Geographical indications and indigenous intellectual property

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingOther chapter contributionResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In this chapter the term “Indigenous’ in ‘Indigenous intellectual property’ is taken to imply a legal order that persists but has been deprived of its previously sovereign status. It has been rendered subordinate by an introduced nominative system. Thus ‘Indigenous intellectual property law’ exists but cannot be universally enforced within the relevant jurisdiction. (…)
The simplest solution to the ‘problem’ of enforcement of Indigenous law applying to cultural expressions and technical knowledge, is to restore its sovereign status; i.e. to recognise that it has at least the same status as a source of law as introduced law. A number of Australian law reform bodies have considered, but rejected this solution , so that Aboriginal ‘customary’ law remains subordinate notwithstanding the fact that Aboriginal people are now recognised as having a ‘unique status’.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIndigenous intellectual property
Subtitle of host publicationA handbook of contemporary research
EditorsM Rimmer
Place of PublicationCheltenham, UK
PublisherEdward Elgar Publishing
Pages289-310
Number of pages22
ISBN (Electronic)9781781955901
ISBN (Print)9781781955895
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Dec 2015

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Geographical indications and indigenous intellectual property'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Van Caenegem, W. (2015). Geographical indications and indigenous intellectual property. In M. Rimmer (Ed.), Indigenous intellectual property: A handbook of contemporary research (pp. 289-310). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781955901.00022