Search

By zeroing in on the term 'heritage' in the most important international legal instrument on oceans – the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), this article explores how the concept of the Common Heritage of [Hu]mankind and maritime heritage are produced and deployed in the global legal project of ocean-ordering and the implications thereof. The Common Heritage of [Hu]mankind concept embodies and enacts a dominant resource-centric framing of the ocean. This framing prioritises and valorises the material and economic value of the deep seabed, thereby transmuting it into an oceanless exploitable common. The LOSC, with minimal cultural preoccupation, also conceptualises and confines maritime heritage within a narrow land-based and material-centric understanding of heritage that often prioritises state control and claims. This is because the LOSC is constrained and shaped both by the metaphysical, geographical, and legal tendency of ocean parcelisation and by the authorised heritage discourse that conditions how heritage is understood and practiced. We conclude by suggesting taking the Middle Passage as an analytical provocation, that is to recognise the mutually constitutive and constituting relationship between the Middle Passage and the (Atlantic) Ocean, to enable critical reflections and alternative perspectives on heritage-making in ocean environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and accompanying 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention create the requirement to regulate and facilitate deep-sea mining while simultaneously protecting the marine environment for the Common Heritage of Mankind. At the time of the initial drafting of the Convention, there was a pretense that extraction of seabed resources could be managed in a manner that was not destructive of the marine environment. However, recent research has shown that harm to the marine environment from seabed mining is likely to occur. Due to the potential harm of current seabed mining technology, prospective exploitation projects in the deep-sea of the Pacific Ocean must be regulated in a manner compliant with the Convention. The International Seabed Authority, and its subordinate Legal and Technical Commission, must determine proper regulations and procedures to review and adopt exploitation proposals while complying with the Convention's requirement to avoid harm to the marine environment and promote the Common Heritage of Mankind. The expiration of a procedural deadline, in July 2023, accelerated the timeframe in which the International Seabed Authority must adopt exploitation regulations. Now the Authority must adopt regulations against the ticking clock or risk permitting underregulated mining to occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the negative implications of the biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction ('BBNJ') process for the common heritage of humankind ('CH') principle, focusing on the discussions over its applicability to Marine Genetic Resources ('MGRs'). This article argues that the CH under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for deep-sea mineral resources was neither necessary nor desirable for MGRs governance. An analysis of the BBNJ process demonstrates that CH's exploitation bias is still persistent, which makes this principle politically controversial and prevents the principle from embracing sustainable development. Indeed, Article 7 of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction stipulates the CH as a general principle of the new BBNJ regime. However, the BBNJ negotiations failed to articulate how the CH principle can contribute to managing the living resources, MGRs, in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This finding would cast doubt on the alleged potential of the CH principle to govern a broad range of subjects or resources other than deep-sea minerals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law Studies Journal / Revista Novos Estudos Juridicos is the property of Novos Estudos Juridicos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) lacks a legal framework that would ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans. In order to fill this gap, governments have been negotiating a new treaty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Negotiations have been afflicted by polarisation between two principles: The 'Freedom of the High Seas' (FOS) and the 'Common Heritage of Humankind' (CHP). Instead of discussing the CHP from a purely legal perspective, we examined, through an ethnographic lens, how it has become a practice of contestation: it is used as a tool and negotiation technique to challenge deeply rooted inequalities in the current world order. The CHP could make a difference if it was integrated into the text as a general principle committing all states to protect and preserve BBNJ for future generations – regardless of their imminent economic value as commercial assets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines legal status of common heritage of mankind (CHM), a principle of international law that holds the defined territorial areas and elements of humanity's common heritage, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Topics discussed include characteristics of CHM; the CHM's utilization system under UNCLOS; and laws governing states' activities on the moon and other celestial bodies.

