‎1. Indigenous Commons

← Older revision Revision as of 07:49, 29 January 2019
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
==Law for the Commons: Premodern Sources==
 
==Law for the Commons: Premodern Sources==
   
* [[Institutes of Justinian]] [http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.asp]
+
=== [[Institutes of Justinian]] [http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.asp]===
   
 
The ancient Romans were the first society in recorded history to have made explicit laws regarding distinct categories of property, including common property and other categories of things that should not be privately owned.  In 535 CE, the Codex Justinianus, or Institutes of Justinian, details the legal divisions of things, which included res communes, or things owned in common to all such as the seashore and rivers.  This was the first known legal recognition of the commons.  Other categories of things that cannot be privately owned included res publicae, or things that were crated by public authorities such as buildings and theaters; and res sacrae, or things that are sacred and dedicated to the service of God and cannot be sold or mortgaged.   
 
The ancient Romans were the first society in recorded history to have made explicit laws regarding distinct categories of property, including common property and other categories of things that should not be privately owned.  In 535 CE, the Codex Justinianus, or Institutes of Justinian, details the legal divisions of things, which included res communes, or things owned in common to all such as the seashore and rivers.  This was the first known legal recognition of the commons.  Other categories of things that cannot be privately owned included res publicae, or things that were crated by public authorities such as buildings and theaters; and res sacrae, or things that are sacred and dedicated to the service of God and cannot be sold or mortgaged.   
   
 
+
=== The [[Magna Carta]] [http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm]===
 
+
* The [[Magna Carta]] [http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm]
+
   
 
The Magna Carta, or “Great Charter,” is often cited as one of the foundations of Western civilization because it enshrined the rule of law as a cornerstone of governance, limited the power of the sovereign and recognized specific rights and liberties of citizens.  The “Great Charter,” which King John agreed to in 1215 after years of brutal armed conflict with feudal barons and commoners, is widely regarded as a source for legal principles such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and the prohibition of torture.  The document is less widely known as guaranteeing a right of access to commons, as set forth in a companion document, The Charter of the Forest.
 
The Magna Carta, or “Great Charter,” is often cited as one of the foundations of Western civilization because it enshrined the rule of law as a cornerstone of governance, limited the power of the sovereign and recognized specific rights and liberties of citizens.  The “Great Charter,” which King John agreed to in 1215 after years of brutal armed conflict with feudal barons and commoners, is widely regarded as a source for legal principles such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and the prohibition of torture.  The document is less widely known as guaranteeing a right of access to commons, as set forth in a companion document, The Charter of the Forest.
Line 77: Line 75:
 
The legal rights of the world’s 300 million indigenous peoples is of particular interest to commoners because both face similar philosophical and strategic challenges in coming to terms with (unresponsive, sometimes hostile) national and international law.  In that sense, the legal fights of indigenous peoples may be a bellwether for commoners and a source of guidance.   
 
The legal rights of the world’s 300 million indigenous peoples is of particular interest to commoners because both face similar philosophical and strategic challenges in coming to terms with (unresponsive, sometimes hostile) national and international law.  In that sense, the legal fights of indigenous peoples may be a bellwether for commoners and a source of guidance.   
   
 
+
'''[[Biocultural Rights]]'''
===[[Biocultural Rights]]===
+
   
 
Biocultural rights represent a new legal jurisprudence that aims to protect natural ecosystems and indigenous knowledge and ways of life, especially from the threats of trade treaties. The rights – based on the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity, which has been ratified by 193 nations – have been developed by legal advocates such as Natural Justice in South Africa to give legal protection to a community’s identity, culture, governance system, spirituality and way of life as embedded in a specific landscape.  This bold departure in human rights law seeks to validate community-led instruments for recognizing and supporting “ways of life that are based on the sustainable use of biodiversity, according to customary, national and international laws and policies.”
 
Biocultural rights represent a new legal jurisprudence that aims to protect natural ecosystems and indigenous knowledge and ways of life, especially from the threats of trade treaties. The rights – based on the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity, which has been ratified by 193 nations – have been developed by legal advocates such as Natural Justice in South Africa to give legal protection to a community’s identity, culture, governance system, spirituality and way of life as embedded in a specific landscape.  This bold departure in human rights law seeks to validate community-led instruments for recognizing and supporting “ways of life that are based on the sustainable use of biodiversity, according to customary, national and international laws and policies.”
Line 85: Line 82:
 
See also
 
See also
   
* [[Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage]] (IPinCH)  http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch
+
'''[[Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage]] (IPinCH)  [http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch]'''
   
 
A major international effort to facilitate “fair and equitable exchanges” of indigenous knowledge and culture is directed by the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) research project, an international collaboration of archaeologists, indigenous organizations, lawyers, anthropologists, ethicists, policy makers, and others. Based at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, IPinCH explains that its focus is on “archaeology as a primary component of cultural heritage; however, this project is ultimately concerned with larger issues of the nature of knowledge and rights based on culture – how these are defined and used, who has control and access, and especially how fair and appropriate use and access can be achieved to the benefit of all stakeholders in the past.”  The project includes fifty researchers and twenty-five partnering organizations from Canada, Australia, United States, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, England, and Switzerland.
 
A major international effort to facilitate “fair and equitable exchanges” of indigenous knowledge and culture is directed by the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) research project, an international collaboration of archaeologists, indigenous organizations, lawyers, anthropologists, ethicists, policy makers, and others. Based at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, IPinCH explains that its focus is on “archaeology as a primary component of cultural heritage; however, this project is ultimately concerned with larger issues of the nature of knowledge and rights based on culture – how these are defined and used, who has control and access, and especially how fair and appropriate use and access can be achieved to the benefit of all stakeholders in the past.”  The project includes fifty researchers and twenty-five partnering organizations from Canada, Australia, United States, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, England, and Switzerland.
   
 
+
''' The [[Potato Park]]'''
* The [[Potato Park]]
+
   
 
The Potato Park in Peru is a sui generis legal regime that empowers indigenous Quechua indigenous peoples in an area near Cusco, Peru, to act as stewards of a rich biodiversity of more than 900 genetically distinct potatoes that they have managed for millennia.  The Quechua joined with a nonprofit group ANDES in the 1990s to develop a legal regime to recognize the Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area (IBCHA).  This consists of 12,000 hectares of traditional lands that the Quechua regard as essential to the agrobiodiversity of the region and to conserve their traditional culture, knowledge and livelihoods.  Besides assuring a community-led and rights-based approach to conservation (rather than market development), the Potato Park seeks to prevent biopiracy of genetic knowledge by agro-biotech corporations. Although the Potato Park does not have state recognition within either Peruvian national law of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the IBCHA agreement is legally compatible with existing systems of national and international law, and is seen as an inspiration for similar projects to protect agrobiodiversity in the Andes.  The IBCHA agreement does empower the Quechua societies to control scientific studies in the region and the Potato Park database can be used to thwart patent applications for indigenous medicinal plants and knowledge.   
 
The Potato Park in Peru is a sui generis legal regime that empowers indigenous Quechua indigenous peoples in an area near Cusco, Peru, to act as stewards of a rich biodiversity of more than 900 genetically distinct potatoes that they have managed for millennia.  The Quechua joined with a nonprofit group ANDES in the 1990s to develop a legal regime to recognize the Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area (IBCHA).  This consists of 12,000 hectares of traditional lands that the Quechua regard as essential to the agrobiodiversity of the region and to conserve their traditional culture, knowledge and livelihoods.  Besides assuring a community-led and rights-based approach to conservation (rather than market development), the Potato Park seeks to prevent biopiracy of genetic knowledge by agro-biotech corporations. Although the Potato Park does not have state recognition within either Peruvian national law of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the IBCHA agreement is legally compatible with existing systems of national and international law, and is seen as an inspiration for similar projects to protect agrobiodiversity in the Andes.  The IBCHA agreement does empower the Quechua societies to control scientific studies in the region and the Potato Park database can be used to thwart patent applications for indigenous medicinal plants and knowledge.   
   
See also Alejandro Argumedo, “The Potato Park, Peru:  [[Conserving Agro-Biodiversity in an Andean Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area]],” in Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values, ed. Thora Amend et al.  (Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2008), 45-58.
+
See also Alejandro Argumedo, “The Potato Park, Peru:  [[Conserving Agro-Biodiversity in an Andean Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Area]],” in Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values, ed. Thora Amend et al.  (Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2008), 45-58.
 
+
 
+
   
 
==2.  [[Subsistence Commons in the Global South]]==
 
==2.  [[Subsistence Commons in the Global South]]==

Published Date

Categories