Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction: The Road to Paris: Intellectual Property, Human Rights, and Climate Justice Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

6. Intergenerational Justice: A Framework for Addressing Intellectual Property Rights and Climate Change

verfasst von : Heather Ann Forrest, Peter Lawrence

Erschienen in: Intellectual Property and Clean Energy

Verlag: Springer Singapore

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Is there a conflict between intergenerational justice and the current global system of intellectual property (IP) rights to the extent that it acts as a hindrance to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts? Addressing the potential for conflict between the intellectual property system and intergenerational justice depends on the role played by intellectual property in technology development and diffusion. It also depends on what role property rights have within a theory of intergenerational justice. We argue for a theory of intergenerational justice based on core human rights to life, subsistence and health and a notion of equality. A right to property (which includes intellectual property) is best seen as a vehicle for securing these core rights. We argue that both intergenerational and international justice are crucial in making more explicit the normative elements embedded in public policy-related arguments made in relation to intellectual property and climate change.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Climate Change and Human Rights: Intellectual Property Challenges and Opportunities
Nächstes Kapitel Management of Intellectual Property in Australia’s Clean Technology Sector: Challenges and Opportunities in an Uncertain Regulatory Environment
Fußnoten
1
Bowersox (2002, p. 247).
 
2
See Albin (2001).
 
3
Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 22 April 2016, entered into force 4 November 2016) http://​unfccc.​int/​files/​essential_​background/​convention/​application/​pdf/​english_​paris_​agreement.​pdf (Paris Agreement).
 
4
Shue (2014, p. 315).
 
5
Shue (2015).
 
6
UNEP (2016, p. 9).
 
7
Lawrence (2014, pp. 48–50).
 
8
Lawrence (2014, p. 76) which builds on Simon Caney’s work. Note some authors extend these core rights to also include the right to a healthy environment, see e.g. Hayward (2005), and Vanderheiden (2008), who argues for a right to a stable climate system, p. 241.
 
9
For a similar harm avoidance principle see Vanderheiden (2008, p. 137), and Lawrence (2014, pp. 29–66).
 
10
Lawrence (2014, p. 86) relying on Shue (1999, p. 531).
 
11
Donnelly (2007, p. 281). Note that we do not wish to imply that a broader range of human rights can also be the basis of a more comprehensive theory of intergenerational justice. It is however, sufficient to base a strong ethical obligation towards future generations on the more limited list of human rights contained in the theory described here.
 
12
Sceats and Breslin (2012, p. 8).
 
13
Shue (1980, pp. 24, 125).
 
14
Caney (2009b, p. 167). Some argue that future unborn persons cannot possess human rights at all. Even if this were to be true, as a minimum, persons upon being born possess human rights, and we therefore have a corresponding ethical obligation to ensure that such rights are not infringed, Vanderheiden (2008, p. 129).
 
15
IPCC (2014). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014), Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2014: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers (2014) http://​ipcc-wg2.​gov/​AR5/​images/​uploads/​IPCC_​WG2AR5_​SPM_​Approved.​pdf accessed 7 May 2014.
 
16
IPCC, 5th Assessment Report, The Physical Basis, Summary for Policymakers, http://​www.​climatechange201​3.​org/​images/​uploads/​WGIAR5-SPM_​Approved27Sep201​3.​pdf accessed 7 October 2013.
 
17
Caney (2009a, p. 163).
 
18
UN Millennium Development Goals www.​org/​milleniumgoals/​poverty.​shtml.
 
19
Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—Total Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion, Flaring, Cement, as well as Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU) by Region between 1750 and 2010 (p. 43) reveals that developing countries’ cumulative emissions had (in 2010) already overtaken developed countries’ cumulative emissions. https://​www.​ipcc.​ch/​pdf/​assessment-report/​ar5/​wg3/​ipcc_​wg3_​ar5_​technical-summary.​pdf.
 
20
Forsyth (2005, pp. 165–176).
 
21
Philibert C (2004) International Energy Technology Collaboration and Climate Change Mitigation, OECD paper com/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT.
 
22
Rimmer (2011).
 
23
Beckerman-Rodau (1994, p. 603).
 
24
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 6) (‘even if one accepts the economic and strategic importance of knowledge, it is not necessarily to be concluded that the more intellectual property you have and the stronger the rights are better, or even that intellectual property is necessary at all. One may more safely conclude that intellectual property policy-making is a high stakes exercise and is consequently an inherently political activity.’).
 
25
See, e.g., Rimmer (2011), Blakeney (2013, p. 433).
 
26
Drahos (2011, p. 31).
 
27
Drahos (2011, p. 33).
 
28
Drahos (2011, p. 45).
 
29
Richardson and Gaisford (2017).
 
30
See, e.g., Intellectual Property: The cost of ideas, The Economist, 11 Nov 2004; Inside Views: The Downfall of Invention—A Broken Patent System, Intellectual Property Watch, 18 Aug 2016; Mossoff and Sichelman (2016).
 
31
See, e.g., Jaffe and Lerner (2006), Bessen and Meurer (2008), Greenhalgh and Rogers (2010).
 
32
Collier (2013, p. 185).
 
33
Karky (2016, p. 213).
 
34
Hughes (1988, pp. 287, 291).
 
35
Forrest (2017, p. 170).
 
36
See, e.g., Drahos (2011, pp. 30–31) (‘“Intellectual Property”… is a generic term used to refer to independent statutory or non-statutory systems such as patents, copyright, trade marks and trade secrets.’).
 
37
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (14 July 1967, entered into force 26 April 1970), 828 U.N.T.S. 3.
 
38
United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, 41 I.L.M. 654 (W.T.O. D.S.B. App. Body 2 Jan. 2002). (Interpreting ‘intellectual property’ to include not only the categories indicated in each title of each section of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement, but also categories of intellectual property subject to each section of Part II).
 
39
Gervais (2012).
 
40
WO/2017/202428.
 
41
PCT/CN2017/085600.
 
42
WO/2017/197847.
 
43
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 109).
 
44
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 14).
 
45
See Beckerman-Rodau (2011).
 
46
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 3). Note ‘ecological system’ here refers to the global context and not the environment.
 
47
Perry (2016a, p. 7).
 
48
Hughes (1988, p. 293).
 
49
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 4). See also Drahos (2011, p. 39) (posting that the ‘global command structure for patents means states have less freedom to use patent rules adaptively.’).
 
50
Perry (2016b, p. 1).
 
51
Ciplet et al. (2015).
 
52
de Vuyst et al. (2003).
 
53
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 14).
 
54
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 223).
 
55
Dutfield and Suthersanen, (2008, p. 34) (‘the proviso that such measures be consistent with the provisions of TRIPS appears to narrow their possible scope quite considerably.’).
 
56
Karky (2016, p. 221).
 
57
(‘Nowadays, patents are said to be an institutional means for investors and research corporations to be rewarded, or alternatively, incentivised, for investing in research and development, for deterring the pirating of their inventions by competitors, and for harnessing a nation’s inventive spirit.’).
 
58
United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Sharp and Sharp Products (WT/DS 58/AB/R) 22 October 2001.
 
59
Asmelash (2015, p. 261).
 
60
See, e.g., Pearce and Geddes (2014, pp. 37–8); Lonnquist (2003, p. 18).
 
61
Merrils (1969, p. 55).
 
62
Karky (2016, p. 213). (‘Intellectual property rights have never been more economically and politically important or controversial than they are today’).
 
63
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (20 March 1883, last revised 14 Jul. 1967 and as amended 28 Sep. 1979), 828 U.N.T.S. 305.
 
64
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (9 September 1886), 828 U.N.T.S. 221.
 
65
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, pp. 53–4) (‘It is clear that Locke’s theory on property is most appropriate to the protection of investment-based intellectual property such as industrial property, inventions and sound recordings. Hegelian thought, discussed further below, lends itself more to the ethical and human rights considerations, and hence is useful for explaining, for example, why we have moral rights under copyright law.’).
 
