 접근방법을 통합하고 보완하는지 고찰하였다. 자연, 인문현상의 지역적 차이와 다양한 스케일을 중요시하는 지리학적 관점은 개별적 이슈들로 인식되고 다루어져 왔던 생물다양성, 지적재산권, 이의 국제 통상기구에의 도입이 어떻게 임의적으로 관련지어줬는지 밝혀내는데 공헌한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Agnew, J., 1997, The dramaturgy of horizons: Geographical scale in the 'Reconstruction of Italy' by the new Italian political parties, 1992-95, Political Geography, 16(2), 99-121 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00046-7
  2. Anderson, T. L. and J. B. Grewell, 1999, Property rights solutions for the global commons: bottom-up or top-down? Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 10, 73-101
  3. Brenner, N., 1999, Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalization studies, Theory and Society, 28(1), 39-78 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006996806674
  4. Brenner, N., 1997, State territorial restructuring and the production of spatial scale: urban and regional planning in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1960-1990, Political Geography, 16, 273-306 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00003-0
  5. Callicott, J. B., 1989, In Defense of the Land Ethic, Albany: State University of New York Press
  6. Coase, R. H., 1988, The Firm, the Market, and the Law, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
  7. Crucible Group, 1994, People, plants, and patents: the impact of intellectual property on biodiversity, conservation, trade, and rural society, International Development Centre, Ottawa, Canada
  8. Cunningham, W.P., 1994, Understanding our environment: an introduction, Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers
  9. Demeritt, D. 1998, B. Braun and N. Castree(eds.), Science, social constructivism and nature, in Remaking Reality: Nature at the End of the Millenium, 179-193, London and New York: Routledge
  10. Diwan, I. and D. Rodrik, 1989, Patents, Appropriate Technology, and North-South Trade, Washington, D.C.: World Bank PPR Working Papers 251
  11. Dutfield, G., 2000, Intellectual property rights, trade and biodiversity: seeds and plant varieties, London: Earthscan
  12. Frischtak, C. R., 1993, Harmonization versus differentiation in intellectual property right regimes, in M. B. Wallerstein (ed.), Global dimension of intellectual property rights in science and technology, National Academy Press, 89-106
  13. Frisvold, G. B. and P. T. Condon, 1998, The Convention on Biological Diversity and Agriculture: Implications and Unresolved Debates, World Development, 26(4), 551-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00008-4
  14. Gadgil, M. and G. Utkarsh, 1999, Intellectual property rights and agricultural technology: linking the micro- and the macro - scales, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(3), 327-341
  15. Goldman, M., 1998, Introduction: the political resurgence of the commons, in M. Glodman (ed.) Privatizing Nature, 1-9, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press
  16. Herod, A., 1997, Labor's spatial praxis and the geography of contract bargaining in the US east coast longshore industry, Political Geography, 16, 145-69 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00048-0
  17. Herod, A., 1998, Of blocs, flows and networks: The end of the Cold War, cyberspace, and the geo-economics of organized at the fin de milleniare', in A. Herod, G. O Tuathail and S. Roberts(eds.), An Unruly World? Globalization, Governance and Geography, 162-95, London: Routlege
  18. Janssen, J., 1999, Property rights on genetic resources: economic issues, Global Environmental Change, 9, 313-321 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(99)00025-4
  19. Kelly, P., 1999, The geographies and politics of globalization, Progress in Human Geography, 23 (3), 379-400 https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259902300303
  20. Leitner, H., 1997. Reconfiguring the spatiality of power: the construction of a supranational migration framework for the European Union. Political Geography, 15(2), 123-143
  21. Leitner, H., 2004, The politics of scale and networks of spatial connectivity: transnational interurban networks and the rescaling of political governance in Europe. in E. Sheppard and R. McMaster (eds.), Scale and geographic inquiry: nature, society, and method, Blackwell: Malden, MA, 236-55
  22. Lewontin, R., 2000, The triple helix: gene, organism, and environment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  23. Light, A., 1996, Callicott and Naess on pluralism, Inquiry, 39, 273-94 https://doi.org/10.1080/00201749608602421
  24. Lynn, W., 1999, Geoethics: Ethics, Geography and Moral Understanding, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota
  25. McAfee, K., 1999, Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism, Environmental Planning D: Society and Space, 17, 133-154 https://doi.org/10.1068/d170133
  26. McAfee, K., 2003, Neoliberalism on the molecular scale: economic and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles, Geoforum, 34, 203-19
  27. Minteer, B. A., 1998, No experience necessary? Foundationalism and the retreat from culture in environmental ethics, Environmental Values, 7, 333-48 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327198129341618
  28. Mooney, P. R., 1983, The Law of the Seed: Another Development and Plant Genetic Resources, Development Dialogue 1983, 1-172
  29. Norton, B.G., 1987, A rationale for preserving species: an apology and a taxonomy, in Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press
  30. Pistorius, R. and J. van Wijk, 1999, The Exploitation of Plant Genetic Information: Political Strategies in Crop Development, Oxon, UK and New York: CABI Publishing
  31. Proetor, J. D., 1998, Geography, paradox and environmental ethics, Progress in Human Geography, 22 (2), 234-255 https://doi.org/10.1191/030913298667632852
  32. Purdue, D., 1995, Hegemonic trips: world trade, intellectual property and biodiversity, Environmental Politics, 4 (1), 88-107 https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019508414184
  33. Raghavan, C., 1990, Recolonization, GATT, the Uruguay Round & the Third World, London and New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd
  34. Regan, T., 1982, All that dwell therein: animal rights and environmental ethics, Berkeley: University of California Press
  35. Rolston III, H., 1988, Environmental Ethics, Philadelphia: Temple University Press
  36. Shiva, V., A. H. Jafri, G. Bedi, and R. Holla-Bhar, 1997, The Enclosure and Recovery of the Commons : Biodiversity, Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights, New Delhi, India: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
  37. Singh, A., R. Singh, and K. Singh, 1999, Trade-related intellectual property rights, biotechnology, biodiversity and Indian Agriculture, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54(3), 380-386
  38. Smith, N., 1996. Spaces of vulnerability: The space of flows and the politics of scale, Critique of Anthropology, 16(1), 63-77 https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X9601600107
  39. Smith, N., 1992. Geography, difference and the politics of scale, in Doherty, E. Graham and M. Malek(eds.), Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, London: Macmillan, 57-79
  40. Soule, M., 1995, The social siege of nature, in Soule, M. and G. Lease(eds.), Reinventing Nature? Response to Postmodern Deconstructionism. Washington D.C.: Island Press
  41. Swyngedouw, E, 1997. Neither global nor local: 'Glocalization' and the politics of scale, In Cox, k.(ed.), Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the lower of the local, New York: Guilford, 137-166
  42. Swyngedouw, E, 2000, Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of rescaling, Environment and Planning D., Society and Space, 18, 63-76 https://doi.org/10.1068/d9s
  43. Zelder, M., 1997, The cost of accosting Coase: a reconciliatory survey of proofs and disproofs of the Coase theorem, in Steven G. Medema(eds.), Coasean Economics: Law and Economics and the New Institutional Economics, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 65-94