The international seabed 'Area' and its mineral resources are the common heritage of mankind and must be administered for the benefit of humankind as a whole. Yet the vision of the benefits to be reaped from the Area has changed over the years. The common heritage concept encapsulates seemingly conflicting developmental, commercial, and ecological imperatives. With seabed mining edging closer to becoming a reality, there is a need to analyse these imperatives and the range of benefits that humankind can (and in some cases already does) derive from the Area. This article critically discusses six categories of benefits that are relevant to seabed mining and assesses them against historical expectations. These are wealth generation and redistribution, advancement of developing States, security of mineral supply, ecosystem services, scientific knowledge, and other uses of the Area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During Basketmaker II (∼800 BC to AD 400), Kiowa-speaking Eastern Basketmaker (EBM) farmers who migrated north shared threads of common heritage with Fremont peoples [Ortman and McNeil, 2017. The Kiowa Odyssey: Evidence of Historical Relationships among Pueblo, Fremont, and North Plains Peoples. Plains Anthropologist 63(246):152-174]. But were EBM farmers alone on their migration north? In this paper, we draw upon linguistic, archaeological, and rock art evidence to argue that: (1) during BM II, Central Mesa Verde served as a "interaction zone" between Hopi foragers (or forager-farmers) and Kiowa farmers; (2) affiliated Hopi and Kiowa groups migrated through west-central Colorado and the Tavaputs Plateaus to the Uintah Basin; (3) both groups shared threads of common heritage with Eastern Fremont people; and (4) while Kiowa-Fremont farmers remained in the Uintah Basin until approximately AD 1300 [Finley et al. 2019. Multidecadal Climate Variability and Florescence of Fremont Societies in Eastern Utah. American Antiquity, in press]. Hopi-Fremont who became farmers left earlier (∼AD 1050), embarking on a return migration south to join Hopi-speaking kinsmen in the south. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many leading environmental and security concerns now facing the international community may be traced to the frontiers--that is, the areas historically outside of national jurisdiction including the deep seabed, outer space, Antarctica, the atmosphere, and, some argue, cyberspace. From climate change and cyber attacks to the associated challenges of space weaponization and orbital debris mitigation, solutions to all of these issues have at their root some form of regulation over the frontiers, sometimes--though not always accurately-- called the "global commons." Yet the amorphous legal concept of the common heritage of mankind (CHM) that has in part governed some of these spaces since the 1960s is increasingly under stress. Governance is transitioning away from consensual United Nations-centered multilateral treaties to regional and bilateral accords. These burgeoning regime complexes are being influenced by the multipolar state of international relations, advancing technology, and resource scarcity. Environmental and security challenges are proliferating as a result of governance being in flux. This Article makes an original contribution by comparing and contrasting some of the principal issues facing these frontiers of the international community, analyzing how and why existing governance structures are often failing to adequately meet global collective action problems with special coverage on cybersecurity and internet governance, and proposing a new way forward incorporating lessons from successful regimes as well as the interdisciplinary scholarship on polycentric governance. Multi-stakeholder collaboration is imperative in order to avoid tragedies of the global commons. But this requires recognizing the realities of international relations and crafting nimble twenty-first century governance structures that are both responsive to the titanic geopolitical and technological changes underway and that promote sustainable development and cyber peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we examine the prospect of securing intellectual property protection of African traditional medicine within the legal framework of the right to development in Africa. We do so with the aim to advance the right to development as an imperative to improving living standards for the peoples of Africa. Our analysis involves determining to what extent adequate protection could be secured to the benefit of the communities that engage in the practice of traditional medicine as a livelihood. Despite the imposition of western medicine, which has dominated traditional medicine since the colonial era, the latter has survived and, as we argue, deserves protection for gainful purpose as part of the common heritage, which the peoples of Africa are entitled by law to benefit from. With the renewed impetus directed towards re-establishing African value systems against the iniquities of imperial domination, our central focus in this article is to demonstrate that the practice of traditional medicine is deeply rooted in African culture, which under the African human rights system is granted as a human right. In essence, the advancement of African culture constitutes an integral aspect of the right to socio-economic and cultural development enshrined in the African Charter. Unlike other intellectual property regimes, which we argue are not sufficiently protective, we posit that the right development provides a sui generis framework within which intellectual property protection of African traditional medicine could effectively be claimed as a measure to secure redistributive justice, which the peoples of Africa have been deprived of over the decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution to the symposium on the economic exploitation of the commons focuses on the question of whether and to what extent the principle of the common heritage of mankind (CHM) imposes environmental limits on economic exploitation of the global commons. Focusing on the need to go beyond a unidimensional assessment of the principle, it considers how CHM was originally envisaged, the form it took in the deep seabed regime, in particular, how its role in that regime has developed over time and how it has been utilized as a basis for advocacy. It concludes with an assessment of CHM's