IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v4y2015i4p803-831d60949.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law

Author

Listed:
  • Elisa Morgera

    (School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old School, South Bridge, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK)

Abstract

As the debate about the need to clarify the content of the human right to science intensifies, this article assesses opportunities for opening a scholarly and policy dialogue on fair and equitable benefit-sharing between international human rights and biodiversity lawyers. To that end, the article contrasts the emerging conceptualizations of the right to science in the context of international cultural rights and of fair and equitable benefit-sharing under international biodiversity law. It then critically assesses the potential for cross-fertilization with specific regard to: the sharing of scientific information and promotion of scientific cooperation, the transfer of technology, and the protection and valorization of traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. While acknowledging that both the right to science and fair and equitable benefit-sharing are far from being fully understood or operationalized, the article argues that developments in international biodiversity law concerning the latter may provide insights into how a vague and optimistic concept can (and when it cannot) lead to tangible outcomes, rather than remaining merely rhetorical.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisa Morgera, 2015. "Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law," Laws, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-29, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:4:y:2015:i:4:p:803-831:d:60949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/4/4/803/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/4/4/803/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sheila Jasanoff, 1993. "Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 123-129, April.
    2. Jasanoff, Sheila, 1988. "The Bhopal disaster and the right to know," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 27(10), pages 1113-1123, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Tysiachniouk & Andrey N. Petrov & Vera Kuklina & Natalia Krasnoshtanova, 2018. "Between Soviet Legacy and Corporate Social Responsibility: Emerging Benefit Sharing Frameworks in the Irkutsk Oil Region, Russia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Maria S. Tysiachniouk, 2020. "Disentangling Benefit-Sharing Complexities of Oil Extraction on the North Slope of Alaska," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-31, July.
    3. Svetlana Tulaeva & Maria Tysiachniouk, 2017. "Benefit-Sharing Arrangements between Oil Companies and Indigenous People in Russian Northern Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Maria S. Tysiachniouk & Laura A. Henry & Svetlana A. Tulaeva & Leah S. Horowitz, 2020. "Who Benefits? How Interest-Convergence Shapes Benefit-Sharing and Indigenous Rights to Sustainable Livelihoods in Russia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-22, October.
    5. Ilkhom Soliev & Insa Theesfeld, 2017. "Reframing for Sustainability: Exploring Transformative Power of Benefit Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-23, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emmanuel Somers, 1995. "Perspectives on Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 677-684, December.
    2. Cornelie Crous & John R. Owen & Lochner Marais & Samkelisiwe Khanyile & Deanna Kemp, 2021. "Public disclosure of mine closures by listed South African mining companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 1032-1042, May.
    3. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    4. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.
    5. Arnold Tukker, 2002. "Risk Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment—The Common Challenge of Dealing with the Precautionary Frame (Based on the Toxicity Controversy in Sweden and the Netherlands)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 821-832, October.
    6. Marcelo Firpo de Souza Porto & Carlos Machado de Freitas, 1996. "Major Chemical Accidents in Industrializing Countries: The Socio‐Political Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 19-29, February.
    7. Joanna Burger & Robert A. Kennamer & I. Lehr Brisbin & Michael Gochfeld, 1998. "A Risk Assessment for Consumers of Mourning Doves," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 563-573, October.
    8. Aimee Guglielmo Kinney & Thomas M. Leschine, 2002. "A Procedural Evaluation of an Analytic‐Deliberative Process: The Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 83-100, February.
    9. Matthias Beck, 2016. "The Risk Implications of Globalisation: An Exploratory Analysis of 105 Major Industrial Incidents (1971–2010)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Bill Durodié, 2003. "The True Cost of Precautionary Chemicals Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 389-398, April.
    11. Robert P. Anex & Will Focht, 2002. "Public Participation in Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment: A Shared Need," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 861-877, October.
    12. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2018. "A risk interpretation of sociotechnical safety perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 13-18.
    13. George E. Apostolakis & Susan E. Pickett, 1998. "Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 621-634, October.
    14. Peter Neuteboom, 2003. "A European comparison of the costs and risks of mortgages for owner-occupiers," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 155-171.
    15. Kenneth Pettersen Gould, 2021. "Organizational Risk: “Muddling Through” 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 456-465, March.
    16. John Downer & M. V. Ramana, 2021. "Empires built on sand: On the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1304-1325, October.
    17. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen & Éléonore Lèbre, 2021. "Tailings facility failures in the global mining industry: Will a ‘transparency turn’ drive change?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 122-134, January.
    18. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.
    19. Helene Hermansson, 2012. "Defending the Conception of “Objective Risk”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 16-24, January.
    20. Eliana Fischer & Alessio Emanuele Biondo & Annalisa Greco & Francesco Martinico & Alessandro Pluchino & Andrea Rapisarda, 2022. "Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:4:y:2015:i:4:p:803-831:d:60949. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.