原住民傳統知識保護法制研究--聚焦於財產權面向之研討

Abstract

過去二十年以來已開發國家的生物探勘活動，不但發現了地球上豐富的生物遺傳資源，更讓傳統知識的價值獲得重視。所謂的傳統知識(traditional knowledge)，在狹義的理解之下，係指原住民和在地社群利用自然資源所發展出的一種跨領域知識，主要有集體創作、口耳相傳、隨時間變動以及歸屬於特定區域族群等特性。

傳統知識的保護，不僅與在地原住民社群於生活及精神信仰上具緊密連結，對於全球人類於生物多樣性的保育以及經濟發展上亦相當重要，故兼具了在地性與全球性，也複雜了相關保護議題的研討。

另從國際立法觀之，傳統知識的保護牽涉層面甚多，大致上從原住民人權保障、生物多樣性維持的環境保育以及經濟利用此三大面向來觀察。因傳統知識係無形資產的一種，似乎屬於智慧財產權所規範的客體，故國際立法上以智慧財產權制度做為保護機制引起諸多的討論。 智慧財產權制度本質上從賦予個人排他性(exclusive)權利出發，該制度最大目的為獎勵創新，不僅與傳統知識的集體產生、享有的特性有所矛盾，於保護目的上亦不相符，適用上遂產生諸多疑義，本文將針對以智慧財產權制度保護傳統知識可能產生的衝突以及規範上的難題做出詳實的討論。另更分別從避免濫用的防衛性(defensive)面向以及積極賦予權利(right)的積極性(positive)面向出發來觀察相關保護制度。

而除了在智慧財產權的架構下處理這個議題，是否也可能在國際間建立一個獨立的機關權責處理亦引起了廣泛的討論。此想法於論理上已獲得肯認，亦被適用於各國國內立法實踐，惟國內立法受限於管轄權，針對跨國的生物剽竊案件、或不當使用傳統知識於他國取得專利的情形，保護成效有限。

因現今關於傳統知識保護的國際立法多為軟法(soft law)性質，拘束力不強，故仍有賴於各國國內立法賦予傳統知識更完善的保護，本文將針對在此領域具重要性之國家立法進行深入的個案研究。

開發中國家試以秘魯作為代表，該國於2002年首創全球第一部專門(sui-generis)保護傳統知識之法律，簡稱27811法案。本文除針對該法相關制度與法律內涵予以分析外，亦與我國制度相互參照比較，結果發現該法案在保護上較偏向經濟利益的獲取，主要透過避免不當取得傳統知識的防衛性保護制度來達到其保護目的；惟法案中亦明文揭示原住民針對該傳統知識享有權利，似乎又帶有積極性保護的色彩。

台灣原住民傳統知識豐富，惟相關知識正面臨嚴重流失的情形。有鑑於此，原民會邀請專家學者草擬了「原住民族傳統生物多樣性知識保護條例草案」，賦予主管機關相當的權責，希望能夠透過官方與原住民族的攜手合作，達到妥善保存相關知識，進而加以利用的立法意旨。而透過草案起草者的實證訪談資料，對於草案的立法思維、制度目的、立法過程的溝通等議題都有了更深入的理解，亦發現相較於秘魯的27811法案，因我國經濟實力尚屬堅強，不須透過傳統知識的利用來發展經濟，故在草案的設計上主要從環境保育以及傳統知識的保存目的出發，似乎更能回應原住民族的需求。

已開發國家則以在國際談判平台上相當積極的紐西蘭作為個案研究的對象；與台灣同為島國的紐西蘭，其國內尚未發展出傳統知識的保護專法，僅透過現行智慧財產權制度的調整，以因應兩者於本質上的衝突。未來是否制定專門立法保護傳統知識，國內相關意見仍處於整合階段，目前紐國政府係透過經濟發展部門(Ministry of economic Development)的三階段工作計劃來進行傳統知識保護法制的相關研討。

