Abstract
It is a truism that the protection of human rights is vital for human security. The pursuit of the right to development and its consequent benefits are anchored to the protection of fundamental human rights. Jeremy Philips and Alison Firth have noted that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) would appear to depend on intellectual property for the realization of some of its objectives and call attention to the right to privacy, to property and to making a living.
This chapter examines the ongoing dialogue between IP and human rights, which began recently. Scholars have examined critically the notion that IP rights can be categorized as “fundamental” human rights. It is nevertheless accepted that IP rights do play their part in advancing fundamental human rights. A sustained effort at “bridging” IPRs and human rights has begun and the argument that IP rights are subservient to human rights is explored briefly. These efforts and the major elements of this debate are discussed below.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Philips and Firth 2009, 8.
- 2.
Cited in Philips and Firth 2009, 9. See Weeramantry 1983.
- 3.
Philips and Firth 2009, 9.
- 4.
Id., 9.
- 5.
Drahos 2000, 6.
- 6.
Philips and Firth 2009, 7.
- 7.
Drahos 2000, 7.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Ibid.
- 10.
Ibid.
- 11.
Id., 9.
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
Cullet 2007, 414.
- 14.
Id., 419.
- 15.
Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights, Res. 2000/7, 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/7 (Aug. 17, 2000) [Hereafter Resolution 2000/7], available at http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/c462b62cf8a07b13c12569700046704e?Opendocument. For a detailed discussion of the origin of Resolution 2000/7, see Weissbrodt and Schoff 2004; Weissbrodt and Schoff 2003.
- 16.
United Nations Economic and Social Council, The Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/12, June 2001.
- 17.
Ibid., para 6.
- 18.
Id., para 30.
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Id., para 34.
- 21.
Id., para 35.
- 22.
Id., para 37.
- 23.
Id., para 19.
- 24.
Id., para 45.
- 25.
Id., para 47.
- 26.
Id., para 51.
- 27.
Ibid.
- 28.
See for example Helfer 2004; Torremans 2004.
- 29.
Cullet 2007, 405.
- 30.
Id, 407.
- 31.
Chapman 1998.
- 32.
Helfer 2007, 167–179.
- 33.
Ostergard 1999, 157.
- 34.
Id., 163.
- 35.
Ibid.
- 36.
Id., 168.
- 37.
Id., 177.
- 38.
Drahos 1999.
- 39.
Id., 357.
- 40.
Ibid.
- 41.
Id., 361.
- 42.
Ibid.
- 43.
Id., 367.
- 44.
Id., 368.
- 45.
Ibid.
- 46.
Ibid.
- 47.
Id., 370. Drahos called attention to the Oncomouse case, which revealed “a formalistic treatment of the morality criterion that did not really engage with the matters of principle that the opponents in that case were raising…This narrow line of interpretation has persisted despite the fact that there is a strong argument that human rights law operates to affect the interpretation of Article 53(a).” Ibid.
- 48.
Cullet 2007.
- 49.
Article 1, Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Paris, 20 March 1952. Available on website of European Court of Human Rights at http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf. Accessed on 2 June 2012.
- 50.
Cullet 2007, p. 410.
- 51.
Article 17(2), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 J.O. (C 364) 12.
- 52.
Cullet 2007, 411.
- 53.
Id., 411.
- 54.
Ibid.
- 55.
Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal(73049/01) [2006] E.T.M.R. (ECHR).
- 56.
Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1952.
- 57.
Article 1, Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Paris, 1952.
- 58.
Beiter 2008, 714–721.
- 59.
Beiter 2008, 715.
- 60.
Id., 717.
- 61.
Ibid.
- 62.
Ibid.
- 63.
Id., 718.
- 64.
Ibid.
- 65.
Id., 719.
- 66.
Beiter 2008, 719.
- 67.
Id., 719.
- 68.
Grossheide 2010.
- 69.
Yu 2007, Brown 2010.
- 70.
Id., 1123.
- 71.
Ibid.
- 72.
Id., 1045.
- 73.
Id., 1046.
- 74.
Haugen 2007, 60; Helfer 2003.
- 75.
Coombe 1998, 59.
- 76.
Id., 65.
- 77.
Ibid.
- 78.
Id., 74.
- 79.
Coombe notes that WIPO, “…has not historically been sympathetic to the concerns of minorities and indigenous peoples. Indeed, less than a decade ago, the Director General of WIPO informed the United Nations Human Rights Centre that it did not recognize the standing of indigenous peoples in intellectual property matters…” Id., 76.
- 80.
UN Economic and Social Council (2001), “The Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights,” Report of the Secretary-General. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 52nd Session, June 2001, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/12, paras 16–28. See Moon 2011, who looks at disproportionately adverse impacts of WTO rules on the human rights of individuals or groups who are protected under human rights law from discrimination. See generally, Garcia 1999; Hestermeyer 2007.
- 81.
Ibid.
- 82.
Id., para 21.
- 83.
Ibid.
- 84.
Id., para 22.
- 85.
Ibid.
- 86.
Id., para 23.
- 87.
Id., para 28.
- 88.
Anderson and Wager 2006.
- 89.
Id., 2006, 734. See United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972).
- 90.
UN Economic and Social Council 2001, para 56.
- 91.
Ibid.
- 92.
European Commission (2001), “Submission to the United Nations Secretary General from the Services of the European Commission with Regard to Resolution 2000/7 and the Request for a Report on Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights.” 31 July 2001.
- 93.
UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, “Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights,” Resolution 2000/7, E-CN_4-RES-2000-7.doc.
- 94.
UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, “Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights,” Resolution 2000/, E-CN_4-SUB_2-RES-2000-7.doc.
- 95.
Oloka-Onyango and Udagama 2000, para 19. See work cited by Professor Stiglitz 1999 at 387.
- 96.
Ibid.
- 97.
Articles 3, 4 and Part III on Enforcement, as per the Commission, para 1.
- 98.
UN Economic and Social Council 2001, Id.
- 99.
The Law of 1791 in France stated that “the property of the work which is born of the writer’s thought is the most sacred, the most legitimate, the most unassailable and the most personal of all properties.” The US Congress in 1787 justified its legislative powers over IP on the basis of the need “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Id., para 5.
- 100.
European Commission 2001, para 5.
- 101.
Ibid.
- 102.
Haugen 2009, 354.
- 103.
WIPO 2003, 3.
- 104.
L.C.B. v. United Kingdom, 23413/94 [1988] (ECHR).
- 105.
See on this Harris 1989, 42–48.
- 106.
Cyprus v. Turkey (25781/94) [2001] (ECHR).
- 107.
Paramand Kataria v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 286.
- 108.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp (1986) AIR 180.
- 109.
De Schutter 2011, 349–350.
- 110.
UN Doc. A/HRC 17/43: Report of expert consultation on access to medicines as a fundamental component of the right to health.
- 111.
Rehman 2010, 267–300.
- 112.
Id., 270. See World Health Organization Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health 2006. Public health innovation and intellectual property rights. Geneva: WHO Press. See http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/documents/thereport/ENPublicHealthReport.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2012.
- 113.
Forman 2011, 155.
- 114.
Ibid.
- 115.
The report argued that “systemic integration between functional areas of international law can be achieved in two primary ways: first, because all bodies of law must respect hierarchically superior norms in international law, and second, because all international law is linked through treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a legal treaty that establishes the framework and interpretive methods that all international treaties are subject to.” Forman, Id., 157. See International Law Commission (ILC) (2006) ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law: Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission—Finalized By Martti Koskenniemi’. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April.
- 116.
Armstrong 2010, 3.
- 117.
Cullet 2007, p. 417.
- 118.
Ibid.
- 119.
Haugen 2011, 6.
- 120.
Ibid.
- 121.
Drahos 1999, p. 11.
- 122.
Id., p. 12.
- 123.
See Matthews 2011, who outlines how NGOs seeking to draw attention to the potentially adverse effects of patents for pharmaceutical products for public health, particularly for people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune-Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS), not only reshaped the international debate about the relationship between intellectual property rights and access to medicines by framing it as a human rights issue, but have also utilized the concrete human rights principles enshrined in national constitutional law as a practical tool in their campaigns.
- 124.
Haugen 2010, “Access versus incentives: analysing intellectual property policies in four UN specialized agencies by emphasizing the role of the World Intellectual Property Organization and human rights,” 697–728.
- 125.
Chapman 2002.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ramcharan, R. (2013). IP, Human Rights, and Human Security. In: International Intellectual Property Law and Human Security. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-900-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-900-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-899-6
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-900-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
