Άυλα πολιτιστικά αγαθά

Εκφάνσεις της ανθρώπινης ζωής, στοιχεία της ταυτότητάς της είναι και τα πολιτιστικά αγαθά. Και τα μεν υλικά πολιτιστικά αγαθά απασχολούσαν και απασχολούν (και θα απασχολούν, ευτυχώς!) τους νομικούς από παλιά. Τα άυλα, όμως, ήσαν περίπου "ανύπαρκτα", όσον αφορά στη νομική τους αντιμετώπιση, μέχρι και αρκετά πρόσφατα.

Έχω τη χαρά - και τη μεγάλη ευθύνη... - να επιβλέπω διδακτορική διατριβή με θέμα συγκριτική μελέτη δικαίων, αναφορικά με τα άυλα πολιτιστικά αγαθά, την άυλη πολιτιστική κληρονομιά (δεν είναι "άμοιρη" συνεπειών η χρησιμοποίηση του ενός ή του άλλου όρου, ποτέ δεν είναι άλλωστε: οι λέξεις "φέρουν" νόημα, ποτέ δεν χρησιμοποιούνται τυχαία...), την οποία ετοιμάζει ("εκπονεί", είναι ο επίσημος όρος!) η Τόνια Κορκά. Σας την έχω ήδη αναφέρει.

Την 29.3.2012 μιλήσαμε και οι δύο στο Νομικό Συμβούλιο του Κράτους - η ίδια μίλησε για τα "Δικαιώματα των αυτοχθόνων". Σε αυτούς "οφείλουμε" το ότι ασχοληθήκαμε στη Δύση με την προστασία των άυλων πολιτιστικών αγαθών.

Μπορείτε να διαβάσετε την ΕΞΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΗ εισήγησή της στην ιστοσελίδα του ΝΣΚ:

http://www.nsk.gov.gr/webnsk/anakoinwsh.jsp?id=156

Παρά το ότι επανειλημμένως της έχω τονίσει ότι πρέπει να βγάζει και φωτογραφίες, αρνείται σθεναρά!! Μία από τις συνέπειες είναι και το ότι δεν έχω φωτογραφία της να αναρτήσω!!

Οι φωτογραφίες στην ανάρτηση αυτή:

Η πρώτη είναι από το συμπόσιο στη Μαύρη Θάλασσα, που σας ανέφερα στην αμέσως προηγούμενη ανάρτηση - νομίζω ότι είναι και αυτή από το ανάκτορο στη Γιάλτα, αλλά ίσως είναι και από το Βατούμι, στη Γεωργία (καλά λέει η μαμά μου ότι πρέπει να γράφω ημερομηνίες στις φωτογραφίες! υπερεκτιμώ τη μνήμη μου και να τί παθαίνω!!).

Η δεύτερη είναι από την Ύδρα. Την είχα βγάλει το 2004, μετά από ένα Διεθνές συνέδριο αθλητικού δικαίου που είχε γίνει στην Αθήνα (θα σας μιλήσω σύντομα και για αυτό), όταν πήγαμε με τους αλλοδαπούς εισηγητές και καλούς φίλους σε αυτή την ημερήσια κρουαζιέρα στον Σαρωνικό (Αίγινα - Πόρο - Ύδρα). Ήμουν στο Ναυτικό Μουσείο και θέλησα να αποτυπώσω την εικόνα της Ύδρας σαν μέσα από παράθυρο!! Ομολογώ ότι τη λατρεύω αυτή τη φωτογραφία!

                 Διαφέρουν οι άνθρωποι και διαφέρουν και οι τρόποι που "βλέπουν" τα πράγματα.

Για το θέμα της άυλης πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς και συγκεκριμένα για τις ρυθμίσεις της σχετικής Διεθνούς Σύμβασης της UNESCO, του 2003, έχουν κατά καιρούς διοργανωθεί διεθνή συνέδρια. Οι εισηγήσεις ενός τέτοιου διεθνούς συνεδρίου εκδόθηκαν σε βιβλίο, παρουσίαση/κριτική μου του οποίου δημοσιεύθηκε το 2010.

                                                Ελίνα Ν. Μουσταΐρα

                                                      Βιβλιοκρισία*

International Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property. Communities, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development (ed. Toshiyuki Kono), Intersentia, Antwerp-Oxford-Portland 2009, p. XV + 415.