limitations and strategic advantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to clarify how the principle of common heritage is being implemented and concretized by the fiscal regime of deep seabed mining. It first explicates the exploitation rationale underlying the common heritage principle. It argues that common heritage is a jurisdictional principle that lays the basis for the international allocation and administration of exploitation rights and, thus, for the effective economic exploitation of seabed minerals. This exploitation bias is strengthened by the perceived remoteness of deep seabed mining and the real institutional disembeddedness of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). To better understand the distribution conflicts that the law of deep seabed mining addresses, the article introduces two (competing) sets of public interest objectives: participation in exploitation and revenue generation pursued by newly independent (and, today, developing) states and access to raw materials pursued by industrialized states. The article then focuses on the different ways in which the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement on the Implementation of Part XI promote, reconcile and detract from the identified public interest objectives. It reveals how the participation objective has given way to a focus on market supply and revenue generation, and how the changes of the 1994 Implementation Agreement may be read as an attempt to dissolve the conflict between these competing public interest objectives, and to depoliticize the seabed regime. Third, the article turns to the ongoing work on a mining code for the deep seabed that, inter alia, must implement the ISA's mandates to generate revenue from deep seabed mining and to redistribute this revenue. It shows how the ISA's adoption of an individualist stakeholder orientation and its deference to commercial expectations of profitability, in the context of growing political attention to the oceans as a source of economic growth, are further transforming the notion of common heritage and benefit sharing and concomitantly undermine the regime's redistributive ambitions. It also clarifies how the sponsorship of deep seabed mining by small Pacific island states holds only little promise of significant public revenue generation for these states, but may work to undermine solidarity among developing states. The article ends with a call on international lawyers to recognize the designing of a mining code for the deep seabed as the making of political economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1970s international law has tried to provide protection for traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). Academics, activists and policymakers have discussed how to apply a legal framework based on Western norms of authorship on various forms of creativity that exist in different traditional communities. While aiming to acknowledge indigenous rights, this discourse also reflects assumptions and distinctions regarding differences between indigenous and non-indigenous cultures, relating to concepts of commons as well as individual and collective authorship. Here certain norms of cultural creativity are taken for granted, not only with regards to indigenous cultures but also regarding a Western cultural heritage. This article questions these assumptions by analyzing international legislation regarding the protection of TCEs and comparing them to the articulation of creativity and cultural entitlements in European cultural and legal discourses. It takes a particular paragraph in the Swedish copyright law, regarding the so called "protection of classics", as a case study to discuss the inconsistencies between individual authorship and collective cultural entitlements within Western copyright law. Eventually it takes a decolonizing perspective on dichotomies between concepts such as: Western/non-Western; modern/traditional; authored/non-authored and intellectual property/cultural property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Space law is normally referred to international space law. As national space activities develop, however, national space laws have been legislated in many countries for the development of space resources. These are used to present conflicting cases between national and international space law (corpus juris spatialis internationalis) on the interpretation of space resource exploitation. This study is devoted to bridging the gap between these two legal systems. In this paper, the author will critically review the fundamental principles of space resource exploitation under international law and suggest a direction for setting up national space laws for future space resources. This paper is composed of seven parts, including a short Introduction and Conclusion. Part two will discuss acts pertaining to asteroid resources. Part three will deal with res extra commercium. Part four will analyze the non-appropriation principle. Part five will look into the common heritage of mankind. Part six will investigate res nullius humanitatus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act 2015 aroused heated discussions. The international community has not yet reached consensus on the application of the concept of "common heritage of mankind" in the Moon Agreement. In accordance with the non-appropriation principle in the Outer Space Treaty, outer space is not subject to national appropriation. However, there is a need to balance the common interests of the international society and the interests of the States and private entities which invest heavily in the space resource exploration. The unilateral approach of the US by adopting a national law is not an ideal way to deal with space resource exploration. As a major space-faring nation, China should take a proactive approach in both national legislation and international cooperation in this field. At the international level, China should consider establishing an appropriate international regime for space resource management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was an arena in which global resource equity was negotiated in a process that extended beyond the governmental actors who took centre stage. But our perceptions of the role of an increasingly civil society in framing national decision-making processes during the 1970s – for instance, through trade associations or nongovernmental organizations – is