DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Pending

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Pending (()lIl81P Patent Pending Property Rights Protection In International Agriculture BY ANWARUL HOQUE AND DAVID SKULLY Protection of plants and animals under TRiPs Article 27.3(b) Intellectual property protection provisions under the WTO threaten to pit developing countries against the developed world. Microorganisms Plant varieties shall Plants and animals are not excluded be provided may be excluded from patenting protection from patenting n the seven years since the Uruguay Round negotiations for the General Agreemem on Tariffs and Trade, stakeholders and observers have devoted much attemion to the agreemem gov­ Patenting Sui generis system Combination of I patent and Sui erning trade in goods. They have paid less attention to the World genens Trade Organization's Trade-Related Aspects ofInteUectual Property Rights Agreement (TRlPs). This agreement establishes a WTO-wide Adopt UPOV Develop own system to create and protect intellectual property rights (IPR), and system· system sets out a schedule for WTO members to use in reconciling their diverse intellectual property protection systems. "implicit in Article 27.3 (b) TRlPs obligates member coumries to pass laws governing intel­ lectual property rights (IPR) that conform to a set of minimum IPR Figure 1 - Intellectual Property Right protection for plants and animals in TRIPs standards. Developed-coumey WTO members were to comply by 1996, developing countries by 2000, and least-developed coun­ tries by 2005. tions and the COStS of tem porary monopolies li es at the core of Because most of its 143 members are developing and leas t­ most· intellectual property dispu tes. CreatOrs and holders of IPRs developed countries, the WTO has ye t to fully implemem the favo r stronger rights - longer duration and higher toyalties - standards. As compli ance deadlines approach, countries confront while the consumers and users tend to favor shorter duration and difficult and controversial issues of concern to agriculture and agri­ lower royalties. cultural trade. T hi s article discusses three IPR issues relevant to Each co un try has its own system for protecting intellectual agri culture: patents for plant varieties, access to and control of property, but effective enforcement stOps at national borders un less genetic resources, and geographical indications of food products. reciprocal enforcement agreements exist. Without reciprocity, an inventOr has no way to control unauthorized use of the invention Intellectual Property and International Law in foreign markets. Instead, the inventor must obtain property Intellectual property includes inventions, literary, and artistic right protection on a country-by-country basis. creations whose "owners" are given exclusive ri ghts through such International treaties to enforce intell ectual property rights legal devices as patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks. existed prior to the TRlPs. Efforts included the Paris Convention T he grant of exclusive rights for a limited period rewards inven­ for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), and the Berne tive activity. T he trade-off between the benefits of more inve n- Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Spring 2002 CHOICES 39 (1886). These original conventions have been amended, Advances in biotechnology have made breeding faster, and the number of signatories has grown through the and easier, so UPOV was amended in 1991 in part to addition of developed nations. Strengmen plant breeders' rights. Many developing coun­ TRIPs promises to expand the domain of these con­ tries argue mese protections are too suong, mat UPOV's ventions to global proportions, by requiring all WTO version of breeders' rights is essentially a patenr. member countries to protect, without discrimination UPOV Article 15, "Exceptions ro me Breeder's Right" the IPR of traded goods. The TRIPs provisions most is also a point of contention. Article 15(1) lists manda­ relevam ro agriculture are Article 27 for patents and rory exceptions which are similar ro me "fair use" clause plant variety protection, and Articles 22-24 for geo­ for material copyrighted in the U.S. - copying a pub­ graphical indications. lication for one's personal, non-commercial use does not infringe on me U.S. copyrighr. Sim- Patents and Plant Variety The United States ilarly protected seed may be used for Protection was the first research or non-commercial purposes. The United States was the first coun­ co untry to grant Article 15 (2) is an optional exemption cry to grant intellectual property rights permitting countries ro allow farmers ro ro plant breeders. The Plant Patent Act of intellectual prop­ save protected seed for future planting 1930 allowed patents for new plant vari­ erty ri ghts to "within reasonable limits and subject ro me eties propagated asexually - by graft­ plant breeders. safeguarding of me legitimate interests of ing, for example. Plants that can only the breeder." This vague qualification is propagate sexually require genetic material from a male viewed as shifting me benefit of the doubt from farm­ and female parenr. Thus, seeds - the product of sexu­ ers ro plant breeders. ally propagated plams-were denied patent protection UPOV's perceived advocacy of plam breeders' rights until passage of me Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970. has kept many advocates of farmers' privileges from Under plant variety protection, seed producers who joining. To implement TRIPs many developing coun­ develop new varieties of crops that are distinct, uni­ tries have adopted or proposed non-UPOV sui generis form, and stable are granted Plant Breeders' Rights, an systems, and other countries are devising systems mat alternative ro a patenr. Countries that award mese rights preserve farmers' privileges. formed me International Union for me Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) in 1961. The United States Genetic Prospecting: Entrepreneurship or joined UPOV in 1981, and me Plant Variety Protec­ Bio-Piracy? tion Act was amended in 1994 ro conform ro UPOV The genetic resources in plants are the raw materi­ Few WTO members are UPOV members, so TRIPs als for developing new plant varieties, either through requires the creation of new laws and new institutions crossbreeding or by biotechnological memods. The pro­ ro make me system effective. WTO members must pro­ genitors of most new varieties come from where the vide some form of plant variety protection, either by crop was first domesticated, as well as in isolated niches patents or, if this is objectionable, by a sui generis (of where plants have adapted. The original habi tat of wheat its own kind) system, or by bom. and barley is Turkey, that of maize is in Mexico, and Developing a sui generis plant variety protection sys­ that of potaroes, the Andes. Plant breeders search these tem requires expertise, time, and funds, and carries the regions for specimens that contain potemially useful risk of not being accepted by other nations. As a result, genetic characteristics. UPOV has devised a "Model Law on Plant Variety Pro­ This "bio-prospecting" is a productive activity, but tection" that fulfi lls TRIPs requirements. Many coun­ problems arise when there is a valuable discovery. Who tries, however, have been reluctant to join UPOV owns the discovery? The bio-prospector? Local inhabi­ because of its emphasis on breeders' rights (see deci­ tants who may have cultivated me variety for generations? sion tree in Figure 1). Is there some equitable division among the claimants? 40 CHOICES Spring 2002 Tnis is an exceptionally contentious iss ue. For exam­ Genetic resources ple, tne twigs of the neem, (Azadirachta indicaa) a tree grown in India, are used to clean teeth, its leaves kill fungi, and oil from its seeds repels insects. These uses are regarded as "traditional knowledge" in India, but several No compensation for access to genetic resources and Traditional knowledge non-Indian firms own patenrs for substances derived from neem. Several are pesticides, and one is a toompaste "South" "North" Genetic ...4!---------- ... Research & ingredient. Whatever the merits of tne argumenr, the Resources patents and TRlPs have led to mass demonstrations in India and to international legal disputes. $ The following quotation from an Indian submission to WTO's TRlPs Committee illustrates the "traditi·onal knowledge" view of me controversy: "Traditional knowl­ edge (TK) associated with biological resources is an intangible component of me resource itself. .. the ben­ 'Private' Seeds, phannaceuticals, pesti ~ides, etc. efits accruing from co mmercial use ofTK have to be Figure 2 - How critics of TRIPs view the issues: "Bio-Piracy" shared with me people responsible for creating, refining and using mis knowledge. Article 8(j) [of the Conven­ tion on Biological Diversity] provides for respecting, for germ plasm in me "global commons." These common protecting and rewarding me Knowledge, Innovations genetic reso urces are privatized through research and and Practices (KIP) oflocal communities." development. The seeds of new varieties are protected by Article 27 ofTRlPs appears to favor bio-prospectors intellectual property rights and are sold for profit in both because it promotes intellectual property rights. In this Norm and Soum. Critics label mis process "bio-piracy." view, genetic resources exist in nature and researchers (bio­ A coalition of seed industry players has proposed prospectors) develop "wild" or "native" germ plasm into conrributing royalties from seed sales to a Multilateral commercially viable varieties. Thus, a firm in one coun­ Fund for redistributing benefits to donor nations vi a try can claim excl usive rights to the use of a gene directed research. The seed industry, and me scientific extracted from ge rm plasm found in another counrry. community in ge neral, hopes to preserve open access The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to genetic material for research purposes. provides an alternative view. It proclaims planr Actions under the auspices of the U.N. Food and germplasm to be the "common heritage of mankind," Agriculture Organization may help resolve mis conflict.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michigan's Natural Resources and Environment
    Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environment: A Citizen’s Guide Dear Friend: Michigan is home to an abundance of high quality natural resources which help support a strong economy and offer a wide range of recreational opportunities to all its citizens. The state’s water resources are tremendous, including over 35,000 inland lakes and ponds, more than 49,000 miles of rivers and streams, and over 3,000 miles of coastline on the Great Lakes. Our land resources are also impressive, with fertile soils for agriculture, expansive forest and timberlands, large reserves of oil and gas, and many economically important mineral deposits. During the state’s early years, many of our natural resources were damaged and depleted by reckless exploitation. That trend has been reversed with a series of programs to improve and protect our resources and environment. The Legislature has been particularly active since the 1960s, enacting and support- ing many state programs to manage important recreational resources, control pollution, and protect environmental quality. This Citizen’s Guide provides general information concerning Michigan’s natural resources and the state’s efforts to protect the environment. This Guide explores nine natural resource topics and seven environmental topics of interest to the Legislature and Michigan’s citizens. Each topic is explored with an introduction, brief explanation of benefits or impacts, statement of current problems (if any), and an outline of how the state manages the resource or protects the environ- ment. Most importantly, each section highlights what citizens can do to enjoy and protect Michigan’s natural resources and environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 47 Mines and Mining Chapter 7 Mineral Rights In
    TITLE 47 MINES AND MINING CHAPTER 7 MINERAL RIGHTS IN STATE LANDS 47-701. RESERVATION OF MINERAL DEPOSITS TO STATE -- TERMS DEFINED. (1) The terms "mineral lands," "mineral," "mineral deposits," "deposit," and "mineral right," as used in this chapter, and amendments thereto shall be construed to mean and include all coal, oil, oil shale, gas, phosphate, sodium, asbestos, gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, antimony, geothermal resources, salable minerals, and all other mineral lands, minerals or deposits of minerals of whatsoever kind or character. (2) Such deposits in lands belonging to the state are hereby reserved to the state and are reserved from sale except upon a rental and royalty basis and except when the surface estate is identified by the state board of land commissioners as having the potential highest and best use for development purposes, such as residential, commercial or industrial purposes. Except for the aforementioned purposes, the purchaser of all other state land shall acquire no right, title or interest in or to such deposits, and the right of such purchaser shall be subject to the reservation of all mineral deposits and to the conditions and limitations prescribed by law providing for the state and persons authorized by it to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits and to occupy and use so much of the surface of said land as may be required for all purposes reasonably incident to the mining and removal of such deposits therefrom. (3) An exchange of state land consummated by the board under author- ity of section 58-138, Idaho Code, shall not be considered a sale of state lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Rights to Human Rights: Mobilising Resources from the Extractive Industries for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
    Mineral rights to human rights: mobilising resources from the Extractive Industries for water, sanitation and hygiene Case Study: Madagascar October 2018 Case Study : Madagascar TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 4 2. SCOPE OF THE WORK .................................................................................. 4 3. KEY CHALLENGES ........................................................................................ 5 3.1. Data availability and quality ..................................................................... 5 3.2. Attribution and impact of Extractive Industry contributions ...................... 5 4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 6 4.1. Countries for study .................................................................................. 6 4.2. Methodology ............................................................................................ 6 5. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ON THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES .......... 7 5.1. Overview of Madagascar and the Extractive Industries (EI) .................... 7 5.2. Reforms undertaken to increase transparency ...................................... 10 5.3. Institutional and legal framework for the EI ............................................ 11 5.4. Contribution of the EI to the economy ................................................... 19 5.5. Collection and distribution of revenues from the EI ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability in the Minerals Industry: Seeking a Consensus on Its Meaning
    sustainability Review Sustainability in the Minerals Industry: Seeking a Consensus on Its Meaning Juliana Segura-Salazar * ID and Luís Marcelo Tavares Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro—COPPE/UFRJ, Cx. Postal 68505, CEP 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +55-21-2290-1544 (ext. 237/238) Received: 23 February 2018; Accepted: 24 April 2018; Published: 4 May 2018 Abstract: Sustainability science has received progressively greater attention worldwide, given the growing environmental concerns and socioeconomic inequity, both largely resulting from a prevailing global economic model that has prioritized profits. It is now widely recognized that mankind needs to adopt measures to change the currently unsustainable production and consumption patterns. The minerals industry plays a fundamental role in this context, having received attention through various initiatives over the last decades. Several of these have been, however, questioned in practice. Indeed, a consensus on the implications of sustainability in the minerals industry has not yet been reached. The present work aims to deepen the discussion on how the mineral sector can improve its sustainability. An exhaustive literature review of peer-reviewed academic articles published on the topic in English over the last 25 years, as well as complementary references, has been carried out. From this, it became clear that there is a need to build a better definition of sustainability for the mineral sector, which has been proposed here from a more holistic viewpoint. Finally, and in light of this new perspective, several of the trade-offs and synergies related to sustainability of the minerals industry are discussed in a cross-sectional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Interests on Your Land a Guide for Landowners in Indiana and Illinois
    Mineral Interests on Your Land A Guide for Landowners in Indiana and Illinois Contents Introduction ---------------------------------------------------- 2 Locating Your Documents ---------------------------------- 2 Mineral Leases ---------------------------------------------- 4 1) Voluntary Agreement ---------------------------- 4 2) Termination by Express Terms ---------------------- 5 3) Termination for Failure to Act Reasonably ---- 6 4) Abandonment ---------------------------------------- 8 5) Termination by Statute ---------------------------- 8 6) Information on Terminated Leases ---------------- 9 Severed Mineral Estates ---------------------------------- 10 1) Voluntary Agreement ---------------------------- 10 2) Adverse Possession ---------------------------------- 11 3) Indiana Mineral Lapse Act ---------------------- 12 4) Illinois Severed Mineral Interest Act ---------- 13 Appendices ---------------------------------------------------- 15 A) Release of Lease ---------------------------------- 15 B) Written Request for Voiding Lease ---------------- 16 C) Release of Record Notice ---------------------------- 18 D) Quitclaim Deed ---------------------------------------- 19 E) Mineral Lapse Act Affidavit ---------------------- 20 F) Severed Mineral Interest Act Complaint ---------- 22 G) Severed Mineral Interest Act Motion ---------- 24 1 Introduction This manual is meant to serve as a resource for landowners in Illinois and Indiana who wish to place their land under conservation easement but are concerned about preexisting
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Dormant Mineral Interests Act
    UNIFORM DORMANT MINERAL INTERESTS ACT drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL TE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS NINETY-FIFTH YEAR IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS August 1-8, 1986 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Approved by the American Bar Association New Orleans, Louisiana, February 16, 1987 The Conference changed the designation of the Dormant Mineral Interests Act from Uniform to Model as approved by the Executive Committee on January 17, 1999. UNIFORM DORMANT MINERAL INTERESTS ACT The Committee that acted for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in preparing the Uniform Dormant Mineral Interests Act was as follows: W. JOEL BLASS, P.O. Box 160, Gulfport, MS 39501, Chairman JOHN H. DeMOULLY, Law Revision Commission, Suite D-2, 4000, Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Drafting Liaison OWEN L. ANDERSON, University of North Dakota, School of Law, Grand Forks, ND 58202 RICHARD J. MACY, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002 JOSHUA M. MORSE, III, P.O. Box 11240, Tallahassee, FL 32302 GLEE S. SMITH, P.O. Box 360, Larned, KS 67550 NATHANIEL STERLING, Law Revision Commission, Suite D-2, 4000, Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Reporter PHILLIP CARROLL, 120 East Fourth Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, President (Member Ex Officio) WILLIAM J. PIERCE, University of Michigan, School of Law, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, Executive Director ROBERT H. CORNELL, 25th Floor, 50 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Chairman, Division E (Member Ex Officio) Review Committee EUGENE F. MOONEY, 209 Ridgeway Road, Lexington, KY 40502, Chairman HENRY M.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining on Federal Lands: Hardrock Minerals