On 25-26 March 2007, an International Conference was held in New Delhi, India, on “Intangible Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property under the 2003 Convention: seeking a Collaborative Interface between International Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property”. This volume assembles the reports presented during that Conference.

The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted in October 2003[1], entered into force in April 2006 and became fully operational in June 2008, when a set of Operational Directives aimed at guiding its implementation were approved.

In this Convention there is an open definition of intangible cultural heritage, which may be interpreted differently over time. Many issues remain either unresolved or difficult to resolve. The reports of this volume, which volume is divided in five parts, handle these issues and try to give answers.

The main inspirer of that Conference and also editor of this volume, Professor Toshiyuki Kono, on the one hand talks, in the first, introductory report – which constitutes the first part of the volume, “Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property” – about the “Unresolved Issues and Unanswered Questions”, and on the other hand co-signs the introductory reports of the other four parts.

As Kono points out in this first report, “acknowledging the importance of incorporating safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage into sustainable development reflects the fact that traditional knowledge, cultural expressions and practices play an important role in everyday life among diverse communities all around the world” (p. 6-7).

What is “traditional knowledge”? This huge issue, about which extremely interesting opinions have already been expressed, is also a central issue of the UNESCO Convention as well as of other national and international legal texts. Traditional knowledge refers to knowledge handed down from generation to generation. It includes songs, dance, stories, artworks, symbols or traditional concepts, agricultural, scientific and medical knowledge, knowledge mostly necessary to some communities, a means for their survival in a world of market economies[2]. Or, in other words, “traditional knowledge is the understanding or skill possessed by indigenous peoples pertaining to their culture and folklore, their technologies, and their use of native plants for medicinal purposes”[3].

On the issue of exploitation of the traditional knowledge, there is a harsh conflict between the defenders of free trade and the defenders of the environment’s protection. And, given the fact that the remaining biodiversity exists mostly within the territories of indigenous peoples – since “usually, the wealth of a country is inversely proportional to the richness of its biodiversity”[4] -, issues of sovereignty, identity, colonialism and exploitation come up[5].

Part two of the volume contains reports related to the subject “Designing a Means for the Safeguarding of International Cultural Heritage”. The establishment of inventories is considered as a big achievement of the 2003 Convention. Is it enough? Would it be outdated, as it is often said by adversaries? And what about the danger of the visibility of intangible cultural heritage the inventories cause, hence the danger of its misappropriation?

“Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage is only possible if the intangible cultural heritage is identified”, S. Van Uytsel & T. Kono declare in their report “Intangible Cultural Heritage Identified. Inventories as an Essential Part of the Safeguarding Process” (p. 43). The utmost aim of every project of intangible cultural heritage should be the contribution to the creation of a sustainable cultural diversity, according to A. Arantes, “Heritage as Culture. Limits, Uses and Implications of Intangible Cultural Heritage Inventories” (p. 53, 74). He claims besides that cultures are not sets of elements or cultural traits relatively independent from one another, as it had been sustained in the past (p. 55).

One wonders whether inventories can preserve intangible cultural heritage as a “living system”. Furthermore, as S. Van Uytsel points out in his report “Inventory Making and Fairy Tales. Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Historical Perspective”, the 2003 Convention does not guarantee that the inventory belongs to the community to whom the inventory’s content is linked (p. 113, 136).

There are also “delicate” intellectual property issues, as far as the inventories are concerned. Or are they not? Or should there not be? Are traditional knowledge and intellectual property commensurable? Should a sui generis protection be asked for[6]?

Central issue of Part three of this volume is the “Conceptualization of Community”. As already mentioned, intangible cultural heritage is linked to a certain community or to certain indigenous peoples or individuals.

Addressing the intangible cultural heritage issues by having recourse to intellectual property rules has advantages and disadvantages. Intellectual property refers to rights granted by law for a limited time period to individuals. On the contrary, intangible cultural heritage, on the one hand requires indefinite protection[7] and on the other hand is rather inconsistent with absolute individual ownership. I. Mgbeoji, in his report “On the Shoulders of the “Other’ed”. Intellectual Property Rights in Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Persistence of Indigenous Peoples’ Texts and Inter-Texts in a Contextual World”, accurately points out that “the discourse on the ownership of intangible cultural heritage is one that must first recognize the limitations of imperialist legal narratives”. (p. 203, 220).

Part four of this Volume is about “Community’s Prior Informed Consent”. A term drawn from the medical field, as J.-D. Dalibard & T. Kono mention in their report “Prior Informed Consent. Empowering the Bearers of Cultural Traditions” (p. 247, 248), it means that anyone who wants to use the traditional knowledge of a community must explain beforehand one’s intentions.

Biopiracy, that is, the fact that corporations from the developed world exploit unduly the genetic resources and traditional knowledge of developing countries, is a major problem of our times and may be considered as one of the most difficult issues to resolve. 193 countries have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (signed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit). Cross-border exchange of genetic resources and traditional knowledge must be carried out in compliance with the principles set by that Convention, as G. Dutfield mentions in his report on “Prior Informed Consent and Traditional Knowledge in a Multicultural World” (p. 261, 263).

Intellectual property rights are a central issue to discussions on biopiracy too. There are voices who insist that the intellectual property regimes developed in the West and “exported” to the rest of the world, mainly through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Trade Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), are not capable to protect the intangible property of indigenous peoples[8].

Part five is about the “Benefits and Potential Harms to Communities and their Intangible Cultural Heritage”.

J. de Werra, in his report about “Fighting Against Biopiracy. Moving from the Obligation to Disclose to Effective Benefit Sharing” (p. 325), proposes a flexible, according to his opinion, approach, that is, applying a co-ownership regime to inventions based upon traditional knowledge, while G. Oguamanam, in “Documentation and Digitalization of Traditional Knowledge and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Challenges and Prospects” (p. 357), pointing out the danger of misappropriation of the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities that TRIPS system causes, stresses the advantages of the documentation[9] of intangible cultural heritage.

Speaking about James Boyle and his “cultural environmentalism” metaphor, Madhavi Sunder praised, three years ago, the effects that this metaphor had on the poor. She claimed nevertheless, that Boyle “stopped short of advocating reform of a Western intellectual property tradition”, admitting though that at that time law-and-economic analysis pas prevailing in the legal academy, while today utilitarianism is not anymore accepted as a successful model to apply to intellectual property. She concluded advocating the obvious and wise, that “the poor must be recognized as both receivers and producers of knowledge”[10].

The 2003 UNESCO Convention suffers, as Prof. Kono admits (p. 39), “from peculiar flaws, which, while serious, can and must be overcome”. It remains to be seen whether this undoubtedly important document will really be a “viable tool” for protecting the intangible cultural heritage.

---

* Δημοσιεύθηκε στη Revue Hellénique de Droit International 2010, σ. 1021-1024.

[1] No country voted against, several, though, large and wealthy countries (i.e. United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia) abstained, see J. Recht, Hearing Indigenous Voices, Protecting Indigenous Knowledge, International Journal of Cultural Property 2009, 233, 238.

[2] R.J. Coombe, Protecting Traditional Environmental Knowledge and New Social Movements in the Americas: Intellectual Property, Human Rights or Claims to an Alternative Form of Sustainable Development?, 17 Florida Journal of International Law 115 (2005).

[3] S.R. Munzer/K. Raustiala, The Uneasy Case for Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge, 27 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 37, 38 (2009).

[4] P.K. Yu, Cultural Relics, Intellectual Property, and Intangible Heritage, 81 Temple Law Review 433, 472 (2008).

[5] R.M. Bratspies, The New Discovery Doctrine: Some Thoughts on Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge, 31 American Indian Law Review 315, 316 (2006).

[6] D.J. Gervais, Spiritual but not intellectual? The Protection of Sacred Intangible Traditional Knowledge, 11 Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 467, 475 (2003).

[7] R.K. Paterson/ D.S.Karjala, Looking Beyond Intellectual Property in Resolving Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples, 11 Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 633, 640 (2003).

[8] K.A. Carpenter/S.K. Katyal/A.R. Riley, In Defense of Property, 118 Yale Law Journal 1022, 1098 (2009).

[9] See also C. Hess/ E. Ostrom, Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common-Pool Resource, 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 111, 112 (2003), about the dual capacity that distributed digital technologies have, to increase access to information and the same time to restrict such access.

[10] M. Sunder, The Invention of Traditional Knowledge, 70 Law and Contemporary Problems 97, 107, 119 (2007).