blurred. Both civil society and economic actors crafted similar policies, though for different purposes: some – with regard to the north–south divide – focused on the conservation of the ocean’s resources over the long term, whereas others were more concerned with short-term economic benefits. This article asks which arguments legitimized property and usage rights, and which resource narratives were used. By taking into account the charged relationship of local–national–global reaches, it also examines perceptions and management of resources in the context of resource equity on a global scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Award provided a detailed review of the interpretation of Article 121(3) of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. According to the Tribunal, Article 121(3) performs a preventive function by disabling tiny features from unfairly generating enormous entitlements to maritime space that does not serve the local population. This provision also contributes to safeguarding of the Common Heritage of Mankind. The Tribunal's interpretation seems to reflect development of the law of the sea toward protection of the common interests of the international community. However, since the Tribunal's interpretation is not anchored in state practice and the jurisprudence, whether the interpretation can be generalized needs careful consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Some scholars have thought the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would transform marine politics and policy by incorporating social values of equity and justice via the Common Heritage of Mankind and authentic conservation of an essential part of the biosphere, displacing the dominant commodification of the ocean. Likewise, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization has claimed that the “productivity paradigm” of growth in fishery catch has been replaced by balanced norms of sustainability. This article tests these claims by asking “What is the ‘generative grammar’, or value-based blueprints, of governance for the World Ocean?” using a quantitative content analysis of all extant State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) reports (1995–2016). Not only does the analysis disprove the FAO’s assertions, this research reveals an otherwise invisible, non-codified economistic regime governing the World Ocean that is guided by the norms of sheer volume production, named here simply the “World Ocean Regime.” This partially explains why the marine world is experiencing structural ecological changes, including massive biodiversity loss partly driven by overfishing. The analysis finds that overfishing, ecological life support, moral aesthetic values, social equity, and science are very minor concerns for the World Ocean Regime. Governance is the second-most important set of discourses, but this governance is clearly driven by economic values and norms. The World Ocean Regime has critical implications not only for the sustainability of the World Ocean, but the planetary system that depends on the World Ocean. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study refers the concept of the common heritage of all mankind/humanity with special regard to the sea law and space law. In the introduction it is shown that the events leading up to the third Conference on the sea law was the factor that triggered the interest of authors of the time, on the concept of the common heritage of all mankind, invoking, at the same time, the concept of Ambassador ArvidPardo of Malta, in a memorable speech given in 1967 at the UN General Assembly, who by adopted resolutions declared the submarine territories beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area) of the common heritage of all mankind. Further, we identified the international legal instruments in the field of public international law - the sea law, space law - in which lies the concept of the heritage of all mankind. After that in a brief analysis, is demonstrated the difference between the system of exploitation for the resources of the area and the conditions of exploitation of the resources of the sea, revealing the essential and beneficial changes in the sea law, stemming from the concept of the common heritage of all mankind. The area and its resources are subject to a fundamental complex principle on which is founded their legal regime, that principle is set up, developed, and enshrined in the Convention on the sea law in 1982. Thus, according to art. 136 of the Convention, the Area and its resources are the common heritage of all mankind. This principle is developed through a number of articles of the Convention and comprises five General principles, which are carefully screened. So far, however, the principle of the common heritage of humanity is somewhat developed and experienced than according to the Convention on the sea law (1982). What is important is the fact that by Convention it was created the International Authority of submarines, as the intergovernmental organization through which States parties organize and control activities in the International Area. In this study, we wished to reveal the fact that the concept of the common heritage of all mankind was introduced into the Space Treaty of 1 November 1967, even previous to the concept of the Sea front (just that formula is a bit different, namely "the province of all mankind" (the province of all mankind) and other small differences. Finally, the study reveals that although the concept of the common heritage of mankind, as the most important principle of the International Area often encountered some opposition on the part of developed States, and amendments to, the Convention on the sea law in 1982, through the Agreement of 1994 substantially diminishes its contents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last few decades, the methodology for the identification of customary international law (CIL) has been changing. Both elements of CIL - practice and opinio juris - have assumed novel and broader forms, as noted in the Reports of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). This contribution discusses these Reports and the draft conclusions, and reaction by States in the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), highlighting the areas of consensus and contestation. This ties to the analysis of the main doctrinal positions, with special attention being given to the two elements of CIL, and the role of the UNGA resolutions. The underlying motivation is to assess the real or perceived crisis of CIL, and the author develops the broader argument maintaining that in order to retain unity within international law, the internal limits of CIL must be carefully asserted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present work addresses the role of UN in the formation of customary international law from a constructivist perspective. It dialogues with the International Law Commission and, in contrast with the latter, it argues that the importance of the UN is a matter to be defined empirically. Its organs are capable of acting as norm entrepreneurs, articulating and promoting new norms. They are capable of affecting social processes in order to create pressure on the states that resist emergent norms. Thus, instead of a mere agent of states the UN is capable of deeply influencing them both in behavioural and attitudinal terms. Furthermore, the UN promote the formalization and institutionalization of new norms, elucidating their scope, application, and embedding them in consistently coherent amalgamation of norms and practices. Hence, it is capable of fostering the processes that lead to the crystallization of norms as customary international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper examines the particular difficulties observed in the formation, identification and continuity of local custom in the light of the interaction that exists between it and two main sources of international law: general custom and treaty. The article firstly argues that, although local custom presents certain features and faces specific difficulties that distinguishes it from both general custom and treaty, it generally follows the "custom logic" in its formation and identification, as both local and general customs are made from the same "ingredients": practice and opinio juris. However, the situation is different when it comes to the continuity of an existing local customary rule. The article shows that the succession of States may call into question the continuity of local custom which operates as a treaty in case of State succession, following the "treaty logic" rather than the "custom logic". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International courts have at times interpreted the customary rules on interpretation. This is interesting because what is being interpreted is: i) rules of interpretation, which sounds dangerously tautological, and ii) customary law, the interpretation of which has not been the object of critical analysis. The present paper, aims to fill this lacuna and prove that not only interpretation of customary rules of interpretation is not problematic (it is neither tautological nor impossible), but also that it is a process completely distinguishable from that of formation/identification of customary international law. Whereas the latter determines the existence of a customary rule and has to grapple with 'practice' and 'opinio juris', interpretation of customary rules concerns itself with the rules after they have come into existence. I will then demonstrate that customary rules of interpretation have consistently been interpreted in international jurisprudence and that the interpretative process bears certain similarities to treaty interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-state actors can contribute to shaping customary law indirectly, through inspiration and pressure, or formally when so empowered by States. Decisions on granting non-state actors customary law-making capacities must be critically decided on a case-by-case basis, in light of the legal interests at stake, risks of making regulation subservient to their interests, and legitimacy and effectiveness considerations. Since non-state involvement in the formation or change of customary law is not limited to direct law-making capacities, different strategies can be used to both receive their input and promote their acceptance of and respect of customary law. Internal and international democratization of State decisions and collective law-making are essential if the (currently) mostly-State-centric system of custom determination is to be fair. This demands a duty to examine non-state proposals in good faith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global warming is a result of human influence. However, little has been done to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a 'safe' level. An important factor for such dismal state of affairs is that the international community has emphasized far too much on the State-centric approach to combating climate change. The international legal regime does not directly control major emitters or MNCs. This article recognizes the atmosphere as a part of the global commons and the atmospheric absorptive capacity as the common heritage of mankind. Therefore, the international community can pave the way to link global climate change regime and MNCs. Those common interests of the international community can be protected when MNCs turn their production processes green, by redirecting their investment into green technology, and try to alter the negative status quo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulates the activities related with the exploration and exploitation of seabed mineral resources in the Area, which are considered as the "common heritage of mankind" under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The ISA has also the mandate to ensure the protection of the marine environment. The development of good practices for the annual reporting and data submission by Contractors is crucial for the ISA to comply with the sustainable development of the mineral marine resources. In 2015, the ISA issued a new template for reporting on exploration activities, which includes the definition of the format for all geophysical, geological and environmental data to be collected and analysed during exploration. The availability of reliable data contributes to improve the assessment of the ISA on the activities in the Area while promoting transparency, which is considered as a major principle of industry best practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses to what extent the Mining Code lives up to the environmental standards as originally meant to be applicable to the deep seabed. The focus will be on the ethical background of the common heritage and its reflection in the current application of the principle on deep seabed mining. The evolving legal status of the common heritage of humankind as part of the ‘Constitution of the Ocean’ plays a significant role in keeping the Mining Code in check. In this regard, the legal meaning of common heritage in 1967 might very well differ from that almost half a century later. Probably, the environmental component was a secondary priority when the common heritage was proposed as a principle. Of major importance is if the Mining Code suffices to protect and preserve the resources of the deep seabed from a perspective of intra- and intergenerational justice. This article is one attempt to trace the environmental roots of the common heritage concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conservation of marine biological diversity has been identified as a crucial issue in need of legal regulation. The UNCLOS does not sufficiently address all issues relevant to viably conserve biological diversity. Legal developments concerning marine genetic resources, area-based management tools such as marine protected areas, environmental impact assessment and capacity building are being discussed as elements of a new implementing agreement. In particular, more precise legal rules concerning marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction are needed to supplement the frame left by UNCLOS. As concerns the issue of access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits the UNCLOS regime has gaps because the relevant activities had not been foreseen at the time of the convention's adoption. Divergent views exist as to whether the concept of the common heritage of mankind should be extended to genetic resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea declares the seabed beyond national jurisdiction and its mineral resources as the “common heritage of mankind” (CHM). This article examines the operationalisation of the CHM principle in the international seabed mining regime, with focus placed on the sharing of benefits derived from mining. The article begins by providing an overview of the CHM principle, before examining four modalities provided for in the Convention, both institutional and substantial, and their role in giving effect to the CHM principle: (1) financial benefits; (2) the “Enterprise”; (3) the parallel system of reserved areas; and, (4) marine scientific research. Finally, overarching issues are discussed and some suggestions on ways forward are presented. The article considers that the deep seabed mining regime is not yet ready to effectively share the benefits derived from the common heritage of mankind. In particular, the future of the Enterprise is uncertain and changes to the so-called parallel system that affect the CHM have received minimal discussion. Moreover, a lack of publicly available research data related to seabed mining is hindering current benefits for humankind. However, work is underway at the International Seabed Authority to establish rules and policies with respect to the sharing of financial benefits. While the CHM principle remains largely untested, approaches that are transparent, inclusive, accountable, and equitable are more likely to be successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complex patient, who has often multiple, chronic and progressive disorders, who has undergone polytherapy, should be evaluated totally with respect not only to medical side, but also to psychological and clinical side. The shortage of specialists in disciplines that require technical skills, obtained by training and performing a sufficient number of annual procedures, contributes to the need for reorganizing health care; in this background the Internist devolves less time to charitable activities in favor of competences related to the processes. The knowledge of the clinical governance (CG) should be the common heritage of all the actors of the health system, that need to be made up of professionals able to coordinate and make easy the implementation and the spread the CG culture. At least initially we propose to focus the testing strictly on the medical department. As already mentioned above, the natural Internist predisposition, cultural and training, leads him to a multidisciplinary vision of medicine that allows acquiring more easily the tools that make up the structure of CG, being able to facilitate the application. The acquisitions of professional competence and clinical governance play a key role in the Internist culture. The purpose of an Internist with professional skills and managerial capacity, is to act within the department to facilitate and simplify the horizontal interaction among other similar corporate structures and to help the Management to improve structural and clinical appropriateness in Hospital and to better the relations between hospital and territory, identifying the critical issues and the possible solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reevaluates the lines of reasoning that lead to the common heritage idea (CHI) about human genes in light of the double nature of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Topics covered include the view that human genome forms part of the common heritage of humanity, DNA co-discoverer James Watson's explanation of the double nature of DNA, and the patentability of human genes. Also discussed is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that naturally occurring DNA was not eligible to apply for a patent.

For the first time, new sources of minerals are likely to be exploited in the deep seas in an area beyond national jurisdiction. Deep-sea mining encompasses the potential for cooperation and/or competition between the most technologically and economically advanced States and those aspiring to join this group. The community of States recognized this potential early on and signed new treaties, established new international institutions, and promised new levels of cooperation. Most importantly, they also set a standard according to which the exploration for and exploitation of these new resources are to be governed, namely in the context of the Common Heritage of Mankind. This article assesses what progress has been made in the past forty years on defining and implementing the Common Heritage of Mankind as a normative and legal framework for governing the exploration for and exploitation of marine minerals in the deep seas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]