Y_\
*
I.
II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
III.
IV.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
V.
* (HY-2014 ).
**
: 2016. 4. 30. / : 2016. 5. 26. / : 2016. 5. 30.
Y_]
I.
1) 2014
10 12 .2) 1992
20 2010 4
,
5 1997 2005
.
,
.3)
( ) ( )
.
. (ABS)
. “ ”
,
.
. , , ,
, ,
,
1) Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
http://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf.
2) 2016 4 50 70 .
https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/default.shtml.
3) ( 1), 1 .
Y_^
.
.
.
, .
. 2014 10 23
( ( )
.
II.
.
.
.
3
(ABS) .
. 3 .
Y__
( 3 ) ‘ (genetic resources)’ ‘
(traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources)’
. 3
.
.
, , ,
(derivative) .
, , .
, ?
‘ (utilization)’
, .
( ) ( , DNA) ,
( ,
RNA, , )
( , , , ) .4)
‘ ’
.5)
,
.6)
4) Elisa Morgera et al., Unraveling the Nagoya Protocol, Brill, 2014, p.65.
5) ‘ (derivative)’ “
”
. ( 1), 2 (e).
6) Elisa Morgera et al.( 4), p.66; , “ ”,
68 , 2013. 3, 459 .
Y_`
2 . ‘ ’7) ‘
’8) ,
‘ ’ . 3
‘ ’ ‘ ’
9) ,
‘ ’ ,
‘ ’
, ‘ ’
, 5
.10)
. ( 3 )
.
.
7) ‘ (Biotechnology)’ “
, ,
” . ( 1), 2 (d).
8) ‘ (Utilization of Genetic Resources)’ “ 2
, /
” . Id. 2 (c).
‘ (utilization)’ ,
.
9) 2 ‘ ’ “ ”
, ‘ (genetic material)’ “ , ,
, ” .
10) Thomas Greiber et al., An Explanatory Guide to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 83, 2012, p.67.
Y`W
, .
.
.
. 5 1
.
.11)
. 3 “ 15
” ,
. ,
.12)
15
,13) ( , , , )
11) Id. p.73.
12) , , , 2013, 52 .
13) 15 1 “
” .
Y`X
.
.
. ,14)
.
.
(Prior Informed Consent: PIC) . “
, ,
,
.”15)
“ ”
.
, . ,
14) (ABNJ)
2006 (Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group)
.
. ,
. 2011 . Tullio Scovazzi,
“Open Questions on the Exploitation of Genetic Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction”, Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 2013. p.119, p.143.
15) ( 1), 6 1 .
Y`Y
.16)
“ ”, “
”
,
.17)
. ,
.18) .19)
,
, .20)
.21)
“ 15 3 7 ,
” .22)
16) ( 12), 58 .
17) ( ), 58 .
18) ( 1), 6 3 .
19) Id. 3 (a)~(f).
20) Id. 3 (c)~(f).
21) Id. 3 (e).
Y`Z
. ( ) ,
‘ ’ .
. 15 7
.
‘ (subsequent application) (commercialization)’
.
“ ”
. .
‘ ’ .
“(
) ” .
“ ”
.
. .
‘ (fair and equitable)’
. ‘ ’ ,
. ,
.
22) Id. 5 1 .
Y`[
‘ ’
.23) “ ( )
( )” .
.24)
.25)
( 5 1 )
(Mutually Agreed Terms: MATs)
. ( 15
4 ). “ ”
. (
, , )
. .26)
.27)
23) Id.
24) ‘ ’
( 15 3 ).
. ,
, .
. , “ ”,
13 4 , , 2011. 12, 608 609 .
25) ( 12), 55 .
26)
. ,
.
. Elisa Morgera et al.( 4), p.15.
Y`\
.
, ,
. ,
, ,
.
. , , , ,
,28)
, .29)
.
( 7
)30) ( 5 5 , 6 2 ) .
‘ ’
.
.
. ,
27) Id. p.131.
28) Thomas Greiber et al.( 10), p.86.
29) ,
. ; ;
, 3 ; ,
. ( 1), 6 3 (g).
30)
, 8 (j)
. Thomas Greiber et al.(
10), p.27.
Y`]
.
, .
. ,
, (
) 3 ,
( , )
.31) ,
( 5 5 ), ‘ ’
.
.
.
.
.
, .
,
.
( ,
, ), ,
.
31) Elisa Morgera et al.( 4), p.175.
Y`^
10
.
.32)
.33)
3 :
, ,34)
, .
. ,
, ,
,
. 11 ( )
( ,
, ).35)
10 “ ”
,
.36)
.
32)
(catch-all) . Thomas Greiber et al.( 10), p.26.
33) Elisa Morgera et al.( 4), p.197.
34) “ 2 (in situ)
” “
” .
( 1), 11 .
35) Elisa Morgera et al.( 4), p.201.
36) 10
“ ”
. Elisa Morgera et al.( ), p.198.
Y`_
, ( , ,
), ,
.
, “ ”
, ( ) ,
.
III.
,
. .
. ,
.
,
. .
( )
,
.
2014 10 23
( ) .
, .
Y``
.
.
‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’
( 2 ).
. ‘ ’
, ‘ ’ .37)
, ,
, ,
,
, ( 4
). ,
( 1 ), ,
( 2 ), .
( 7 ),
, , ,
, , ,
( 8 ).
9 11 .
, ,
‘ ’ ( 9 1 ),
37) ‘ ’ “ ,
( “ ” ) ” ( 2
4 ).
ZWW
, (
)
( 4 ).
. ,
,
( 11 ). ,
,
( 14 ).
( 15 ).
( 17 ), ( 18 ),
( 19 ), ( 20 ) .
IV.
.
.
. .
.
.
ZWX
.
.
.
.
,
. , ,
,
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. ,
, ,
,
ZWY .
. 2014 10 23
( ) .
, , 19
.
, .
. , 3
, .
.
.
. ,
.
.
. ( ), (
,
), ( , , , ), ( , ),
ZWZ
( , )
. · .
.
.
, .
.38) , ,
, (utilization)
,39) ( ,
) . ,
. .
, ( )
, .
.
.
.
38) 2, , , 2015.
11, 157 .
39) ‘ (utilization)’
, .
ZW[
“ ” ,
.
. ,
.
. .
. ,
, .
. ,
( ),
( ), ( , , , ), (
, , , )
.40)
.41) ( ,
)
. ( )
( 14 1 ),
,
‘ ’ ( 9 1 ),
40) Elisa Morgera et al.( 4), p.145.
41) ( 12), 61 . ( ) ,
, , ,
, ( 10 ).
ZW\
. (
11 2 ),42)
( · 8
1 ), ( 18 1 ),
( ·
11 1 ), ( 22 1 )
.
‘ ’
.43)
.
.
. (
) ( ) .
, .
,
, ( 9
4 ). “ ”
. .
42) ,
‘ ’ ( 13 ).
43) 2( 38), 160 .
ZW]
, ,
, .44)
.45)
. ,
( , · , · , ·
· , ), , ,
.
. 5 1
‘ ’ .
‘ ’
, ‘ ’ .
,
, .
.
.
. , , .
( ,
44) ( 1), 6 3 (c)~(f).
45) Id. 3 (e).
ZW^
, ),
, ,
,
.
.
.
.
. ,
, 3 ,
.46)
. , ,
(
, ) .
.
. .
,
. ( )
( 11 1 ).
(National focal Point) (Competent
Natioanal Authority) . ,
46) ( 1), 6 3 (g).
ZW_
,
, ,
, .47)
.
,
.48)
,
( )
.
, . “ (as
applicable)”
. .49)
, , ,
.
.
.
, , .50)
47) Id. 13 1 .
48) Id. 2 .
49) Id. 13 3 .
50) ( )
( 7 ), ,
, ( 8 ).
ZW`
, 14 (Access and Benefit
-Sharing Clearing-House: ABSCH) .51)
.
.
,52) ,
. ,
.
(Checkpoint) ,
, ,53) ,
.54) ,
,
,
.55) ,
, , .
, , ,
, ,
,
51) ( 1), 14 .
52)
.
53) (TRIPs ) 27
,
. TRIPs 27 , ,
.
. ( 12), 69 .
TRIPs 2, “
”, , 13 4 , 2014, 168
170 .
54) ( 1), 17 1 (a)(i).
55) Id. (a)(ii).
ZXW
, ,
. ( )
.
,
.
15 16
. , “
,
.”56)
. . ,
.57) 15 1
15 1
.
.58) .59)
56) Id. 15 1 . 57) Id. 2 .
58) Id. 3 . , “
”, 34 3 , 2012, 302
. 59) Id. 16 .
ZXX
,
.60) ,
: ;
; .61)
( 15 ) ,
.
. ,
,
. (
), 62)
.
.
( , , , , ),
, 3 ,
60)
. ( 6), 465 .
61) ( 1), 17 1 .
62) , , ,
,
.
ZXY
.
( ) ,
.
V.
2010 10 29 ,
, .
. .
.
,
, .
. .
.
. , , ,
, .
,
.
ZXZ
.
. , .
. , ,
. ( ) ( )
.
. ,
.
. , ,
.
.
. 19
( ) .
.
.
, 19
. 20
.
ZX[
2, “ ”,
, 13 4 , 2014.
, “ ”,
13 4 , , 2011. 12.
, “ ”, 68 ,
2013. 3.
, , , 2013.
2, ,
, 2015. 11.
, “
”, 34 3 , 2012.,
Thomas Greiber et al., An Explanatory Guide to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 83, 2012.
Elisa Morgera et al., Unraveling the Nagoya Protocol, Brill, 2014.
Tullio Scovazzi, “Open Questions on the Exploitation of Genetic Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction”, Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 2013.
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
http://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf.
https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/default.shtml.
ZX\
< >
2010 10 29 ,
,
(Nagoya Protocol) .
. .
.
.
. , , ,
, .
,
.
. , ,
. ( ) ( )
.
. ,
.
. , ,
.
.
ZX]
. 19
( )
. .
.
, 19
. ,
.
ZX^
Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing Conservation of Biological Diversity: Future Negotiation Issues and Domestic
Legislative Measure to Implement Nagoya Protocol
1)Kim, Hong-kyun*
In October 29th, 2010, a treaty called the Nagoya Protocol was concluded. The treaty deals with equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources which is one of the objectives that are established in the Biodiversity Convention. Until recently, the access to genetic resources and benefit sharing issues have been managed carelessly. However, the initiation of the Nagoya Protocol has arranged a new turning point. It has specified the obligation of the Parties for their access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of such resources(ABS) by elucidating the third core objective of the Biodiversity Convention: equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
In the perspective of a country being relatively more recognized as a user of genetic resources rather than a provider, the ratification of the treaty could likely be considered a burden for Korea. Further legislative, administrative and policy measures have to be adopted in order to provide equitable sharing of benefits for the use of genetic resources. If the treaty enters into effect, there are predictions that there would be oppositions in industries such as in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food and biotechnology. However, since the conservation of biodiversity is being widely supported by the international society and the protocol was taken effect recently, we have to be a certain stand in action.
The obligatory provisions of the Nagoya Protocol is insufficiently specific which makes it hard to be directly applied domestically. For this reason, the Parties, whether a user or a provider, have to develop legislative, administrative and policy measures to implement the protocol. The Parties are provided with a large extent
* Professor, School of Law Hanyang University
ZX_
:
of discretion for their choosing among the three measures. However, among those, the legislative measure, which includes making related law, is considered to be most efficient in terms of the securing legal stability and transparency.
The domestic legislative measure has to provide a base for the guarantee of ABS. The system has to be precise, transparent and efficient in terms of procedures and contents. Prior informed consent(PIC) and mutually agreed terms(MATs) could be considered a key measure to guarantee ABS. However, ABS could act as a pressure for the concerned Parties. For this reason, a elaborate system has to be designed in order to lessen the burden for users of the genetic resources and to fully implement the protocol. In this perspective, the bill Act on Access to and Benefit-Sharing of Genetic Resources by the 19th National Assembly is considered to be unsatisfactory. It seems that the bill was made in haste; merely to ratify the Nagoya Protocol before one’s eyes. Even, it could be explained to have drifted due to the egoistic involved authorities and the indifferent and irresponsible political circles. There is a high possibility in the near future when a ratification and a domestic legislative measure is in need. Undoubtedly, similar legislative bills like the bill Act on Access to and Benefit-Sharing of Genetic Resources could become rampant at this time. At this moment, a solution to both conserve biodiversity and promote our nation’s benefit has to be ruminated.
