Abstract :

Traditional Knowledge, as a product of the interplay between ecological, social, and cultural factors, embodies the insights acquired by communities in understanding the demands of nature. Embedded in intellectual activities shaped by a nation’s thoughts, ideas, and creations, Traditional Knowledge necessitates legal protection and certainty of ownership by the state due to its significant value, categorizing it as a national asset. This protection is often sought through laws like the Cultural Advancement Law, primarily designed to uphold the nation’s interests. This research aims to analyze the role of the Cultural Advancement Law in safeguarding Traditional Knowledge in Indonesia and identify the challenges faced by this legal framework in providing protection. Employing a normative approach through a literature review, the study reveals the pivotal role of the Cultural Advancement Law in developing, utilizing, advancing, preserving, and safeguarding Traditional Knowledge. However, its enforcement faces obstacles due to the ongoing debate surrounding the impact of traditional Knowledge on the economy and society.

---

Keywords :

National Asset, National Interest, Obstacles, Role, Traditional Knowledge.

---

References :

1. Antons, C. (2009). Traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and intellectual property law in the Asia-Pacific Region (Vol. 14). Kluwer Law International BV.
2. Correa, C. M. (2022). Interpreting the Flexibilities Under the TRIPS Agreement. In C. M. Correa & R. M. Hilty (Eds.), Access to Medicines and Vaccines (pp. 1–30). Springer International Publishing.
3. Durán, E., & Michalopoulos, C. (1999). Intellectual Property Rights and Developing Countries in the Wto Millennium Round. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2(6), 853–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.1999.tb00096.x
4. Erstling, J. (2009). Using Patents to Protect Traditional Knowledge. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 15, 295.
5. Gathii, J. T. (2016). Strength in Intellectual Property Protection and Foreign Direct Investment Flows in Least Developed Countries. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 44(3), 499.
6. Kasih, D., Santosa, A., Dharmawan, N., & Atmaja, I. (2023). Inventory of Communal Intellectual Property: Among Intellectual Property Right and Cultural Advancement. SASI, 29, 29. https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v29i1.1162
7. Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.-H. N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M. J., & Hartley, K. (2023). Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, 107001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001
8. Kurnilasari, D., Yahanan, A., & Abdul Rahim, R. (2018). Indonesia’s Traditional Knowledge Documentation in Intellectual Property Rights’ Perspective. Sriwijaya Law Review, 2, 110. https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol2.Iss1.114.pp110-130

9. Lenzerini, F. (2011). Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples. European Journal of International Law, 22(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr006
10. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373
11. Oguamanam, C. (2018). Tiered or differentiated approach to traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions: The evolution of a concept. Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper, 2018–28, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3265807
12. Ruiz, M. (2002). The international debate on traditional knowledge as prior art in the patent system: Issues and options for developing countries. South Centre.
13. Schrijver, N. (2016). Managing the global commons: Common good or common sink? Third World Quarterly, 37(7), 1252–1267. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1154441
14. Shrivastav, V. (2014). Protection of Traditional Knowledge within the Existing Framework of Intellectual Property Rights: Defensive and Positive Approach. Available at SSRN 2463017. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2463017
15. Simon, B. S. (2005). Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge: A Psychological Approach to Conflicting Claims of Creativity in International Law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20(4), 1613–1684. JSTOR.
16. Sulistianingsih, D., & Ilyasa, R. M. A. (2022). The Impact of Trips Agreement on the Development of Intellectual Property Laws in Indonesia. Indonesia Private Law Review, 3(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.25041/iplr.v3i2.2579
17. Teixeira, A. A. C., & Ferreira, C. (2019). Intellectual property rights and the competitiveness of academic spin-offs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(3), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.12.002
18. Todd, W. F., Towne, C. E., & Clarke, J. B. (2023). Importance of centering traditional knowledge and Indigenous culture in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 71(3), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2023.2172976

19. Ullrich, H. (2006). Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity, Benefit-Sharing, and the Patent System: Romantics vs. Economics? In Biotechnology and International Law (pp. 201–209). Hart.
20. Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and Management. Arctic, 53(2), 183–193. JSTOR.
21. Varadarajan, D. (2011). A Trade Secret Approach to Protecting Traditional Knowledge. Yale Journal of International Law, 36, 371.
22. (2021). The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Under Indonesian Patent Law: Between Opportunities and Challenges. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 18(2), 351–374.