抄録
Access to genetic resources has emerged as an international issue as a result of the rapid development of biotechnology.
Intense negotiations have been undertaken with regard to access to these resources.
Generally speaking, the issue of access to genetic resources is intermeshed with the international regimes concerning the three issue-areas of the environment, patents, and trade.
The purpose of this article is to identify what sort of political impact occurs from the overlapping of different international regimes with regard to the same issue by examining examples of access to genetic resources, while referring to the findings of important past studies.
The key findings of this article can be summarized as follows.
First, access to genetic resources has been restricted since the 1980s, in line with the development of biotechnology.
In the 1990s, international institutions—such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)—each held a different stance on the legal status of genetic resources.
However, starting in 2001, the issue of access to genetic resources became linked to the issue of trade and the environment under the WTO Doha Development Agenda.
International negotiations yielded the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol in 2010, with a focus on “disclosure requirements” of the origins and/or sources of genetic resources.
The second key finding is that the significant changes outlined above vis-à-vis international regimes were not always the result of the actions of major powers such as the United States.
Moreover, the relative influence level of each international institution such as the WTO and the CBD has not been a major obstacle for the international negotiations.
One key factor that has been instrumental in bringing about significant changes in international regimes is the compatibility between the three different norms, of biodiversity conservation, patent protection, and free trade.
Third, the study has uncovered that in a case where there are two or more international regimes for a single issue, the influence of major countries or powerful international institutions is weakened because each country can freely choose its preferred regime or shift from one regime to another in pursuit of its national interests.
Moreover, compatibility between the different norms becomes a considerably important factor regarding changes in international regimes.
Increasing compatibility between different norms serves as the driving force for coordinating international regimes.
The idea of “disclosure requirements” has the potential to play this sort of propelling role.
Interaction among the various international regimes would certainly not have a negative role with regard to the resolution of contentious issues.
Under such circumstances, compatibility between different norms is further emphasized to facilitate a political consensus.
Until the controversy over adopting“disclosure requirements” has been resolved, international negotiations over access to genetic resources will continue.