本研究之結論認為因傳統知識特性上不易賦予一個確切的定義，提升了相關保護法制於研討上的難度。故在相關概念的界定上僅須掌握重要特性，無法明定其範疇。而以智慧財產權制度保護傳統知識因兩者存在本質上的衝突，確係有許多不足之處；而國內縱使設置了專門立法，受限於管轄權的限制，亦無法規範所有不當利用的行為，故未來國際立法上是否可能發展出一套專門立法值得注意。

Thanks to continuous bio-prospecting efforts undertaken by many developed countries in the past two decades, numerous bio-heritages are discovered and such effort has also draw renewed attention on protection of traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge can be narrowly defined as: an inter-disciplinary knowledge that is often gained from experiences of utilizing unique natural resources by indigenous peoples. TK has the following characteristics: it is usually the collective creations past down from generations that keeps on changing as time goes by；TK is also orally transmitted and belong to the particular group of people who create it.

The protection of traditional knowledge is not only closely related to the spiritual well-being and cultural identity of the local people, it is also very important to humanity as a whole in persevering bio-diversity and promoting economic development. Thus protection of traditional knowledge is as much as a local issue as it is a global one. Such issue’s complexity cannot be underestimated.

From an international law’s perspective, the protection of traditional knowledge is a multi-faced issue. This issue can be approached from three different aspects: socially from protection of indigenous people’s human right, environmentally from maintaining biodiversity, and economic utilization. Moreover since traditional knowledge is essentially a form of intangible property, it seems appropriate to be governed under intellectual property regime. Thus whether it is appropriate to incorporate traditional knowledge into current intellectual property regime has generated much discussion.

Intellectual Property rights in essence, awards its right holder exclusivity relates to the use and possession of property against all third parties. Awarding Intellectual property right also meant to be as an incentive to promote innovation. Such purpose is in odd with some of the most defining characteristics of traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge is the collective work of an ethnic population group and it is often share freely within a group.

Other then approaching this issue under intellectual property regime, the feasibility of establishing a sui-generis regime internationally that will govern exclusively all traditional knowledge is increasingly gaining more attention too. Such proposal is theoretically sounded and is being adopted by Taiwan and Peru’s legislation. However, Taiwanese regulation’s effectiveness in the protection of traditional knowledge is severely limited by its legal jurisdiction and venue, especially in the instances of against international bio-piracy or patent misuse of traditional knowledge in another country.

Currently most international regulation for traditional knowledge protection is soft law in its nature thus with only very limited binding power. Therefore it is up to local legislature to grant a more encompassing and comprehensive protection for traditional knowledge. Accordingly, this essay will be focusing on Peru, New Zealand and Taiwan’s national legislation on traditional knowledge protection by conducting case analysis.

Taiwan has a rich source traditional knowledge from its aboriginal population. However, such knowledge is in an imminent danger of being lost. Therefore, Taiwan's Aboriginal Committee and host of experts in the subject matter are invited in drafting a bill of “Protective Regulation in Preserving Aboriginal Cultural Knowledge and Bio-diversity." Such bill's purpose is by uniting force from both the government authority and aboriginal communities to preserve and foster knowledge utilization. The drafters of the bill, through field study and interviews, have gained a deeper understanding in the legal aspect, purpose of the regime and legislative proceeding of this issue. In addition, in comparison of Brazil's Act 27811, Taiwan has a more stable economic foundation than Brail thus its version the regulation will focus more on environmental protection and preserving knowledge than economic utilization which should also be more fitting to the expectation of greater aboriginal community.

In conclusion, the author finds it is difficult to give an exact definition of traditional knowledge, this elusiveness also increase the difficulty when designing a legal system that aims at its protection. Therefore, it will be more practical approach to focus only on traditional knowledge's most defining characteristics and adjust the boundary of law in accordance with its legislative purpose. Furthermore, current intellectual property regime is incompatible with the very nature of traditional knowledge therefore its protection scope is inadequate at best. Even though Taiwan already has exclusive regulations in place for protecting traditional knowledge but due to Taiwan's limited jurisdiction, such regulation's protection scope is limited. Thus, it is of great importance that there will be an internationally recognized set of regulations, made exclusively for protection of traditional knowledge.