The article analyses the three terms autonomy, dignity and vulnerability. The relevance and practical application of the terms is tested in two spheres. First, as guiding principles in the area of ethics of medicines and science. Second, as human rights principles, serving to guide the conduct of public policies for an effective realization of human rights. The article argues that all human beings have the same dignity, but that the autonomy--and therefore vulnerability--differs considerably. Simply said, with reduced autonomy comes increased vulnerability, implying extra attention to the protective dimensions. The article finds that the three terms approach the protection of human beings in different ways and that all are relevant and applicable in both spheres, but that an isolated notion of autonomy and a 'group-based' notion of vulnerability are not adequate.

The article reviews the food sovereignty concept, comparing it with the legally recognised human right to food. It is found that there are certain elements of Article 11(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which have not been properly emphasised in the context of food trade and new technologies in food production. The article argues in favour of strengthening the right to food approach when faced with these challenges. While acknowledging the mobilising potential that the concept food sovereignty has among civil society actors, it is nevertheless argued that the right to food is both more precise, has stronger support among states, and is on a much higher level with regard to legally binding obligations compared to the food sovereignty concept.

,. I The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Article 8(j), recognizes such knowledge, without using the term "traditional knowledge". The specific Article calls upon the States to "respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity"; see also Article lO(c), 17.1 and 18.4 of the CBD. However, Article 8(j) regulates only knowledge "relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity" and shall be implemented "cubject to. .. national legislation". An Open-ended Inter-Sessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions was ectablished in accordance with decision IV/9 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD and has up uniil now had three meetings. Furthermore, ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries refers in Article 23.2 to "the traditional technologies and cultural characteristics of these peoples"; see also Agenda 21, Chapter 26.4(b) and U N Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, Article 29.

General Comment No. 17 on authors' rights is a comprehensive assessment of the normative content of article 15, paragraph 1(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Covenant). Also, the obligations and violations are spelled out in great detail. It is found that the General Comment makes a clear distinction in principle between standard intellectual property rights and the protection given in accordance with article 15, paragraph 1(c). At the same time, the General Comment does not outline any specific tools for determining when an intellectual effort would result in human rights protection and when it would fall outside of the scope of this protection. Two clarifications have resulted in a positive reception of the General Comment among those who expressed criticism during the drafting. First, General Comment No. 17 acknowledges the need for human rights protection for local and indigenous communities. Second, General Comment No. 17 emphasizes the balance between the private interests of the authors and the other human rights recognized in the Covenant.

The assessment of the relationship between patent rights and human rights has resulted in several tentative findings, such as by the UN Sub‐Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, that there are “apparent” or “actual or potential” conflicts. Also the World Intellectual Property Organization says that “conflicts may exist” between the two. This article, which is based on a Ph.D. dissertation on the right to food and the Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), analyzes the relationship between the two, based on an established understanding of conflict in international law, namely incompatible obligations. Also another level of conflict is introduced, namely conflict on the level of prescribed measures in one treaty which impedes the taking of measures prescribed by another treaty. Finally, the article assesses conflict on the level of impact. The findings are that strict legal conflict between the two is difficult to establish, but that there are serious concerns regarding their implementation. Developing states should make use of all the flexibilities that the TRIPS Agreement provides.