The Human Rights Paradox: Intellectual Property Rights and Rights of Access to Science
The Human Rights Paradox: Intellectual Property Rights and Rights of Access to Science
复制标题
人权悖论：知识产权和获取科学的权利
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Plomer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Plomer
自上个世纪以来，人人享有科学利益的权利已载入人权文书，最初载于《世界人权宣言》第二十七条，后来载于《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第十五条。这一权利通常被视为“模糊不清”，其解释也被广泛忽视，直到《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》（TRIPS）下的国际知识产权制度的扩大促使法律的学术研究和国际组织寻求解决“人权悖论”的报告激增。据称，这一矛盾现象产生于人权文书中将个人对智力创造的权利与人人“分享科学进步及其惠益”的权利并列。“这篇文章利用档案文件表明，这一悖论是基于对人权和知识产权概念的混淆，与《世界人权宣言》起草者的目标的历史记录以及人权和知识产权的哲学和法律的基础都不一致。第27条的起草历史表明，来自南美社会主义国家的代表团支持法国的倡议，将作者和发明者的权利纳入对其智力创造的保护，而美国，英国和前盎格鲁-撒克逊殖民地则反对该提案。然而，在这些自相矛盾的政治联盟背后，在导致《世界人权宣言》第二十七条通过的基本哲学和道德理论方面存在着重要的共识。
The right of everyone to share in the benefits of science has been enshrined in human rights instruments since the last century, originally in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and subsequently in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The right was generally perceived as "obscure" and its interpretation widely neglected until the expansion of the international intellectual property (IP) regime under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) prompted an upsurge of legal scholarship and reports from international organizations seeking to address the "human rights paradox." The paradox is claimed to arise from the juxtaposition in human rights instruments of individual rights over intellectual creations against the rights of everyone to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits." This article draws on archived documentation to show that the paradox rests on a conceptual obfuscation of human rights and IP rights and is at odds both with the historical record on the aims of the drafters of the UDHR and the philosophical and legal foundations of human rights and IP rights. The drafting history of Article 27 shows that delegations from South American socialist countries backed the French initiative to include rights of authors and inventors to the protection of their intellectual creations, while the US, UK, and former Anglo-Saxon colonies opposed the proposal to the very end. Yet, behind the paradoxical political alignments there are important areas of convergence on the underlying philosophies and moral rationales which led to the adoption of Article 27 of the UDHR.