تحلیلی بر مفهوم حقوقی «منابع ژنتیک» در پرتو اسناد بین المللی و حقوق ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه حقوق خصوصی، واحد سمنان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی سمنان، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، واحد سمنان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی سمنان، ایران.

10.22099/jls.2023.45005.4832

چکیده

مفهوم حقوقی «منابع ژنتیک» علیرغم اینکه محور حوزه­های مختلف ژنتیک ازجمله «بهره­برداری از منابع ژنتیک»، «منافع حاصل از منابع ژنتیک و مشتقات آن‌ها»، «نظام­های حقوقی دسترسی و تسهیم منافع منابع ژنتیک» و «تعهدات طرفین» قرار گرفته، همچنان مبهم و محل نزاع است. معیار واحدهای عملکردی وراثت در تعریف منابع ژنتیک با تصویب ناگویا در 2010 و لازم­الاجرا شدن آن در 2014، کم‌رنگ و عملاً ناگویا قلمرو موضوعی منابع ژنتیک را گسترش داد؛ اما مقنن در نظام داخلی با گرته‌برداری ناقص از تعاریف مندرج در اسناد بین­المللی (و به نظر، کنوانسیون تنوع زیستی) و وفاداری به همان معیار قدیمی سال 1992، نه‌تنها بر ابهام‌های موجود افزود، بلکه باب تعارض در تعریف و معیارهای شناخت منابع ژنتیک با مصادیق آن را باز کرد و از حجم عظیمی از منابع ژنتیک غفلت کرد. مقاله با روش توصیفی، تحلیلی- مقایسه­ای و با تحلیل حقوقی مفهوم منابع ژنتیک در اسناد بین­المللی و حقوق داخلی سعی در کاستن این ابهامات و رفع تعارض معیارهای تعریف منابع ژنتیک با مصادیق آن دارد. یافته­ها نشان می­دهد باید از خطای مقنن در تعریف ناقص منابع ژنتیک درگذشت و به سایر موادی که در حقوق داخلی روزنه­های ضعیفی از گسترش قلمرو موضوعی منابع ژنتیک را در خود دارد، متوسل شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

An Analysis of the Legal Concept of "Genetic Resources" in the Light of International Documents and Iran's Legal System

نویسندگان [English]

  • hassan eskandarian 1
  • maryam aqaibejestani 2
  • mohammad rohanimoghadam 2
1 PhD student, Department of Private Law, Semnan Branch, Semnan Islamic Azad University, Iran
2 Associate Professor Department of Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, Semnan Branch ,Islamic Azad University , Semnan ,Iran
چکیده [English]

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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Nagoya Protocol
  • benefit sharing
  • Convention on Biological Diversity
  • genetic resources
  • genetic material

مراجع

 
 Ansari, M. (2015). Translation and description of al-Makasab, translated by Mohiuddin Fazel Harandi, Qom, Bostan Ketab Institute, [In Persian].
Ardebili, A. (1403 AH). Majma al-Faidah wa Al-Barhan fi Sharh Irshad al-Azhan, Qom, Islamic Publications Office affiliated with the Qom Theological Seminary Society, [In Arabic].
Bagley, M. A. (2016). Digital DNA: "The Nagoya Protocol, intellectual property treaties, and synthetic biology. Intellectual Property Treaties, and Synthetic Biology", Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper, (11), 1-37, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2725986.
Bond, M. R., & Scott, D. (2020). Digital biopiracy and the (dis) assembling of the Nagoya Protocol. Geoforum,(117), 24–32, DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.09.001.
Brooks, S. M., & Alper, H. S. (2021). Applications, challenges, and needs for employing synthetic biology beyond the lab. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–16, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21740-0.
Cabrera Medaglia, J. (2015). Access and Benefit Sharing: North–South Challenges in Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol, in International Environmental Law and the Global South, Shawkat A., et al, 192-213, DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781107295414.010.
Cambridge Dictionary. (2022). Functional. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, X. (2019). Analysis on the Protection of Genetic Resources from the Perspective of Intellectual Property. Advances in Applied Sociology, 09(06), 163–178. DOI: 10.4236/aasoci.2019.96014.
Chiarolla, C. (2013). The role of private international law under the Nagoya Protocol, In The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing in Perspective, Elisa, M., Matthias Buck , and Elsa Tsioumani,  423–449, Brill Nijhoff Netherlands , DOI: 10.1163/9789004217201_016
Davis, K., Holanda, P., Lyal, C., Silva, M., & Fontes, E. (2016). Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: Dialogue between Brazil and the European Union, Source: ResearchGate, 1-53, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36253.31201
De Jonge, B. (2011). What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(2), 127–146. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-010-9249-3
Deplazes-Zemp, A. (2018). Genetic resources, an analysis of a multifaceted concept. Biological Conservation, 222, 86–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.031
Dutfield, G., & Suthersanen, U. (2019). Traditional knowledge and genetic resources: Observing legal protection through the lens of historical geography and human rights. 399-447. Research Paper No. 286/2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3282818
Gepts, P. (2004). Who owns biodiversity, and how should the owners be compensated? Plant Physiology, 134(4), 1295–1307. DOI: 10.1104/pp.103.038885
Harlan, J. R. (1975). Our Vanishing Genetic Resources: Modern varieties replace ancient populations that have provided genetic variability for plant breeding programs. Science, 188(4188), 618–621. DOI: 10.1126/science.188.4188.618
Heinrich, M., & Hesketh, A. (2019). 25 years after the `Rio Convention’––Lessons learned in the context of sustainable development and protecting indigenous and local knowledge. Phytomedicine, 53, 332–343. DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2018.04.061
Kamau, E. C., & Winter, G. (Eds.). (2009). Genetic resources, traditional knowledge and the law: Solutions for access and benefit sharing. London, Routledge
Kharb, D. (2022). Sharing genetic resources fairly between nations. Medico-Legal Journal, 90(2), 104–105. DOI: 10.1177/00258172211031697
Kingston, D. G. (2011). Modern natural products drug discovery and its relevance to biodiversity conservation. Journal of Natural Products, 74(3), 496–511. DOI: 10.1021/np100550t
Lawson, C. (2009). The role of patents in biodiversity conservation. Nature Biotechnology, 27(11), 994–995, DOI: 10.1038/nbt1109-994
McManis, C. R. (1998). The interface between international intellectual property and environmental protection: Biodiversity and biotechnology, 76, 255-279, )View date2023/09/07) Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol76/iss1/18
Muller, M. R. (2015). Genetic resources as natural information: Implications for the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol, London, Routledge.
Najafi, M. (1404 AH). Javaher al-Kalam fi Sharh Shariah al-Islam, 7th edition, Beirut, Dar Ihya Tarath al-Arabi, [In Arabic].
Naraghi, A. (1417 AH), Awaed Al-Ayyam fi Bayan Qa'aa al-Ahkam, Qom, Publications of the Islamic Propaganda Office of Qom Seminary, [In Arabic].
Oberthür, S. , G. Rosendal. (2014). Global governance of genetic resources. London, Routledge.
Richter, H., & Klünker, I. (2022). Digital Sequence Information between Benefit-Sharing and Open Data–How to Advance the Legal Framework. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, Journal of Law and the Biosciences,9(2), 1-29, 
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4135144
Sarnoff, J. D., & Correa, C. M. (2006). Analysis of Options for Implementing Disclosure of Origin Requirements in Intellectual Property Applications-A Contribution to UNCTAD’s Response to the Invitation of the Seventh Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Seventh Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2004/14 (2006). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2278629
Schei, P. J., & Tvedt, M. W. (2010). Genetic Resources’ in the CBD: The Wording, the Past, the Present and the Future. Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway. (report)
Smyth, S. J., Macall, D. M., Phillips, P. W., & de Beer, J. (2020). Implications of biological information digitization: Access and benefit sharing of plant genetic resources. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(3–4), 267–287. DOI: 10.1111/jwip.12151
Stone, C. D. (1994). What to do about biodiversity: Property rights: public goods, and the Earth’s biological riches. Southern California Law Review, 68(3), 577 - 620.
Tabatabaei Yazdi, Seyyed Mohammad Kazem (1421 AH), Hashiatol al-Makasab, second edition, first volume, Qom: Ismailian Institute, [In Arabic].
Tang, T.-C., An, B., Huang, Y., Vasikaran, S., Wang, Y., Jiang, X., Lu, T. K., & Zhong, C. (2021). Materials design by synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Materials, 6(4), 332–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-020-00265-w
Tvedt, M. W., & Schei, P. J. (2013). The term ‘genetic resources’Flexible and dynamic while providing legal certainty?, In Global Governance of Genetic Resources, Sebastian Oberthür, G. Rosendal (38–52), London, Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203078020-11
Tvedt, M. W., & Young, T. R. (2007). Beyond access: Exploring implementation of the fair and equitable sharing commitment in the CBD, bonn, IUCN.
Vogel, J. H. (1994). Genes for sale: Privatization as a conservation policy. Oxford University Press.
Voigt, C. A. (2020). Synthetic biology 2020–2030: Six commercially-available products that are changing our world. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–6. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20122-2
WIPO. (2004). TECHNICAL STUDY ON DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN PATENT SYSTEMS RELATED TO GENETIC RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, wipo.
Ziyai, S. and Javadi, S. (2018). Protection of Intellectual Property in International Law of Foreign Investment, Shiraz Legal Studies, 11(2), 155-127. doi: 10.22099/jls.2019.5328
Access to the biodiversity, LAW No 13,123 (2015).
THE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT, 18 OF 2003 (2002).
Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization. (2002). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, DOI: 10.1163/2211-4394_rwilwo_sim_033034
CBD. (2009). THE ROLE OF COMMONS/OPEN SOURCE LICENCES IN THE INTERNATIONAL REGIME ON ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES AND BENEFIT-SHARING. (report)
National Environmental Management Laws, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA 530 (2013).
UNEP. (2002). DECISIONS ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AT ITS SIXTH MEETING. CBD; )View date2023/09/07) in https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-06.
UNEP. (2008). DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AT ITS NINTH MEETING. CBD; )View date2023/09/07) in https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-12-en.pdf.
UNEP. (2010). REPORT OF THE THIRD PART OF THE NINTH MEETING OF THE AD HOC OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING. CBD; )View date 2023/09/07) in https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/10/1/5.
Unit, B. (n.d.). COP Decision. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved September 19, 2022, )View date2023/09/07)  in https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7084
 
 

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار