THE PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY AND TRADITIONAL KNWOLEDGE: A COMPARATIVE LAW METHODOLOGY PROPOSAL

THE PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY AND TRADITIONAL KNWOLEDGE: A COMPARATIVE LAW METHODOLOGY PROPOSAL

Biodiversity and traditional knowledge are lacking of a solid legal status. International Law and domestic legislations have mistakenly attempted to regulate this issue, since they have usually ignored the reality and social dimensions herein. This is therefore a proposal about how to grapple with this issue using a comparative and pluralist approach. However, this process entails the reflection and the justifications of the choices within a comparative study. Those dynamics imply to leave the strict positivism so as to utilize the interdisciplinary approach of law. An interdisciplinary approach paves the way for wider perspectives within a law research project and of course, in terms of Canadian and Colombian jurisdictions of «Biodiversity and traditional knowledge». Also, the methodology applied through this article was based upon recommendations of law epistemologists where 4 stages were found: the reflection, the context, the justification of choices and the structure. This structure implies two important theoretical frameworks: positivism and pluralism.

1. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS/ CONVENCIONES INTERNACIONALES.
2. Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, 1760 UNTS 79.
3. INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS/DOCUMENTOS INTERNACIONALES.
4. World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Knowledge operational terms and definitions, WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/9 (2002), 3rd Sess, on line: http:/ /www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_3/wipo_grtkf_ic_3_9.pdf
5. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS/ DOCUMENTOS GUVERNAMENTALES. «Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement», (20 November 2008), online: .
6. Government of Canada, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. «Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency - Policy and Guidance – Glossary», (14 January 2009), online: <http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B7CA7139-1&offset=3>.
7. SECONDARY MATERIAL: THESES/ FUENTES SECUNDARIAS: TESIS.
8. Maris, Virginie. La protection de la biodiversité?: entre science, éthique et politique (doc-toral thesis, Faculty of Philosophy : Université de Montréal, 2006).
9. SECONDARY MATERIAL: BOOKS/ FUENTES SECUNDARIAS: LIBROS
10. ADAMS, M. & BOMHOFF, J. Practice and theory in comparative law (Cambridge?; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
11. ANTONS, CHRISTOPH & WETTBEWERBS-und Steuerrecht Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum. Traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and intellectual property law in the Asia-Pacific region (Austin Tex: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business?; Alphen Aan Den Rijn, 2009).
12. BOGDAN, M. Concise introduction to comparative law (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2013).
13. BRAHY, N. The property regime of biodiversity and traditional knowledge?: institutions for conservation and innovation (Bruxelles: Larcier, 2008).
14. BUBELA, T. & GOLD, E. Genetic resources and traditional knowledge?: case studies and conflicting interests (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2012).
15. COTTIER, T. & BIBER-KLEMM, S. Rights to plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge?: basic issues and perspectives (Oxfordshire?; Cambridge, MA: CABI Pub, 2006).
16. GADAMER, HANS-G.. Vérité et méthode : les grandes lignes d’une herméneutique philosophique (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1996).
17. INGLIS, J., et al. Traditional ecological knowledge?: concepts and cases (Ottawa, Ont: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, 1993).
18. KELSEN, H. Théorie pure du droit, transl. by Henri Thévenaz (Boudry-Neufchatel: Éditions de la Baconnière, 1953 et 1988).
19. MENSKI, W. Comparative law in a global context?: the legal systems of Asia and Africa, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
20. PONTHOREAU, M. Droit(s) constitutionnel(s) comparé(s) (Paris: Economica, 2010).
21. RILES, A. Rethinking the masters of comparative law (Oxford?; Portland, Or: Hart Pub, 2001).
