Modern legal systems are not usually designed to protect Indigenous traditional knowledge or traditional cultural expressions but are, more often, historically complicit in their misuse or suppression. The undefined status of traditional knowledge has left Indigenous communities vulnerable to harms not readily cognizable by either common or civil law systems: exploitation of those communities’ genetic resources and medical knowledge, demeaning of their sacred symbols, and further alienation from their culture and land following colonial dispossession. Indigenous groups have therefore sought greater protection of traditional knowledge through a range of domestic and international legal avenues. This Article examines the experience of Australia as the common law jurisdiction that has likely gone furthest in protecting traditional knowledge. Aboriginal Australian claimants have found varying degrees of success through mechanisms such as copyright law, patent law, consumer protection, fiduciary claims, and privacy rights. Even at their most successful, however, these claimants have not obtained recognition of the unique interests represented by traditional knowledge. Instead, they have been forced to translate their claims into terms close to the conventional utilitarian or personality-based justifications for intellectual property. Australia therefore illustrates the potential of a common law system’s ability to incrementally adapt to novel claims—but also that system’s ultimate inadequacy.

中文翻译：

---

将传统知识移植到普通法体系中

现代法律制度通常不是为了保护土著传统知识或传统文化表现形式而设计的，但更常见的是，历史上它们是滥用或压制的同谋。传统知识的未定义地位使土著社区容易受到普通法或大陆法系无法轻易识别的伤害：开发这些社区的遗传资源和医学知识，贬低他们的神圣象征，并进一步疏远他们的文化和土地殖民剥夺。因此，土著群体通过一系列国内和国际法律途径寻求对传统知识的更大保护。本文考察了澳大利亚作为可能在保护传统知识方面走得最远的普通法司法管辖区的经验。澳大利亚原住民索赔人通过版权法、专利法、消费者保护、信托索赔和隐私权等机制取得了不同程度的成功。然而，即使在他们最成功的时候，这些索赔人也没有获得对传统知识所代表的独特利益的认可。相反，他们被迫将他们的主张转化为接近传统功利主义或基于个性的知识产权辩护的术语。因此，澳大利亚展示了普通法体系逐渐适应新主张的能力的潜力——但也说明了该体系的最终不足。然而，即使在他们最成功的时候，这些索赔人也没有获得对传统知识所代表的独特利益的认可。相反，他们被迫将他们的主张转化为接近传统功利主义或基于个性的知识产权辩护的术语。因此，澳大利亚展示了普通法体系逐渐适应新主张的能力的潜力——但也说明了该体系的最终不足。然而，即使在他们最成功的时候，这些索赔人也没有获得对传统知识所代表的独特利益的认可。相反，他们被迫将他们的主张转化为接近传统功利主义或基于个性的知识产权辩护的术语。因此，澳大利亚展示了普通法体系逐渐适应新主张的能力的潜力——但也说明了该体系的最终不足。