Abstract

Property and its collaborating facilities, i.e., the regulation, the authorities and the utilities, together are constituted as an integrated interpretation system of respective society. There are common core concepts as referred by the system, such as the concept of time, the consciousness and objective value of human labour, and the philosophy for sustainable development. The measurement of efficiency and therefore the consequent entitlement of property are largely attributed to the chemical functions of these concepts under the infrastructure of nation-states. The context and the authority to narrate reflect themselves as a power distribution tool, which give the property a fixed formulae of formation, functions, distribution and extinguishment. However, while within a global society composed by nation-states with diversified social cultures, or a multi-ethnic nation-state with a broader spectrum of evaluation, a single property perspectives with fixed formulae may not find itself to be of absolute legitimation. This approach proves to be even truer while applied in the international regime of the entitlement of traditional knowledge and genetic/biological resources. We may use the transition of the proposed universal indigenous intellectual property regimes from universal commons eventually to nation-state absolutism to evidence the preference of certain phases and interpretation of the above core concepts and their consequent failure.

Should exclusivity be a universal concept of property management or just one of the alternative formulae? I would like to take this chance to reflect the validity of either approaches by examining the orders and values based upon which an international property regime for culture diversified society such as indigenous community is promulgated, including its unique but appropriate system for the access, management and distribution of interests of the genetic and biological resources.

Media

Speaker

Discussion