Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:29:32.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intellectual Property Rights and the Conservation of Plant Biodiversity as a Common Concern of Humankind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2013

Aline Jaeckel
Aline Jaeckel*
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Member of the joint Legal Research Group at the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL) and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), working within the Biodiversity and Biosafety Programme. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article makes the case for the obligation to conserve plant biodiversity to be classified as a common concern of humankind, to justify and indeed prescribe limitations on private intellectual property rights over plants and related processes. Within the biodiversity regime, the notion of ‘common concern of humankind’ subjects the permanent sovereignty of states over natural resources to the interests of humanity. It shifts the obligations of states from managing their own plant biodiversity towards conserving it on behalf of humankind. In contrast, TRIPS requires states to protect private intellectual property rights with little discretion to adequately balance them with public interests. This creates a dichotomy. This article argues that rather than mobilizing state sovereignty as rhetoric to distract from addressing common concerns of humankind, it should be constructed as a concept capable of facilitating these very concerns.

Keywords

Common Concern of HumankindConvention on Biological DiversityTRIPSIntellectual Property RightsPlant Biological ResourcesState Sovereignty
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 167 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In accordance with the definition of biological diversity in Art. 2 CBD (n. 4 below), plant biodiversity refers to the variability among plants – including those from terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic sources – and the ecological complexes of which they are part. It includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

2 Preamble, Nagoya Protocol on Access to Biological Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya (Japan), 29 Oct. 2010, not yet in force, available at: http://www.cbd.int/abs/text; Toledo, A. & Burlingame, B., ‘Biodiversity and Nutrition: A Common Path toward Global Food Security and Sustainable Development’ (2006) 19 Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, pp. 477–83, at 478.Google Scholar

3 Gibson, J.P. & Gibson, T.R., Plant Biodiversity (Chelsea House, 2007), at p. viii.Google Scholar

4 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text.

5 Ibid., Preamble.

6 Ibid.

7 CBD, Art. 2 defines biological resources as including ‘genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for humanity’.

8 Birnie, P., Boyle, A. & Redgwell, C., International Law and the Environment (Oxford University Press, 2009), at p. 129.Google Scholar

9 CBD, Art. 1.

10 See, e.g., Shiva, V., Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology (Palgrave Macmillan, 1993)Google Scholar; Posey, D.A., ‘Commodification of the Sacred through Intellectual Property Rights’ (2002) 83 Journal of Ethnopharmacology, pp. 3–12Google Scholar; Hettinger, N., ‘Patenting Life: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property, and Environmental Ethics’ (1995) 22 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, pp. 267–305Google Scholar; Marden, E., ‘The Neem Tree Patent: International Conflict over the Commodification of Life’ (1999) 22(2) Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, pp. 279–95.Google Scholar

11 Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.

12 See Picciotto, S., ‘Private Rights v Public Interests in the TRIPS Agreement’ (2003) 97 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, pp. 167–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 167; Shiva, V., Protect or Plunder? Understanding Intellectual Property Rights (Zed Books, 2001)Google Scholar; see also Drahos, P., ‘An Alternative Framework for the Global Regulation of Intellectual Property Rights’ (2005) 21(4) Journal Für Entwicklungspolitik, pp. 44–68, suggesting an alternative system of IPR protection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Aoki, K., Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property (Carolina Academic Press, 2008).Google Scholar

14 See, e.g., S. Biswas, ‘India Hits Back in “Bio-piracy” Battle’, BBC News, Delhi, 7 Dec. 2005, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4506382.stm.

