Technology transfer provisions remain in UNCLOS and will act as a deterrent to further research and investment
The problem of intellectual property protections was supposedly solved in the 1994 agreement, but it is vague, and the Authority’s latent powers remain to make it a continuing issue. Sponsoring states are still required to facilitate technology transfer “if the Enterprise or developing states are unable to obtain” the advanced equipment commercially. Thus, if a contractor develops a breakthrough mining technology, it will be compelled to sell it commercially to rivals or face the prospect of giving it away to the Enterprise (a direct competitor) and developing states. Neither of these options will be attractive to an entrepreneurial company, thereby further deterring investment in deep sea mining Research and Development. (Defense technology transfers are also a concern, but beyond the scope of this study.
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
Although the 1994 treaty modifications have toned down some of the most direct mandatory technology transfer requirements, the treaty still places at risk some very sensitive, and militarily useful, technology which may readily be misused by the navies of ocean mining states.
Keywords:Related Quotes:- Pernicious effect of technology transfer provision still in effect even after 1994 agreement
- Entrepreneurs likely to be deterred from investing in technology and research necessary for deep seabed mining by excessive royalties requirements
- Technology transfer provisions of UNCLOS could be used to acquire militarily significant dual-use technologies
- Even with amendments, 1994 agreement still puts sensitive military technology at risk of transfer
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:Counter Argument: