Environmental Ethics 21 (2):177-190 (1999)
The claim that indigenous communities are entitled to have intellectual property rights (IPRs) to both their plant varieties and their botanical knowledge has been put forward by writers who wish to protect the plant genetic resources of indigenous communities from uncompensated use by biotechnological transnational corporations. We argue that while it is necessary for indigenous communities to have suchrights, the entitlement argument is an unsatisfactory justification for them. A more convincing foundation for indigenous community IPRs is the autonomy theory developed by Will Kymlicka
|Keywords||Applied Philosophy General Interest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
That Which Doesn't Break Us: Identity Work by Local Indigenous 'Stakeholders'. [REVIEW]Eveline Bruijn & Gail Whiteman - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 96 (3):479 - 495.
Indigenous Rights and the Constitution: Making the Case for Constitutional Reform.Megan Jane Davis - unknown -
Indigenous Rights and Environmental Justice.Roy W. Perrett - 1998 - Environmental Ethics 20 (4):377-391.
Ethical Issues in Cultural Property Law Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples.Kimberly Alderman - unknown -
Patents, Scientific and Commercial Use of Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: How Does Public Interest Fit in This Arena?Dr Marcelin Tonye Mahop - manuscript -
Indigenous Peoples' Intellectual Property.Andrew Hunter - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:97-103.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #139,430 of 2,132,834 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #389,585 of 2,132,834 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.