he treaty it may take longer to implement due todisagreements between differences in specific details. In the case of the Convention onBiodiversity, there was a major split between the North and the South. The two issuesthat divided the North and South were plant genetic diversity and intellectual propertyrights. The southern hemisphere provides a plethoric variety in genes among wild plantspecies in comparison to the North. The second factor splitting the two hemispheres wasintellectual property rights which are legal ownership of inventions made by a state. Basically the developing countries wanted to protect their rights and demanded money forthe exchange of genetic resources. States like Mexico, Brazil, and Indonesia thought thatthe resources are property of the state in which they are discovered. The North (UnitedStates, Canada, France, West Germany, Japan, and United Kingdom) would not agree tothese terms and argued that they be allowed to extract the resources from these countries. They claimed that these resources are common to man. They then stated that therewould be no reimbursement to the state that made the discoveries because of intellectualproperty rights.3 Clearly the arguments that these countries pose are centered aroundeconomics but looking deeper, having a collected governing body decide what is best foryour country to do about the problem might threaten a states sovereignty. The regime that signed the treaty at the Convention for Biodiversity is uniquebecause it is one of the few treaties that allows the implementation of the guidelines to beput in the hands of national governments, rather than an international governing body. This is unique because there is an assumption of trust among the states that they will allassume full responsibility. Resting the responsibility on the shoulders of an individualgovernment may not threaten a countries sovereignty but it does allow countries who signthe treaty to come ...
