Abstract
The previous chapters have provided a thorough scrutiny of the Nagoya Protocol and relevant human rights standards with a primary focus on IPLCs. They have articulated the extent to which the human rights of IPLCs may be applicable in the ABS context of the Nagoya Protocol and how these two branches of international law may complement each other in realising their respective objectives, developing what is currently very minimal literature on the exact application of the principle of mutual supportiveness at the interface between international environmental law and human rights law. This chapter elucidates the value added as well as the limitations of the complementarity between the Nagoya Protocol and international human rights law via discussing the key findings in response to the research questions set out in Part I.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Rosalyn Higgins (1994).
- 2.
As Fitzmaurice has argued, “special features of the environment have resulted in particular solutions, applications or rules, but this does not mean in any way that environmental law is separate from the general principles of international law”, Malgosia A. Fitzmaurice (1994).
- 3.
Riccardo Pavoni (2010) and International Law Commission, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ (13 April 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 8.
- 4.
- 5.
Jacob Katz Cogan (2011).
- 6.
- 7.
See essays in Helmut Philipp Aust and Georg Nolte (eds) (2016).
References
Fitzmaurice MA (1994) International environmental law as a special field. Netherlands Yearbook Intern Law 25:183
Goodman R, Jinks D (2003) Measuring the effects of human rights treaties. Eur J Intern Law 14(1):172
Graham Dutfield (2004) Intellectual property, biogenetic resources and traditional knowledge (Earthscan), p 3
Hathaway OA (2007) Why do countries commit to human rights treaties? J Confl Resol 51(4):588
Helmut Philipp Aust, Georg Nolte (eds) (2016) The interpretation of international law by domestic courts: uniformity, diversity, convergence (Oxford University Press), p 1
Jacob Katz Cogan (2011) The regulatory turn in international law. Harvard Int Law J 52(2):321
Johanna Gibson (2016) Community resources: intellectual property, international trade, and protection of traditional knowledge (Routledge), p 185
Oona A. Hathaway (2002) Do human rights treaties make a difference? Yale Law J 111(8)
Pavoni R (2010) Mutual supportiveness as a principle of interpretation and law-making: a watershed for the ‘WTO-and-Competing-Regimes’ Debate? Eur J Int Law 21(3):661
Peter Drahos (2014) Intellectual property, indigenous people and their knowledge (Cambridge University Press), p 108
Rosalyn Higgins (1994) Problems and process: international law and how we use it (Clarendon Press), p 8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zheng, X. (2023). The Value Added of Complementarity Thesis and Its Limitations. In: The Complementarity Between the Nagoya Protocol and Human Rights. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3513-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3513-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-3512-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-3513-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)