List price
USD $266.00
Browse results
Page:12
Volume 4 (2021)
The Yearbook of International Disaster Law aims to represent a hub for critical debate in this emerging area of research and policy and to foster the interest of academics, practitioners, stakeholders and policy-makers on legal and institutional issues relevant to all forms of natural, technological and human-made hazards. This Yearbook primarily addresses the international law dimension of relevant topics, alongside important regional and national dimensions relevant for further development of legal and policy initiatives.
In the Thematic Section of volume 4, entitled ‘Regionalisation and Localisation of International Disaster Law’, distinguished scholars explored legal/institutional approaches adopted by regional and sub-regional organizations toward disaster law issues or the interaction of international disaster law and policies with domestic legal orders and local actors.
In the Thematic Section of volume 4, entitled ‘Regionalisation and Localisation of International Disaster Law’, distinguished scholars explored legal/institutional approaches adopted by regional and sub-regional organizations toward disaster law issues or the interaction of international disaster law and policies with domestic legal orders and local actors.
Volume 4 (2021)
The Yearbook of International Disaster Law aims to represent a hub for critical debate in this emerging area of research and policy and to foster the interest of academics, practitioners, stakeholders and policy-makers on legal and institutional issues relevant to all forms of natural, technological and human-made hazards. This Yearbook primarily addresses the international law dimension of relevant topics, alongside important regional and national dimensions relevant for further development of legal and policy initiatives.
In the Thematic Section of volume 4, entitled ‘Regionalisation and Localisation of International Disaster Law’, distinguished scholars explored legal/institutional approaches adopted by regional and sub-regional organizations toward disaster law issues or the interaction of international disaster law and policies with domestic legal orders and local actors.
In the Thematic Section of volume 4, entitled ‘Regionalisation and Localisation of International Disaster Law’, distinguished scholars explored legal/institutional approaches adopted by regional and sub-regional organizations toward disaster law issues or the interaction of international disaster law and policies with domestic legal orders and local actors.
The Significance of ELSPI Perspectives
This edited collection examines the ethical, legal, social and policy implications of genome editing technologies. Moreover, it offers a broad spectrum of timely legal analysis related to bringing genome editing to the market and making it available to patients, including addressing genome editing technology regulation through procedures for regulatory approval, patent law and competition law.
In twelve chapters, this volume offers persuasive arguments for justifying transformative regulatory interventions regarding human genome editing, as well as the various legal venues for introducing necessary or desirable changes needed to create an environment for realizing the potential of genome editing technology for the benefit of patients and society.
In twelve chapters, this volume offers persuasive arguments for justifying transformative regulatory interventions regarding human genome editing, as well as the various legal venues for introducing necessary or desirable changes needed to create an environment for realizing the potential of genome editing technology for the benefit of patients and society.
The Significance of ELSPI Perspectives
This edited collection examines the ethical, legal, social and policy implications of genome editing technologies. Moreover, it offers a broad spectrum of timely legal analysis related to bringing genome editing to the market and making it available to patients, including addressing genome editing technology regulation through procedures for regulatory approval, patent law and competition law.
In twelve chapters, this volume offers persuasive arguments for justifying transformative regulatory interventions regarding human genome editing, as well as the various legal venues for introducing necessary or desirable changes needed to create an environment for realizing the potential of genome editing technology for the benefit of patients and society.
In twelve chapters, this volume offers persuasive arguments for justifying transformative regulatory interventions regarding human genome editing, as well as the various legal venues for introducing necessary or desirable changes needed to create an environment for realizing the potential of genome editing technology for the benefit of patients and society.
Abstract
The key aim of this chapter is to highlight the oft-under-represented narrative of how persons with disabilities (specifically, those with intellectual disabilities) may access the benefits that genome editing may offer. Firstly, this chapter reflects on the critical need for a paradigm shift in how we view intellectual disabilities, and centering the rights of persons with disabilities to allow them to access the broad scope of their right to health under various international law instruments (including the complementary right to habilitation under Article 26 of the CRPD). Secondly, the chapter evaluates the legal provisions in the CRPD and other international instruments relating to the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities, and their access to genome editing technologies. This analysis intends to demonstrate that human rights in disability discourse be complemented with emancipatory, participatory, and transformative research. Finally, the chapter argues for a reinvigorated line of thinking that expands on the social model of disability: to align with inclusive, contemporary disability discourse that embodies greater responsibility and innovation in perpetuating better access to genome editing technologies for persons with intellectual disabilities.
Abstract
This chapter explores the application of EU Competition Law to the exploitation of human genome editing technology. Holders of key patents in the sector have applied different methods for disseminating the technology, such as different forms of licensing agreement and patent pools. It is found that that the competition rules are ill-suited to assess some of the licensing arrangements applied, which give rise to legal uncertainty. Accordingly, holders of patents on human genome editing technology may be discouraged to apply efficient methods for disseminating the technology. This may delay or obstruct some of the benefits the technology is supposed to deliver to the market, maker actors and consumers.
Abstract
This chapter analyses the role that ‘ordre public’ and morality exceptions can play in the granting of patents on inventions in the field of human germline editing and the consequences of this policy option. In order to provide the context for such an analysis, the chapter will, first, provide an overview of the current patent landscape for relevant genome editing technologies, drawing attention to recent patent disputes and, second, examine ‘ordre public’ and morality exceptions under patent law in international, national and regional law, and the implications for innovation and access to novel treatments. The chapter argues that patent exceptions should not be used as a blunt policy instrument, nor interpreted in a way that is contrary to the patent system’s overall objectives. The ‘ordre public’ and morality based exceptions in the context of human germline editing should not be interpreted and applied in a way which results in outcomes counterproductive to the goal of balancing innovation with the protection of societal higher normative values. Instead, the application of the exception should be based on a sound understanding of both the underlying science as well as the broader ethical, social, and legal implications, thus enabling case-by-case decisions that provide the basis for patent claim amendments and nuanced purpose-bound protection. Further analysis and debate as to the role that such flexibilities can play in the context of genome editing technologies is therefore both necessary and desirable, and can be facilitated in the ways set out in this chapter.
Abstract
The field of human germline genome editing (HGGE) offers a promising reproductive potential to prevent inheritance of genetic diseases, yet also opens the door to undesirable eugenics. This stirred the debate about the acceptability of HGGE in light of human rights, particularly human dignity. The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) use human dignity as a guiding principle. Therefore, this chapter examined the clinical implementation of HGGE in light of relevant case-law regarding Article 2 and Article 8 ECHR. The analysis illustrates that the ECtHR broadens the scope of artificial reproductive rights under Article 8, however, Contracting States of the Council of Europe can limit these rights and the accessibility to reproductive techniques, such as HGGE. The ECtHR remains elusive about the legal status of unborn life, but protection under Article 2 with the introduction of HGGE should not be ruled out.
Abstract
There are ongoing concerns of social justice regarding inequalities in the distribution of access to potential genome editing technologies. Working within non-ideal theory, Colin Farrelly advances a justification for the use of patents to speed up the arrival of safe and effective interventions for all, including the socially disadvantaged. This chapter argues that such success is less assured when one considers the actual functioning of patents and the practical implications of the patent system in the context of biotechnological innovations. I suggest that non-ideal theoretical approaches risk reverting back to a form of ideal theory if they simply refer to such real-world constraints — e.g. patents — but do not critically assess and fully examine how such constraints manifest themselves in practice. I highlight some considerations that would be important in order to develop and foster a more robust non-ideal approach to justice in biotechnological developments.
Abstract
With the technical possibility of genome editing, we have reached a new phase of transforming human beings and even altering our genetic legacy. Genome editing constitutes new responsibilities in many fields. Science and society have never been as dependent on each other as they are today. We must also learn from the past episodes of eugenics and we need to investigate fraudulent practices and cases of failure in scientific research that have often occurred due to merciless scientific competition, profit-seeking commercial interests, or individual pride. Genome editing raises numerous legal questions, such as: Would it be possible to make a legal difference between specific versions of gene editing? Who decides on what is considered a disease or an anomaly, a condition, or a variation? Which diseases are worth being corrected or treated and which ones are not? What kinds of social implications will gene editing bring about when it becomes widely available? Some normative distinctions have already been made in the case of gene therapy: separating somatic from germline interventions. But this distinction has not yet been analyzed in the light of the most recent editing practices. Genome editing also realigns the structure of ethical debates. It makes us rethink the concept of discrimination and scrutinize its cases in the field of assisted reproductive procedures. It revolutionizes the concept of medical treatment. It may increase or reduce inequalities based on health conditions. It may lead to numerous new rights in the field of genetics. Good genome editing practice can only be achieved through the close cooperation between the natural and social sciences. The present paper will endeavor to examine this new form of dialogue.
Abstract
The chapter explores whether the broader regulatory framework applicable to the member states of the EU contains suitable tools to react to the rapid advances in science, especially as to the question of germline editing technologies. From the perspective of EU member states, the regulatory framework is fragmented between norms of international law, secondary EU law and national legislation. The rules and their interpretation are strongly influenced by the concept of precaution, which reflects the concern that there is not enough knowledge to assess the impact of genome editing technology on individuals, society and future populations. However, the argument of precaution loses its strength with every new scientific discovery. The expanding knowledge in the field creates the need to replace regulation, which is based on the lack of knowledge (such as precautionary moratoriums) by the regulation that is based on the actual knowledge. The chapter reaches a conclusion that the EU framework for advanced treatments and medicinal products is in a state where it can, in principle, address the questions associated with the safety and efficacy of germline editing technologies. The EU framework is, however, not suitable to assess the moral and societal impacts of new technology, which should be left for member states.
Page:12