15 Helfer, L.R., ‘Regime Shifting: The TRIPs Agreement and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking’ (2004) 29 The Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 1–83, at 24.Google Scholar

16 See, e.g., Lawson, C., ‘Patents and Plant Breeder’s Rights over Plant Biological Resources for Food and Agriculture’ (2004) 32 Federal Law Review, pp. 107–40Google Scholar, at 119–25; Aoki, n. 13 above, at pp. 91–2; Walden, I., ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity’, in Bowman, M. & Redgwell, C. (eds.), International Law and the Conservation of Biological Diversity (Kluwer Law International, 1996), pp. 171–90Google Scholar, at 178–9; UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (Cambridge University Press, 2005), at pp. 397–8 and 403–4.Google Scholar

17 Helfer, n. 15 above, at pp. 5–6; Wissen, M., ‘Contested Terrains: Politics of Scale, the National State and Struggles for the Control over Nature’ (2009) 16 Review of International Political Economy, pp. 883–906, at 897.Google Scholar

18 Sands, P. & Peel, J., Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012), at p. 191.Google Scholar

19 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports (1996), at para. 29, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf.

20 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm (Sweden), 16 June 1972, available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503. See also Principle 2, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163.

21 Scholtz, W., ‘Custodial Sovereignty: Reconciling Sovereignty and Global Environmental Challenges amongst the Vestiges of Colonialism’ (2008) 55(3) Netherlands International Law Review, pp. 323–41, at 340.Google Scholar

22 Schrijver, N., Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties (Cambridge University Press, 2008), at p. xvii.Google Scholar

23 See, e.g., Birnie et al., n. 8 above, at p. 192.

24 CBD, Arts. 15–19.

25 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna (Austria), 23 May 1969, in force 27 Jan. 1980, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf.

26 ICJ, Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad), Judgment of 3 Feb. 1994, ICJ Reports (1994), at para. 41; ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. US), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 12 Dec. 1996, ICJ Reports (1996), at para. 23; ICJ, Kasikili/Sedudu Islands (Botswana v. Namibia), Judgment of 13 Dec. 1999, ICJ Reports (1999), at para. 18.

27 ICJ, Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment of 20 Nov. 1950, ICJ Reports (1950), at p. 282.

28 ICJ, Case concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States), Judgment of 27 Aug. 1952, ICJ Reports (1952), at p. 196.

29 Aust, A., Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2007), at p. 426.Google Scholar

30 Fitzmaurice, Sir G., ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951–4: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points’ (1957) 33 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 203–93, at 228.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., at p. 229.

32 Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F. & Synge, H., A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 1994), at p. 3.Google Scholar

33 Fitzmaurice, n. 30 above, at p. 229.

34 Signed 7 Apr. 1906, reprinted in (1907) 1(1) The American Journal of International Law (Supplement: Official Documents), pp. 47–78.

35 N. 28 above, at p. 184.

36 Kiss, A. & Shelton, D., International Environmental Law (Transactional Publishers, 2000), at p. 26.Google Scholar

37 Kiss, A., ‘Economic Globalization and the Common Concern of Humanity’, in Kiss, A., Shelton, D. & Ishibashi, K. (eds.), Economic Globalization and Compliance with International Environmental Agreements (Kluwer Law International, 2003), pp. 3–11, at 8.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., at p. 9.

39 Scholtz, n. 21 above, at pp. 336–7.

40 Brunnée, J., ‘Common Areas, Common Heritage, Common Concern’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 550–73Google Scholar, at 566. See also United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), ‘II Meeting of the Group of Legal Experts to Examine the Concept of the “Common Concern of Mankind” in Relation to Global Environmental Issues’, Geneva (Switzerland), 20–22 Mar. 1991, para. 6, available at: http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/publica/librev/rev/iidh/cont/13/doc/doc29.pdf.

41 Sand, P.H., ‘Sovereignty Bounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources?’ (2004) 4(1) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Ibid., at p. 48.

43 Ibid., at p. 56.

44 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 4 June 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, Preamble, available at: http://unfccc.int.

45 Brown Weiss, E., ‘The Coming Water Crisis: A Common Concern of Humankind’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 153–68.Google Scholar

46 Earth Charter (2000), Preamble, available at: http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html. The Earth Charter is a voluntary declaration of fundamental ethical principles for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global society in the 21st century.

47 Sand, n. 41 above, at p. 56.

48 Brunnée, n. 40 above, at pp. 565–6; Boyle, A.E., ‘International Law and the Protection of the Global Atmosphere: Concepts, Categories and Principles’, in Churchill, R. & Freestone, D. (eds.), International Law and Global Climate Change (Graham and Trotman, 1991), pp. 7–21, at 13.Google Scholar

49 See ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 5 Feb. 1970, ICJ Reports (1970), at para. 33.

50 Dupuy, R.-J., ‘Humanity and the Environment’ (1991) 2 Colorado Journal of International Law & Policy, pp. 201–4, at 202.Google Scholar

51 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, ICJ Reports (1996), at p. 502, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf.

52 Yearbook of the International Law Commission: Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of its Forty-Seventh Session, Vol. 2, Part 2 (United Nations, 1995), at p. 110.

53 Brunnée, J., ‘International Environmental Law: Rising to the Challenge of Common Concern?’ (2006) 100 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, pp. 307–10Google Scholar, at 307. See also Scholtz, n. 21 above, at p. 335.

54 CBD, Art. 16(2).

55 Ibid., Art. 16(5).

56 A minimum protection period of 20 years is usually required. See TRIPS, Art. 33. See also Art.19(2) of the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva (Switzerland), 19 Mar. 1991, in force 24 Apr. 1998 (Act of UPOV 1991), available at: http://www.upov.int/export/sites/upov/upovlex/en/conventions/1991/pdf/act1991.pdf.

57 TRIPS, Art. 28(1). See also Act of UPOV 1991, ibid., Art. 14.

58 Correa, C.M., ‘Sovereign and Property Rights over Plant Genetic Resources’ (1995) 12(4) Agriculture and Human Values, pp. 58–79Google Scholar, at 66.

59 G. Rose, ‘International Regimes for the Conservation and Control of Plant Biological Resources’, in M. Bowman & C. Redgwell, n. 16 above, pp. 145–70, at 166.

60 Act of UPOV 1991, n. 56 above, Art. 1(iv).

61 Paris (France), 2 Dec. 1961, in force 10 Aug. 1968, available at: http://www.upov.int/upovlex/en/upov_convention.html.

62 See website at: http://www.upov.int.

63 Act of UPOV 1991, n. 56 above, Art.15(1). For further analysis see UNCTAD-ICTSD, n. 16 above, at pp. 401–2.

64 TRIPS, Art. 27(1).

65 UNCTAD-ICTSD, n. 16 above, at pp. 377–8.

66 Correa, C.M., Intellectual Property Rights, the WTO, and Developing Countries: The TRIPS Agreement and Policy Options (Zed Books, 2000), at p. 62.Google Scholar

67 UNCTAD-ICTSD, n. 16 above, at p. 377.

68 Louka, E., Biodiversity & Human Rights: The International Rules for the Protection of Biodiversity (Transnational Publishers, 2002), at p. 142.Google Scholar

69 Coban, A., ‘Caught between State-Sovereign Rights and Property Rights: Regulating Biodiversity’ (2004) 11(4) Review of International Political Economy, pp. 736–62, at 746.Google Scholar

70 WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) – Communication from Kenya on behalf of the African Group, IP/C/W/163, 8 Nov. 1999, para. 10, available at: http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/IP/C/W163.DOC.

71 Ibid., para. 11.

72 TRIPS, Art. 27(3)(b).

73 See Correa, n. 58 above, at p. 70; Wissen, n. 17 above, at p. 895.

74 WTO Ministerial Declaration, Doha (Qatar), adopted 14 Nov. 2001, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, para. 19, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.pdf.

75 TRIPS, Art. 7 (emphasis added).

76 Helfer, L.R., Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Varieties: International Legal Regimes and Policy Options for National Governments (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2004), at p. 2.Google Scholar

77 TRIPS, Art. 1(1).

78 See Picciotto, n. 12 above, at p. 171.

79 Ibid., at pp. 170–1.

80 Ibid., at p. 171.

81 Helfer, n. 15 above, at p. 76.

82 Helfer, L.R., ‘Adjudicating Copyright Claims under the TRIPs Agreement: The Case for a European Human Rights Analogy’ (1998) 39(2) Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 357–441.Google Scholar

83 Ibid., at p. 425.

84 De Carvalho, N.P., The TRIPS Regime of Patent Rights (Kluwer Law International, 2010), at p. 332.Google Scholar

85 E.g., Margulies, R.L., ‘Protecting Biodiversity: Recognizing International Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Biological Resources’ (1992–93) 14 Michigan Journal of International Law, pp. 322–56Google Scholar, at 345–6; Gollin, M.A., ‘Using Intellectual Property to Improve Environmental Protection’ (1991) 4 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, pp. 193–235, at 216–7.Google Scholar

86 Drahos, P., The Injustice of Intellectual Property (World-Information Organization, 2003)Google Scholar, available at: http://world-information.org/wio/readme/992006691/1078414261.

87 van Caenegem, W., ‘“Philosophy of Intellectual Property” by Peter Drahos, Applied Legal Philosophy Series, Dartmouth, 1996, 257 Pages’ (1996) 8 Bond Law Review, pp. 217–23, at 219.Google Scholar

88 See, e.g., Macdonald, S., ‘Exploring the Hidden Costs of Patents’, in Drahos, P. & Mayne, R. (eds.), Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access and Development (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), pp. 13–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 34.

89 UNCTAD-ICTSD, n. 16 above, at p. 410. See also Correa, n. 58 above, at p. 72.

90 UNCTAD-ICTSD, ibid., at p. 410.

91 Ritchie, M., Dawkins, K. & Vallianatos, M., ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity: The Industrialization of Natural Resources and Traditional Knowledge’ (1995–96) 11 St John’s Journal of Legal Commentary, pp. 431–53Google Scholar, at 446.

92 Aoki, K. & Luvai, K., ‘Reclaiming “Common Heritage” Treatment in the International Plant Genetic Resources Regime Complex’ (2007) Michigan State Law Review, pp. 35–70Google Scholar, at 36. See also Ritchie, Dawkins & Vallianatos, ibid., at p. 446.

93 Correa, n. 66 above, at p. 36.

94 AstraZeneca, Aventis, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, and Novartis. See Janvry, De et al. ., Technological Change in Agriculture and Poverty Reduction: Concept Paper for the WDR on Poverty and Development 2000/2001 (World Bank, 2000), at p. 6Google Scholar, available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/WDR/Background/dejanvry.pdf.

95 Ibid.

96 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, ‘Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy’, Sept. 2002, at p. 65, available at: http://www.iprcommission.org/graphic/documents/final_report.htm.

97 Drahos, n. 86 above.

98 Shiva, V., ‘Monocultures, Monopolies, Myths and the Masculinization of Agriculture’ (1999) 42(2) Development, pp. 35–8, at 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

99 CBD, Art. 16(5).

100 CBD, Preamble.

101 Rio Declaration, n. 20 above, Principle 15.

102 Stokes, E.R., ‘Liberalising the Threshold of Precaution: Cockle Fishing, the Habitats Directive, and Evidence of a New Understanding of “Scientific Uncertainty”’ (2005) 7(3) Environmental Law Review, pp. 206–14, at 213.Google Scholar

103 ECJ, Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v. Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Waddenzee case) [2004] ECR I-7405, at para. 44.

104 Kiss, n. 37 above, at p. 10.

105 CBD, Preamble.

106 See, e.g., United Nations General Assembly, ‘The Future We Want’, A/66/288, 11 Sept. 2012, para. 13, available at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E.

107 Sand, n. 41 above, at p. 56.

108 TRIPS, Art. 30.

109 Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the WTO Panel of 17 Mar. 2000, WTO Doc. WT/DS114/R, at para. 7.69.

110 Ibid.; TRIPS, Art. 29.

111 UNCTAD-ICTSD, n. 16 above, at pp. 443–4.

112 Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents case, n. 109 above, at para. 7.20.

113 TRIPS, Art. 31(c), (g).

114 TRIPS, Art. 31(h).

115 Ritchie, Dawkins & Vallianatos, n. 91 above, at p. 441.

116 Ibid., at p. 446; Aoki & Luvai, n. 92 above.

117 Shiva, n. 98 above.

118 TRIPS, Art. 27(3)(b).

119 UNCTAD-ICTSD, n. 16 above, at p. 11.

120 TRIPS, Art. 7.

121 Yu, P.K., ‘The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPS Agreement’, in Correa, C.M. (ed.), Research Handbook on the Protection of Intellectual Property under WTO Rules: Intellectual Property in the WTO, Volume I (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010), pp. 146–91, at 160.Google Scholar

122 Ibid., at p. 183.

123 Ibid., at p. 186; Helfer, n. 76 above, at p. 85.

124 Yu, n. 121 above, at pp. 181–2.

125 See also the extensive debate on restricting patents over pharmaceutical products for the public good, e.g.: Kennedy, M., ‘When Will the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement Enter into Force?’ (2010) 13(2) Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 459–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gathii, J.E., ‘How Necessity may Preclude State Responsibility for Compulsory Licensing under the TRIPS Agreement’ (2006) 31 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, pp. 943–70Google Scholar; S.K. Verma, ‘The Doha Declaration and Access to Medicines by Countries Without Manufacturing Capacity’, in C.M. Correa, n. 121 above, pp. 623–72.

126 CBD, Art. 16(5).

127 CBD, Art. 1.

128 CBD, Art. 22 (emphasis added).

129 See Sections 4.1. and 4.2. above.

130 See Section 4.2. above.

131 See Sections 2.1. and 2.3. above. See Hertogen, A., ‘Sovereignty as Decisional Independence over Domestic Affairs: The Dispute over Aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System’ (2012) 1(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 281–301.Google Scholar

132 M. Bowman, ‘The Nature, Development and Philosophical Foundations of the Biodiversity Concept in International Law’, in Bowman & Redgwell, n. 16 above, pp. 5–31, at 12.

133 ICJ, Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 Sept. 1997, Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, ICJ Reports (1997), at p. 118, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf.

134 Stec, S., ‘Humanitarian Limits to Sovereignty: Common Concern and Common Heritage Approaches to Natural Resources and Environment’ (2010) 12(3) International Community Law Review, pp. 361–89, at 362.Google Scholar

135 Ibid., at pp. 370–1.

136 Ibid., at p. 364.

137 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, Declaration of President Bedjaoui, ICJ Reports (1996), at p. 270, para. 13, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7499.pdf.

138 Stec, n. 134 above, at p. 364.

139 Brown Weiss, E. (ed.), Environmental Change and International Law: New Challenges and Dimensions (United Nations University Press, 1992)Google Scholar, available at: http://library.northsouth.edu/Upload/Environmental.pdf.

140 UNEP, ‘The Meeting of the Group of Legal Experts to Examine the Concept of the Common Concern of Humankind in Relation to Global Environmental Issues’ (1990) 13 Revista IIDH, pp. 237–46Google Scholar, at 243–4, para.18.

141 Stec, n. 134 above, at p. 381.

142 Kotzé, L.J., ‘Arguing Global Environmental Constitutionalism’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 199–233, at 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

143 Hey, E., ‘Global Environmental Law: Common Interests and the (Re)constitution of Public Space’ (2009) 1 Iustum Aequum Salutare, pp. 41–57, at 48.Google Scholar

144 Ibid.

145 Kiss, n. 37 above, at p. 9.

146 Ibid.

147 ‘The Future We Want’, n. 106 above, para. 198.

148 CBD, Preamble.