22. SECONDARY MATERIALS: COLLECTION OF ESSAYS/ OBRAS COLECTIVAS
23. BERKES, F, CARL F. & MADHAV G. «Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity, Resilience and Sustainability» in C A Perrings et al, eds, Biodiversity Conservation (Springer Netherlands, 1995).
24. COTTERRELL, R. «Seeking Similarity, appreciating difference: Comparative Law and Communities» in Andrew Harding and Esin Örücü, Comparative Law in the 21st Century (London: Kluwer Law International, 2002).
25. MATHIEU-IZORCHE, M. «Approches épistémologiques de la comparaison des droits» in Pierre Legrand. Comparer les droits, résolument (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2009).
26. OTIS, G. «Les figures de la théorie pluraliste dans la recherche juridique» in Ghislain Otis. Méthodologie du pluralisme juridique (Paris: Éditions Karthala, 2012).
27. SAMUEL, G. «Epistemology and Comparative Law: Contributions from the Sciences and Social Sciences» in Mark Van Hoecke, Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (Oxford?; Portland, Or: Hart Pub, 2004) 35 at 69.
28. VAN DE KERCHOVE, M. «La doctrine du sens claire des textes et la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation de Belgique» in Michel van Kerchove, l’Interprétation en droit approche pluridisciplinaire (Brussels: Publications des Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, 1978).
29. SECONDARY MATERIALS: ARTICLES/ ARTÍCULOS
30. COOMBE, ROSEMARY J. «Recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Traditional Knowledge in International Law» (2001) 14 St Thomas L Rev
31. COSSMAN, B. «Turning the Gaze Back on Itself: Comparative Law, Feminist Legal Studies, and the Postcolonial Project» (1997) 1997 Utah Law Review.
32. GIBSON, J. Traditional Knowledge and the International Context for Protection, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1137536 (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network).
33. JALUZOT, B. «Méthodologie du droit comparé bilan et prospective » (2005) 2005 R.I.D.C.
34. KILANI, M. «Découverte et invention de l’autre dans le discours anthropologique» (1992) Cahiers de l’ISL 2.
35. KEARNEY M. «The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism» (1995) 24:1 Annual Review of Anthropology.
36. LEMAY, V. & BENJAMIN P. «Former l’Apprenti Juriste a une Approche du Droit Réflexive, Critique et Sereinement Positiviste: L’Heureuse Expérience d’une Revisite du Cours Fondements du Droit à l’Université de Montréal» (2011) 52 C de D.
37. NOREAU, P. «Voyage épistémologie de la pensée juridique : de l’étrangeté…à la recherche de soi », Les Cahiers de droit 52 (2011).
38. PÉREZ-PERDOMO, R. «Rule of Law and Lawyers in Latin America» (2006) 603 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
39. PRIETO MONTT, MJ. «Una invitación al pluralismo legal» (2012) 1 Revista de dere-cho (Valdivia).
40. TRUJILLO, E. «A Dialogical Approach to Trade and Environment» (2013) 16:3 Journal of International Economic Law.
41. VANDERLINDEN, J. «Return to Legal Pluralism: Twenty years later» (1989) 28 Journal of Legal Pluralism.
42. VICK, DW. «Interdisciplinary and the Discipline of Law», Journal of Law and Society 31, no. 2 (2004).
43. OTHER SOURCES/OTRAS FUENTES:
44. Andean Community and Corporación Andina de Fomento. «Elementos para la pro-tección sui generis de los conocimientos tradicionales colectivos e integrales desde la perspectiva indígena.», (mayo 2005) on line: http://www.comunidadandina. org/Upload/201164175851libro_perspectiva_indigena.pdf
45. FORSYTH, M. «How can the Theory of Legal Pluralism assist the Traditional Knowledge debate?» Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific (2013) 13 par. 8 on line: http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue33/forsyth.htm
46. LE ROUX X. BARBAULT, J. BAUDRY, F. BUREL, I. DOUSSAN, E. GARNIER, F. HERZOG, S. LAVOREL, R. LIFRAN, J. ROGER-ESTRADE, J.P. SARTHOU, M. Trommetter (éditeurs), « Agriculture et biodiversité .Valoriser les synergies. Synthèse du rapport d’expertise », France, INRA, (2008) Ch. 4 1 at 7 On line : file:///C:/ Users/Ronald%20Ralf/Downloads/inra-4.biodiversite-agriculture-et-politiques-publiques.pdf
47. SABÈTE W. «La théorie du droit et le problème de la scientificité : Quelques réflexions sur le mythe de l’objectivité de la théorie positiviste. » Archives de philosophie du droit (1999) 43 : 303 at 326. En ligne : http://www.philosophie-droit.asso.fr/ APDpourweb/216.pdf.