Везде
Principles of International Law in View of the Genetic Technology Development
Table of contents
Abstract Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Principles of International Law in View of the Genetic Technology Development
Abstract
PII
S1991-32220000622-3-1
DOI
10.61205/S199132220030579-2
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Elena E. Gulyaeva 
Occupation: Associate Professor, Department of International Law
Affiliation: Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Address: Moscow, Russia
Deilton Ribeiro Brazil
ORCID: 0000-0001-7268-8009
Occupation: Doctor of Law
Affiliation: University of Itaúna
Address: Itaúna, Brazil
Julia Bobrova
ORCID: 0000-0003-3635-5770
Occupation: Senior Researcher, Center of International Law and Comparative Legal Studies
Affiliation: Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation
Address: Moscow, Russia
Jorge Isaac Torres Manrique
ORCID: 0000-0001-5202-3886
Occupation: Doctor of Law
Affiliation: Escuela Interdisciplinar de Derechos Fundamentales Praeeminentia Iustitia
Address: Arequipa, Peru
Edition
Volume 20 No. 3
Pages
68-82
Abstract

Currently, genetic technologies are being developed, but legal regulation of this area, for example, in the field of human cloning, human research, assisted reproductive technologies, and work with biological samples for diagnostic purposes, is insufficient.

The relevance of this research in the field of international law is confirmed by the increasing importance of general and special principles of international law, a number of which acquire new content. For example, the concepts of biosecurity and genomic sovereignty are being filled with the principle of sovereign equality of states, which is of paramount importance for the development of friendly relations between states in accordance with the UN Charter and the Declaration on the Principles of International Law. The progressive development of the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, enshrined in the above-mentioned international documents, in terms of the practical implementation of projects to improve human beings through genetic editing with various technologies (CRISPR, etc.) raises an extremely controversial question about the new content of this generally recognized principle, taking into account the implementation of the principle of prohibition of discrimination on genetic grounds and the concept of genetic purity of the nation.

Using the dialectical method of scientific cognition, methods of formal logic, historical analysis and the system-structural method, the provisions of relevant international treaties, scientific works, including interdisciplinary ones, on the designated topic are considered, some issues of foreign legislation are touched upon, and the judicial decision of the Supreme Court of Brazil on the legal regulation of the use of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes is considered procedures, including dissenting opinions of judges.

As a result of the analysis, the authors confirm the conclusion that national and international principles and standards on the basis of which the legal regulation of this sphere takes place must coincide, and some of them may have the nature of erga omnes obligations in order to work out a balance between the potential benefits and risks of using genetic (genomic) technologies on a human scale.

Keywords
modern international law, principles of international law, peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens), erga omnes obligations, legal regulation in the field of genetics, human genome and other genetic technologies
Date of publication
06.06.2024
Number of purchasers
3
Views
145
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

To download PDF you should pay the subscribtion
1

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Acero L. Science, public policy and engagement: Debates on stem cell research in Brazil. Genomics, Society and Policy, 2010/11, vol. 6, no. 3. 
2. Furrow B., Greaney T., Johnson S. et al. Bioethics: Health Care Law and Ethics (American Casebook Series). West Academic Publishing, 2013. 
3. Lipkin M., Rowley P. T. (eds). Genetic Responsibility: On Choosing Our Children’s Genes. New York, 1974. 
4. Gulyaeva E. E., Anisimov I. O. The common heritage of mankind and the world heritage: correlation of concepts. Suprema — Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, 2022, vol. 2, no. 2. DOI: 10.53798/suprema.2022.v2.n2.a185. 
5. Leefmann J., Schaper M., Schicktanz S. The Concept of “Genetic Responsibility” and Its Meanings: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Medical Sociology Literature. Frontiers in Sociology, 2017, vol. 1, art. 18. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2016.00018. 
6. Miziara N. M. Audiéncia pública e advocacia em saúde: o caso da ADI № 3.510-0. Public audience and health advocacy: the case of ADI № 3.510-0. Available at: www.stf.jus.br/portal/glossario/verVerbete.asp?letra=A&id=481. 
7. Luna N. From abortion to embryonic stem cell research: Biossociality and the constitution of subjects in the debate over human right. Vibrant — Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 2015, vol. 12, no. 1. DOI: 10.1590/1809-43412015v12n1p167. 8. Rae G. Critiquing Sovereign Violence: Law, Biopolitics, Bio-juridicalism. Edinburgh, 2019. 
9. Richardson L. C., Connell N. D., Lewis S. M. et al. Cyberbiosecurity: A Call for Cooperation in a New Threat Landscape. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00099/full. 
10. Travieso J. A., Ferraro A. V., Trikoz E. N., Gulyaeva E. E. Bioethical Aspects of Human Rights in Modern Latin America. Kutafin Law Review, 2021, vol. 8, no. 1. DOI: 10.17803/2313-5395.2021.1.15.085-098. 
11. Trikoz E. N., Gulyaeva E. E., Belyaev K. S. Russian experience of using digital technologies in law and legal risks of AI. E3S Web of Conferences, 2020, vol. 224, art. 03005. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202022403005. 
12. Trikoz E., Gulyaeva E. Ecological cases of the ECtHR and the environmental risk of GMO. E3S Web of Conferences, 2021, vol. 244, art. 12024. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202124412024. 
13. Yudin B. G., Popova O. V. (eds). Biotechnological improvement of humans as a problem of social and humanitarian knowledge: materials from the School of Young Scientists. Moscow, 2017. 
14. Bogatyreva N. V., Sokolov A. Y., Moiseeva Y. M. et al. Regulatory status of genome-editing plants: perspectives for Russian Federation. Ekologicheskaya genetika, 2021, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 89—101. (In Russ.) 
15. Buynyakova I. S. Biotechnologies of Human Enhancement in the paradigm of the transhumanistic discourse. Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Philosophy. Sociology. Lawseries, 2019, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 294—304. (In Russ.) 
16. Grebenshchikova E. G. Projects for human improvement and the thesis of technological inevitability. Chelovek, 2016, no. 5, pp. 30—39. 
17. Gulyaeva E. E. Peculiarities of Approaches to Legal Regulation of Biological Safety in the USA and China. 5 September 2023. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.dipacademy.ru/blog-ekspertov-diplomaticheskoj-akademii/avtory-bloga/gulyaeva-ee/osobennostipodhodov- k-pravovomu-regulirovaniyu-obespecheniya-biologicheskoj-bezopasnosti-v-ssha-i-knr/. 
18. Danelyan A. A., Gulyaeva E. E. Legal regulation of the protection of genomic information in EU law. International Legal Courier. (In Russ.) Available at: http://inter-legal.ru/pravovoe-regulirovanie-ohrany-genomnoj-informatsii-v-evropejskom-soyuze-chast-i. 
19. Jewell C., Shankar Balakrishnan V. The battle to own the CRISPR—Cas9 gene-editing tool. WIPO Magazine, 2017. April. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/ru/2017/02/article_0005.html. 
20. Tikhomirov Yu. A. (ed.). Interests in the Mechanism of Public Power: Problems of Theory and Practice. Moscow, 2023. 272 p. (In Russ.) 
21. Kalinichenko P. A., Nekoteneva M. V. Genomic sovereignty of developing countries: priorities of legal regulation. In: Mokhov A. A., Sushkova O. V. (eds). Genetic technologies and law during the formation of the bioeconomy. Moscow, 2020. 
22. Khabrieva T. Y. (ed.). Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation (article by article): with account of the amendments approved by the all-Russian vote on July 1, 2020. Moscow, 2021. 368 p. (In Russ.) 
23. Krysenkova N. B., Chursina T. I. Legal Regulation of Genetic Researches in Foreign Countries. Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law, 2019, no. 5, pp. 140—153. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/jflcl.2019.5.9. 
24. Lyutov N. L. Prohibition of Genetic Discrimination and Protection of Genetic Personal Data: Prospects for Modification of Labor Law Norms. Journal of Russian Law, 2021, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 72—84. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2021.124. 
25. Maleina M. N. The Concept and Classification of Genomic (Genetic) Information. Lex russica, 2020, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 50—58. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2020.164.7.050-058. 
26. Morozov A. N. Constitutional Reflection of Universally Recognized Principles and Norms of International Law. Journal of Russian Law, 2018, no. 7, pp. 33—45. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/art_2018_7_3. 
27. Pestrikova A. A. Human Genome Editing: Formation of International Principles of Legal Regulation. Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2020, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 159—165. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2020.111.2.159-165. 
28. Tsomartova F. V. (ed.). Law and Biomedicine. Moscow, 2021. 136 p. (In Russ.) 
29. Putilo N. V. Legislation of the Russian Federation on Health Care: on the Threshold of Change. Journal of Russian Law, 2010, no. 10, pp. 36—45. (In Russ.) 
30. Romashev Yu. General Principles of Law in the System of International Law. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2021, no. 3, pp. 148—174. (In Russ.) 
31. Smirnov A. V. All-human vs. common to all mankind. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2022. 
32. Tarasyants E. V. International protection and promotion of human rights in biomedical research. Moscow, 2011. 
33. Trikoz E. N., Mustafina-Bredikhina D. M., Gulyaeva E. E. Legal regulation of gene editing procedure: USA and EU experience. RUDN Journal of Law, 2021, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 67—86. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.22363/2313-2337-2021-25-1-67-86. 
34. Khabrieva T. Y. Projections for the development of convergent technologies in law. In: Savenkov A. N. (ed.). Transformation of the paradigm of law in the civilizational development of mankind: reports of members of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow, 2019. 
35. Khabrieva T. Y., Chernogor N. N. The future of law. The Legacy of Academician V. S. Stepin and Legal Science. Moscow, 2020. 176 p. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/1112960. 
36. Kholikov I. V., Milovanovich A., Naumov P. Yu. Dynamics of Functioning of International Law in the Conditions of Transformation of Modern World Order: Post Non-Classic Approach. Journal of Russian Law, 2022, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 132—148. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/ jrl.2022.122. 
37. Chernichenko S. V. Interconnection of Peremptory Norms of International Law and erga omnes Obligations. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2012, no. 3, pp. 3—17. (In Russ.) DOI. 10.24833/0869-0049-2012-3-3-17. 
38. Tchetverikov A. O. Science as a legal category: comparative legal research. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 2019, no. 4, pp. 55—63. (In Russ.) 
39. Chubukova S. G. Legal problems of genetic information protection: a subjective approach. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 2020, no. 5, pp. 96—103. (In Russ.) 
40. Luna N. The right to life in context of abortion and stem cell research: disputes of religious agents and values in a Secular State (Brazil). Religiao and Sociedade, 2013, vol. 33, iss. 1. DOI: 10.1590/S0100-85872013000100005.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate