THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM (‘IPS’) IN PROTECTING INDIGENOUS RIGHTS

ALEXANDER QIN AND MARIAM KAYANI

May 22nd, 2020

Screen Shot 2020-05-22 at 5.25.35 pm.png

I. Why ineffective?

Western intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’) create individual property rights that can be subject to transactions. They are designed to foster commercial and industrial growth. Such rights are conceptually limited in their ability to afford the recognition and protection to Indigenous intellectual property rights [1].

Indigenous peoples’ IPRs extend beyond what is recognised within the existing intellectual property protection system. Those rights are linked to land, cultural traditions and the environment. Furthermore, Indigenous communities possess unique features of their “knowledge, creative expressions and innovation that emphasises communal rights” [2].  In this blog, we suggests that such features are at odds with the notions of western intellectual property and the current system fails to provide any adequate protection. 

To the Indigenous community, artistic designs embody language, dance, song, sacred sites and objects. These are maintained according to a set of rights and responsibilities that are determined by customary rules and codes of the Indigenous community. Such rights and responsibilities are informed by a knowledge system. The western IPRs refer to copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and breach of confidence but to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, protection is sought for more than just the material form. They seek protection for intangible property that is not within the scope of the related IP laws.

There are overarching problems within the current system, the result of which means that Indigenous IPRs are overlooked and are exploited or have the potential to be so treated. In 2017, IP Australia and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science commissioned a discussion paper, Indigenous Knowledge: Issues for protection and management, [3] from Terri Janke and Company. The paper identified the following six key issues as affecting the protection of Indigenous knowledge:

  1. misappropriation of Indigenous arts and crafts;

  2. misuse of Indigenous languages, words and clan names;

  3. recording and digitisation of Indigenous Knowledge;

  4. the Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous people is being commercially exploited;

without benefits flowing to communities

5. use of Indigenous Knowledge relating to genetic resources; and

6. misuse of particularly sensitive sacred secret knowledge

II. Is there International Protection?

Dating back to the 19​th  Century, when the European States started colonisation movements, some Indigenous  groups  once  travelled  to  the  settlers’  countries  attempting  to  have  their  voices heard [5]. In  early  20​th   century,  Indigenous  people  also  sought  to  fight  for  justice  under  some newly evolved international law – for instance, the ‘right to self-determination’ under Article 1.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [6]. However, these attempts generally ended in  failure,  due to the lack of a well-established Intellectual Property protection system at the  global  level.  It  was  not  until  recently  that  the  creations  of  an  international  convention appeared to take protection and recognition of indigenous rights in IP to a new standard.

The  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity 1993  (‘CBD’), recognises the ownership of traditional knowledge  by  indigenous  communities  and  thus  the  right  to  protection  of  their  cultural  and intellectual property [7].​ Article 8 (j) of the CBD states that:​[8]

‘Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:

Subject  to  national  legislation,  respect,  preserve  and  maintain  knowledge,  innovations  and practices  of indigenous and  local  communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  biological  diversity  and  promote  their wider application with  the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and   encourage  the   equitable  sharing  of  the  benefits  arising  from  the  utilisation  of  such knowledge innovations and practices.’

As a result,  Indigenous  and  local  community  representatives  are  encouraged  to  attend meetings  held  under  CBD.  Such attendees will be financially and logistically supported to attend the meeting so as to communicate their views to the Convention Secretariat, who is responsible for servicing meetings and drafting documents for assuring the operation of the convention ​[9]. Along with   that,  many   governments  have   adopted   policies  and  administrative  arrangements  for protecting  traditional  knowledge,  which  is  an  important  part  of  the  indigenous  intellectual property [10].

However, notwithstanding the introduction of the CBD, the protection of the indigenous intellectual property still faces two great challenges – the  potential threats imposed by other  conventions and the enforceability of CBD at an international level.

a.   The potential threats imposed by the other conventions

Not  all  international  conventions  tend  to  offer  protections  for  the  intellectual  property of indigenous  people.  One  notable  convention  is  the  Agreement  on  Trade-Related  Aspects  of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (‘TRIPS’), which is an international legal agreement between all member nations of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’). 

As pointed out by Megan Davis, some Articles of TRIPS can be manipulated to the detriment of the development of sui generis indigenous intellectual  property system. For instance, Article 8 allows the ‘members [to] adopt necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the  public  interest  in  sectors  of  vital  importance  to  their  socio-economic  and  technological development’  as  long  as  such  measures  consistent  of  the  provisions  of the  agreement [11]. This indicates  that  in  certain  circumstances,  the  protection  of  indigenous  intellectual  property  are subject to the socio- economic/technological development or the generally social welfare.

Some critics have also argued that the criteria imposed by the TRIPS on claiming an intellectual property right imposes unnecessary burden on indigenous people.​[8]  Article 29 explicitly requires the  applicants  to  disclose  an  identifiable  inventor  for  a  patent  application [12]. It  then  appears impossible for indigenous people to claim intellectual property via the patent avenue, considering many indigenous culture and knowledge were developed over long period, and the original inventors are unlikely to be identified.

b.   The enforceability of the international law 

Another challenge faced by Indigenous communities is that international laws are ‘soft laws’.  As  was  stated  by  Michael  Davis,  ‘how  rigorously  countries  fulfil  such  ‘obligations through   legislative enactments or policy  measures  are  in  doubt’ [13]. Though the majority of countries in which indigenous people currently reside are member parties of conventions such as CBD, the governments can still selectively localise clauses in the treaties and therefore cause difficulties for the intellectual protections.