Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chapter 5 Bringing It All Together: An Overall Reflection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Indigenous Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Rights

  • 1791 Accesses

Abstract

As the previous chapters have shown, there is a need for Māori (shared with other indigenous peoples) to gain more control over the use of their cultural heritage. Yet, the concepts of “property” and “ownership”, such as enshrined in intellectual property rights (IPRs), are an ill-fit to the worldviews and specific concerns of indigenous peoples as guardians and not as “owners”. States with Western legal systems—marred by their preconceptions of “property” as “ownership”—have, so far, been unable to conceive of how to meet the interest of stewardship. Moreover, their understanding of what “property” is has prevented them from adapting IP laws to suit the idea of guardianship, arguing that it would be contrary to the theoretical underpinnings of IPRs. This has resulted in most states falling short of addressing the guardianship role of indigenous peoples over their cultural heritage. In most cases, indigenous peoples end up on the “nothing” side of the “property” scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Griggs (2002). See also Solomon (2005), pp. 354 and 360.

  2. 2.

    Daes (Special Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and Chairperson of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations) (1993), para. 26.

  3. 3.

    For example, regarding UN, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), GA Res. 61/295 (UN Doc. A/61/L.67 and Add.1) (adopted on 13 September 2007), for which Indigenous peoples played a large role in the drafting of the text “legitimised the process and the final outcome”; Xanthaki (2007), p. 104.

  4. 4.

    Lai (2010), pp. 42–43.

  5. 5.

    Interview with Smith (1997), p. 19.

  6. 6.

    Solomon (2000).

  7. 7.

    Ibid.

  8. 8.

    This is the case under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990, 25 USC 3001–3013, § 3005(e).

  9. 9.

    Forsyth (2011), p. 278, who notes the importance of insuring that communities are both able and willing to deal with such disputes, and that they may require support for such.

  10. 10.

    Tsosie (2002), pp. 356–257.

  11. 11.

    Solomon (2005), p. 352.

  12. 12.

    Solomon (for the Ministry of Economic Development) (2005), para. 6.37.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., para. 6.39.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., para. 6.37.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., para. 6.38.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., appendix 2, p. 62.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    GATT, Panel Report, US—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna I (Mexico), BISD 39S/155, 3 September 1991, unadopted, para. 5.15.

  19. 19.

    Van den Bossche (2008), p. 381.

  20. 20.

    WTO, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 UNTS 187; 33 ILM 1153 (adopted on 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995).

  21. 21.

    However, Van den Bossche cautions that this would rarely occur, as most markets are driven by price rather than concern over conformity with social standards (Van den Bossche 2008, p. 381).

  22. 22.

    For example, under GATT, Art. XX(b); WTO, General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1B, 1869 UNTS 183; 33 ILM 1167 (adopted on 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995), Art. XIV(b); and the WTO, Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 UNTS 493; 33 ILM 1125, 1153 (adopted on 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995).

  23. 23.

    WTO, Appellate Body Report, Korea—Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WTO Docs WT/DS161/AB/R and WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, para. 157; and WTO, Panel Report, Canada—Measures Relating to Export of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain, WTO Doc. WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004, para. 6.218. See also Van den Bossche (2008), pp. 629–634.

  24. 24.

    Duff (2011), p. A3. Section 26 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 (NZ) prohibits all imports which carry a “false trade description”, which includes any representation (aside from registered trade marks) that makes “a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular kind, standard, quality, grade, quantity, composition, style, or model, or have had a particular history or particular previous use” [s 26(3), referring to s. 13(a)].

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    Under s. 27 of the Fair Trade Act 1986 (NZ), the Governor-General may create consumer information standards regarding:

    1. (a)

      The disclosure of information relating to the kind, grade, quantity, origin, performance, care, composition, contents, design, construction, use, price, finish, packaging, promotion, or supply of the goods or services:

    2. (b)

      The form and manner in which that information must be disclosed on or in relation to, or in connection with, the supply or resupply, or possible supply or resupply, or promotion of the supply of the goods or services.

    Accordingly, “a person must not supply, or offer to supply, or advertise to supply those goods or services unless that person complies with that consumer information standard” (s. 28).

  27. 27.

    This has been argued elsewhere, see Graber et al. (2012), pp. 465–469. See also Taubman (2005) and Forsyth (2011).

  28. 28.

    See Frankel (2012), pp. 139–142 and Taubman (2005), pp. 526, 529 and 555–558.

  29. 29.

    Taubman (2005), pp. 529 and 557.

  30. 30.

    Frankel (2012).

  31. 31.

    New Zealand–Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership (CEP) (signed on 29 March 2010, entered into force 1 January 2011), Chap.11 Art. 8 and Chap. 19 Art. 3; New Zealand–Malaysia FTA (signed on 26 October 2009), Arts. 11.4, 11.6 and 17.6; ASEAN, Australia–New Zealand FTA (signed on 27 February 2009, entered into force 1 January 2010), Chap. 13 Art. 8 and Chap. 15 Art. 5; New Zealand–China FTA (signed on 7 April 2008, entered into force 1 October 2008), Arts. 165 and 205; and New Zealand–Thailand CEP (signed on 19 April 2005, entered into force 1 July 2005), Arts. 12.5(d) and 15.8.

  32. 32.