    Order Code RL33908 Mining on Federal Lands: Hardrock Minerals Updated April 30, 2008 Marc Humphries Analyst in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Mining on Federal Lands: Hardrock Minerals Summary Mining of hardrock minerals on federal lands is governed primarily by the General Mining Law of 1872. The law grants free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in public domain lands, and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or “locate”) a claim on that deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the minerals and may be “patented” to convey full title to the claimant. A continuing issue is whether this law should be reformed, and if so, how to balance mineral development with competing land uses. The right to enter the public domain and freely prospect for and develop minerals is the feature of the claim-patent system that draws the most vigorous support from the mining industry. Critics consider the claim-patent system a giveaway of publicly owned resources because of the small amounts paid to maintain a claim and to obtain a patent. Congress, however, has imposed a moratorium on mining claim patents through the annual Interior spending bill since FY1995. The lack of direct statutory authority for environmental protection under the Mining Law of 1872 is another major issue that has spurred reform proposals. Many Mining Law supporters contend that other current laws provide adequate environmental protection. Critics, however, argue that these general environmental requirements are not adequate to assure reclamation of mined areas. Broad-based legislation to reform the General Mining Law of 1872, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 (H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Vs. Government Ownership of Natural Resources: Evidence from the Bakken*
    PRIVATE VS. GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES: EVIDENCE FROM THE BAKKEN* Bryan Leonard† and Dominic Parker‡ August 2018 Abstract: Land ownership in the United States extends below ground, whereas most governments retain subsurface ownership. Which system generates greater resource use? We exploit a natural experiment to show the answer depends on land fragmentation. Historical policies created a mosaic of government, private, and co-owned parcels on the Ft. Berthold Indian reservation above the Bakken shale. Studying the 2005-2015 fracking boom, we find that private ownership generated more oil production than government ownership unless parcels were smaller than 5 acres (private) or 63 acres (co-owned). Scattered government holdings within private areas further reduced production. We estimate the implied gains from consolidation. Key words: transaction costs, anticommons, land fragmentation, property rights, subsurface ownership, oil, resource booms JEL Codes: O13, Q32, Q33, D23, H82, K11 * For helpful comments we thank Michael Alexeev, Lee Alston, Terry Anderson, Fernando Aragón, Dan Benjamin, Christopher Costello, Olivier Deschênes, Christian Dippel, Donna Feir, Tim Fitzgerald, Jane Friesen, Gary Libecap, Dean Lueck, Kyle Meng, Paulina Oliva, Shawn Regan, Alex Rothenberg, Randy Rucker, Richard Startz, and seminar participants at Arizona State U., Stanford U. (Hoover Economic Policy Talk), U. of Illinois, U. of Hawaii, UC-Riverside, Indiana U., and the Property and Environment Research Center. We also thank attendees of conference and workshop sessions hosted by Simon Fraser U., SIOE, UC Santa Barbara, WEAI, AERE, and the Midwest International Development Conference. We are grateful to Matt Kelly, an attorney of Tarlow and Stonecipher PLLC for helpful discussions about oil and gas leasing on the Bakken and to Crow Tribal Chairman Alvin Not Afraid Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biodiversity Convention, Intellectual Property Rights, and Ownership of Genetic Resources
    THE BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND OWNERSHIP OF GENETIC RESOURCES: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS PREPARED FOR: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY DIRECTORATE INDUSTRY CANADA JANUARY, 1996 BARBARA LAINE KAGEDAN, CONSULTANT MEMBER, ONTARIO AND NEW YORK BARS 40 GENEVA STREET OTTAWA, ONTARIO K1Y 3N7 TEL.: (613) 724-3214 FAX: (613) 724-5860 E-MAIL: [email protected] This study was funded by the Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Industry Canada. The study represents the opinions of the author who is solely responsible for its contents. It does not necessarily represent government policy. THE BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND OWNERSHIP OF GENETIC RESOURCES: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... i ACRONYMS USED THROUGHOUT THE STUDY ............................. xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................1 1.1 Background to the Review of International Developments ..............1 1.2 Methodology ..................................................3 1.3 Analytical Framework ...........................................4 2.0 ANALYSIS OF THE BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION: BIOTECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPRs) ........................7 2.1 History and General Scope of the Biodiversity Convention .............8 2.2 The provisions concerning intellectual property rights ................10 2.2.1 Intellectual property rights on life forms ........................11 2.2.2 From common heritage
    [Show full text]
  • MINING in NATIONAL FORESTS Protection of Surface Resources 1
    MINING IN NATIONAL FORESTS Protection of Surface Resources 1 Mineral Resources of the National Forest System The 192-million-acre National Forest System is an important part of the Nation’s resource base. As directed by the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forests are managed by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service for continuous production of their renewable resources – timber, clean water, wildlife habitat, forage for livestock and outdoor recreation. Although not renewable, minerals are also important resources of the National Forests. In fact, they are vital to the Nation’s welfare. By accident of category and geology, the National Forests contain much of the country’s remaining stores of mineral – prime examples being the National Forests of the Rocky Mountains, the Basin and Range Province, the Cascade-Sierra Nevada Ranges, the Alaska Coast range, and the States of Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Less known by apparently good mineral potential exists in the southern and eastern National Forests. Geologically, National Forest System lands contain some of the most favorable host rocks for mineral deposits. Approximately 6.5 million acres are known to be underlain by coal. Approximately 45 million acres or one-quarter of National Forest System lands have potential for oil and gas, while about 300,000 acres within the Pacific Coast and Great Basin States have potential for geothermal resource development. Within the past few years, the energy shortage in this country has reminded us that the Nation’s mineral resources are limited. As with oil supplies, there will undoubtedly be tightening of world supplies of minerals.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area
    ISBA/23/LTC/CRP.3* 8 August 2017 English only Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area Preamble In accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, Whereas the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its Resources, are the common heritage of mankind, And whereas the Exploitation thereof shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the International Seabed Authority acts, in accordance with Part XI of the Convention and the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. The objective of this set of Regulations is to provide for the Exploitation of the Resources of the Area. Part I Introduction Draft Regulation 1 Use of terms and scope 1. Terms used in these Regulations shall have the same meaning as those in the Convention. 2. In accordance with the Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement and Part XI of the Convention shall be interpreted and applied together as a single instrument. These Regulations and references in these Regulations to the Convention are to be interpreted and applied accordingly. 3. Terms and phrases used in these Regulations shall be defined for the purposes of these Regulations as set out in Schedule 1. 4. These Regulations shall not in any way affect the freedom of scientific research, pursuant to Article 87 of the Convention, or the right to conduct marine scientific research in the Area pursuant to Articles 143 and 256 of the Convention.
    [Show full text]
  • Rights and Conflicts Among Surface Owners, Mineral Owners, and Lessees in Arkansas: Comparing Sticks in the Bundle
    Rights and Conflicts Among Surface Owners, Mineral Owners, and Lessees in Arkansas: Comparing Sticks in the Bundle G. Alan Perkins∗ I. INTRODUCTION The classic description of real property as a “bundle of sticks” or a “bundle of rights” is particularly useful in the context of oil and gas development. While legal scholars disagree about the philosophical and intellectual propriety of this description, its use is widespread. From a practitioner’s perspective, the “bundle of sticks” metaphor is useful to describe the multi-faceted legal relationships among owners of separate—and often competing—rights or interests in the same tract, which frequently occurs in oil and gas development. Even with modern technological advances, production of oil and gas resources requires at least some degree of land surface use. Everyone should agree with this simple statement, but the inherent conflict it represents can prompt litigation between a surface owner and a mineral owner or operator who seeks to produce oil and gas. Several issues arise when oil and gas operations interfere with surface uses or otherwise damage the surface. Can the surface owner prohibit or restrict the operator’s surface use? Is the surface owner entitled to damage payments? If so, how are damages determined and when are payments due? When the sticks from the bundle have been separated because the mineral estate has been severed from the surface, problems can intensify. The surface owner may face the “predicament and frustration” of intrusion and damage yet reap no economic benefit from oil and gas development.1 This ∗ Member, PPGMR Law, PLLC, Little Rock, Arkansas; Adjunct Professor, Oil and Gas Law, UALR William H.
    [Show full text]