66
Burge v Swarbrick (2007) 232 CLR 336, para 75.
 
67
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008).
 
68
Burge v Swarbrick (2007) 232 CLR 336, para 81.
 
69
Hughes (1988) at 288.
 
70
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 110).
 
71
See Field (2015, pp. 129, 137–154).
 
72
Hughes (1988, p. 296).
 
73
Hughes (1988, p. 303).
 
74
(Article 1, § 8, cl 8) (emphasis added); Hughes (1988, pp. 303–4).
 
75
Mazer v Stein, 347 US 201 (1954).
 
76
Hughes (1988, p. 304).
 
77
Weatherall (2010, p. 8).
 
78
Bouchard et al. (2010, p. 174).
 
79
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 110).
 
80
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 18).
 
81
Dutfield and Suthersanen (2008, p. 16).
 
82
Rosenberg (1985) S 1.07.
 
83
Article 4.7 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 provides that: ‘The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.’
 
84
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1997, opened for signature 16 March 1998, 2303 U.N.T.S. 148 (entered into force 16 February 2005) (‘Kyoto Protocol’).
 
85
This ethical principle of leadership by the industrialised countries in mitigation is reflected as a general principle in article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 which states that ‘the developed countries should take the lead in reducing emissions….’ See discussion of differential treatment in the chapter by Huggins and Lewis (section 3) in this volume.
 
86
LMDC Proposal (October 21 2014) Elements for a Draft Negotiating Text of accelerating the implementation of enhanced pre-2020 climate action www4.​unfccc.​int/​submissions/​Lists/​OSPSubmissionUpl​oad/​39_​99.
 
87
Klein et al. (2017).
 
88
See careful analysis in Rimmer (2011) and Abdel-Latif (2015, pp. 103–126).
 
89
Thanks to Ben Boer for pointing this out.
 
Literatur
Albin C (2001) Justice and fairness in international negotiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bowersox J (2002) Sustainability and environmental justice: a necessary connection, in Gilroy JM, Bowersox J (eds) The moral austerity of environmental decision-making, sustainability, democracy, and normative argument in policy and law. Duke University Press
Bessen J, Meurer M (2008) Patent failure: how judges, bureaucrats and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Blakeney M (2013) Climate change and intellectual property: regulatory Issues. In: Kole C (ed) Genomics and breeding for climate-resilient crops
Caney S (2009b) Climate change, human rights and moral thresholds. In: Humphreys S (ed) Human rights and climate change. Cambridge University Press, pp 69–70; reprinted in Gardiner S et al (eds) (2010) Climate ethics essential readings. Oxford University Press, pp 163–177
Ciplet D, Timmons Roberts J, Khan MR (2015) Power in a warming world: the new global politics of climate change and the remaking of environmental inequality. MIT Press
Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2008) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton
Drahos P (2011) Six minutes to midnight: can intellectual property save the world? In: Bowrey K et al (eds) Emerging challenges in intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 31
Forrest HA (2017) Protection of geographic names in international law and domain name system, 2nd edn. Wolters Kluwer
Gervais D (2012) The TRIPS Agreement: drafting history and analysis 15, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell
Greenhalgh C, Rogers M (2010) Innovation, intellectual property, and economic growth. Princeton University Press
Hayward T (2005) Constitutional environmental rights. Oxford University Press
Jaffe A, Lerner J (2006) Innovation and its discontents: how our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton University Press
Karky R (2016) Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment. In: Perry M (ed) Global governance of intellectual property in the 21st century: reflecting policy through change. Springer, pp 209–223
Klein D, Carazo MP, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) (2017) The Paris agreement on climate change, analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lawrence P (2014) Justice for future generations climate change and international law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Pearce DC, Geddes RS (2014) Statutory interpretation in Australia. 8th edn. LexisNexis
Perry M (2016a) The changing face of intellectual property. In: Perry M (ed) Global governance of intellectual property in the 21st century: reflecting policy through change. Springer
Perry M (ed) (2016b) Global governance of intellectual property in the 21st century: reflecting policy through change. Springer
Rimmer M (2011) Intellectual property and climate change: inventing clean technologies. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRef
Richardson RS, Gaisford JD (2017) North-South disputes over the protection of intellectual property. In: George A (ed) Globalisation and intellectual property. Routledge
Rosenberg PD (1985) Patent law fundamentals, 2nd edn, pp S 1.07
Shue H (2014) Climate justice vulnerability and protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Shue H (1980) Basic rights: subsistence, affluence and US foreign policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Shue H (2015) Last opportunities: future human rights generate urgent present duties. In: di Paola M, Kamal D (eds) Climate change and human rights: the 2015 Paris conference and the task of protecting people on a warming planet. Global Policy J, special issue
Vanderheiden S (2008) Atmospheric justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Weatherall K (2010) IP in a changing international environment. In: Bowrey K, Handler M, Nicol D (eds) Emerging challenges in intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–29
Abdel-Latif A (2015) Intellectual property rights and the transfer of climate change technologies: issues, challenges, and way forward. Clim Policy 15(1):103–126CrossRef
Asmelash HB (2015) Energy subsidies in WTO dispute settlement: why only renewable energy subsidies are challenged. J Int Econ Law 18:261–285CrossRef
Beckerman-Rodau A (1994) Are ideas within the traditional definition of property?: a jurisprudential analysis. Ark Law Rev 47:603–651
Bouchard RA et al (2010) Empirical analysis of drug approval-drug patenting linkage for high value pharmaceuticals. Northwest J Technol Intellect Property 8(2):174–227
Caney S (2009a) Climate change and the future: discounting for time, wealth and risk. J Soc Philos 40(2):163–186CrossRef
Collier R (2013) Drug patents: innovation v accessibility. Can Med Assoc J 185(9):R383–E386CrossRef
de Vuyst B et al (2003) Exceptions to intellectual property rights: lessons from WTO-TRIPS panels. Murdoch Univ Electron J Law 10(4)
Donnelly J (2007) The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Q 29:281–306CrossRef
Forsyth T (2005) Enhancing climate technology transfer through greater public-private cooperation: lessons from Thailand and the Philippines. Natl Res Forum 29:165–176CrossRef
Hughes J (1988) The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Rev 77:287–291
Lonnquist T (2003) The trend towards purposive statutory interpretation: human rights at stake. Revenue Law J 13:1 (Article 3)
Merrils JG (1969) Two approaches to treaty interpretation. Aust Int Law J 4:55–82
Shue H (1999) Global environment and international inequality. Int Aff 75(3):531–545CrossRef
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (9 Sept 1886), 828 U.N.T.S. 221
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (14 July 1967, entered into force 26 Apr 1970), 828 U.N.T.S. 3
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1997, Opened for signature 16 March 1998, 2303 UNTS 148 (entered into force 16 Feb 2005) (‘Kyoto Protocol’)
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 1 Jan 1995) annex 1C (‘Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’—TRIPS Agreement 1994)
Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 12 December 2015 (entered into force 4 Nov 2016) (in UNFCCC, report of the conference of the parties on its twenty-first session, addendum, UN Doc FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1, 29 Jan 2016)
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (20 Mar 1883, last revised 14 Jul 1967 and as amended 28 Sept 1979), 828 U.N.T.S. 305
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, opened for signature 9 May 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107 (entered into force 21 Mar 1994)
United Nations Millennium Development Goals
United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Sharp and Sharp Products (WT/DS 58/AB/R), 22 Oct 2001
United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, 41 I.L.M. 654 (W.T.O. D.S.B. App. Body 2 Jan 2002)
Metadaten
Titel
Intergenerational Justice: A Framework for Addressing Intellectual Property Rights and Climate Change
verfasst von
Heather Ann Forrest
Peter Lawrence
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Verlag
Springer Singapore
Buch
Intellectual Property and Clean Energy

Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2154-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-13-2155-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2155-9_6