Moving the Marine Genetic Resources Debate Forward: Some Reflections

in The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

This paper offers some brief reflections on issues surrounding the ongoing debate in relation to the legal status of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It considers one possible solution to the ideological divide over the relevance of the common heritage of mankind to marine genetic resources, modelled on Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. The suitability of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture as a possible model is also considered. The fact that this later model is now being canvassed by some States marks a major step forward in international discussions on the issue. Other possible models that have been canvassed in the academic literature are also considered. The fact that these alternatives have not been canvassed at length in diplomatic discussions to date highlights the fact that a detailed examination of the wide range of possible options is urgently needed.

Moving the Marine Genetic Resources Debate Forward: Some Reflections

in The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Sections

References

7

Leary (2010)supra note 5 at pp. 365–366 (emphasis provided; footnotes omitted).

12

Antarctic Treaty (adopted on 1 December 1959entered into force 23 June 1961) 402 UNTS 71.

24

See for example Pfirtersupra note 8 at p. 28.

25

Oude Elferinksupra note 8 at p. 174. See also de La Fayette supra note 9.

26

Lawson and Downingsupra note 8 at p. 233.

27

See Scovazzisupra note 9 at p. 407.

28

See for example Lowrysupra note 11 and Tanaka supra note 8.

30

See for example Rimmersupra note 11 and Anton supra note 11.

32

See for example Lehmansupra note 10 and Salpin and Germani supra note 11.

33

See Leary (2007)supra note 5.

34

See Matzsupra note 9 at pp. 296–297 (footnote suppressed).

36

See Bonneysupra note 10 at p. 44.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 36 36 11
Full Text Views 55 55 39
PDF Downloads 10 10 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0