    China Domestic Laws: Regulations on Protection of Traditional Arts and Crafts; Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Traditional Chinese Medicines 2003; Intangible Cultural Heritage Law 2011, available online at www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=CN.

  33. 33.

    Frankel (2012).

  34. 34.

    Lenihan (1996), p. 213.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Delegation of New Zealand 2002, annex 2, para. 15.

  37. 37.

    Allen (2009), p. 10.

  38. 38.

    Carpenter et al. (2010), p. 587.

  39. 39.

    For such a discourse against UNDRIP, See, e.g. Round (2009), p. 395, who stated that “[w]e are entitled to demand evidence that he or she deserves special treatment” (p. 394). Round argued that the Māori are already no different from other New Zealanders and should not be given special treatment. In reference to the UNDRIP, he stated that “[t]he Declaration is not one for integrated people living comfortable modern lives, but for traditional lives in traditional structures of authority and customs.”

  40. 40.

    See, e.g. Charters (2009), p. 661, citing UN, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007).

  41. 41.

    See, e.g. Xanthaki (2011), pp. 418–419.

References

  • Allen S (2009) The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the limits of the international legal project in the indigenous context. Available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1497946

  • Carpenter KA, Katyal S, Riley A (2010) Clarifying cultural property. Int J Cult Prop 17:581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charters C (2009) Do Māori rights racially discriminate against non Māori? Victoria Univ Wellington Law Rev 40:649–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Daes E-I (Special Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and Chairperson of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations) (1993) Discrimination against indigenous peoples. Study on the protection of the cultural and intellectual property of indigenous peoples (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/28)

    Google Scholar 

  • Delegation of New Zealand (2002) Specific legislation for the legal protection of traditional cultural expressions – experiences and perspectives of New Zealand. In: WIPO, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Secretariat. Presentations on national and regional experiences with specific legislation for the legal protection of traditional cultural expressions (Expressions of Folklore) (WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/INF/2), annex 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff M (2011) Artists fight flood of fake Māori trinkets. The Dominion Post (5 August 2011) A3

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth M (2011) The traditional knowledge movement in the Pacific Island countries: the challenge of localism. Prometheus 29(3):269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel S (2012) Attempts to protect indigenous culture through free trade agreements. In: Graber CB, Kuprecht K, Lai JC (eds) International trade in indigenous cultural heritage: legal and policy issues. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 118–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graber CB, Kuprecht L, Lai JC (2012) The trade and development of indigenous cultural heritage: completing the picture and a possible way forward. In: Graber CB, Kuprecht K, Lai JC (eds) International trade in indigenous cultural heritage: legal and Policy Issues. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 463–493

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs K (2002) Lego site irks Māori sympathizer. Wired (21 November 2002). Available online at www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/11/56451

  • Lai JC (2010) Māori culture in the modern world: its creation, appropriation and trade. i-call working paper no. 02, University of Lucerne, Luzern

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenihan STM (1996) A time for change: intellectual property law and Māori. Auckl Univ Law Rev 8(1):211–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Round DJ(2009) UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. NZ Law J 392–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith GH (Interview With) (1997) Controlling knowledge: the implication of cultural and intellectual property rights. In: Leonie Pihama and Cherryl Waerea-i-te-rangi Smith (eds) Cultural and intellectual property rights. Economics, politics & colonisation, vol 2. International Research Institute for Māori and Indigenous Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, pp 16–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon M (2000) Intellectual property rights and indigenous peoples rights and obligations. In: Workshop on instruments for access and benefit sharing from genetic resources and related traditional knowledge issues, Global Biodiversity Forum 15, United Nations Environment Programme, Gigiri, Nairobi, 12–14 May 2000. Available at www.inmotionmagazine.com/ra01/ms2.html

  • Solomon M (2005) Protecting Māori heritage in New Zealand. In: Hoffmann BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage. Law, policy, and practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 352–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon M (for the MED) (2005) Peer review Report on WIPO Documents: “The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expression of Folklore: Revised Objectives and Principles (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/4)”; and “The Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Revised Objectives and Principles (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/5)”. Appendix to: WIPO, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Secretariat (2007) The protection of traditional cultural expressions/expression of folklore: table of written comments on revised objectives and principles. Eleventh Session (WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/4(b))

    Google Scholar 

  • Taubman A (2005) Saving the village: conserving jurisprudential diversity in the international protection of traditional knowledge. In: Maskus KE, Reichman JH (eds) International public goods and transfer of technology. Under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 521–564

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tsosie R (2002) Reclaiming native stories: an essay on cultural appropriation and cultural rights. Ariz State Law J 34:299–358

    Google Scholar 

  • UN, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007) Concluding observations: New Zealand. Seventieth Session (UN Doc. CERD/C/NZL/CO/17)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche P (2008) The law and policy of the World Trade Organization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xanthaki A (2007) Indigenous rights and United Nations standards: self-determination, Culture and land. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xanthaki A (2011) The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and collective rights: what’s the future for indigenous women? In: Allen S, Xanthaki A (eds) Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Hart, Oxford/Portland, pp 413–431

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Jessica Christine Lai

Authors
  1. Jessica Christine Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lai, J.C. (2014). Chapter 5 Bringing It All Together: An Overall Reflection. In: Indigenous Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02955-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation