ข้อมูลจากบทคัดย่อ
ยังไม่มีสรุปภาษาไทยสำหรับระเบียนนี้
ด้านล่างเป็นบทคัดย่อต้นฉบับภาษาอังกฤษจากข้อมูลบรรณานุกรม โปรดตรวจบทความต้นฉบับก่อนอ้างอิง
Traditional knowledge and intangible cultural heritage constitute invaluable cultural resources that contribute to identity preservation, social cohesion, cultural continuity, and sustainable development. However, conventional intellectual property systems have demonstrated significant limitations in protecting traditional knowledge because such knowledge is collectively held, intergenerationally transmitted, and deeply embedded within cultural and social practices. As a result, concerns regarding cultural appropriation, biopiracy, unauthorized commercialization, and inequitable use of community knowledge have intensified worldwide. This article aims to examine community rights and benefit-sharing mechanisms for traditional knowledge protection through a comparative legal analysis and to develop an integrated governance framework applicable to contemporary cultural heritage protection. This study employs a comparative legal analysis of six countries: Thailand, India, China, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. Relevant legislation, policy documents, international instruments, and scholarly literature concerning traditional knowledge, indigenous knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and intangible cultural heritage were systematically analyzed. The comparison focuses on seven analytical dimensions, including community rights recognition, ownership structures, traditional knowledge registries, prior informed consent, access and licensing mechanisms, benefit-sharing arrangements, and sustainable community development. The findings reveal substantial differences in legal and governance approaches. India demonstrates a robust traditional knowledge registration system through the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library and biodiversity-related access-and-benefit-sharing mechanisms. China emphasizes state-led protection through specialized intangible cultural heritage legislation and national registration systems. New Zealand advances indigenous cultural stewardship through the principles of kaitiakitanga and the Wai 262 framework. Australia promotes Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) principles that emphasize ethical cultural governance and community consultation. Canada highlights collaborative governance and the integration of Indigenous Knowledge into public decision-making processes. In contrast, Thailand continues to face challenges arising from fragmented legal protections, limited recognition of community ownership, and the absence of a comprehensive benefit-sharing system. The comparative analysis suggests that effective traditional knowledge protection requires a transition from fragmented intellectual property approaches toward integrated governance systems that recognize community rights, strengthen cultural participation, ensure prior informed consent, and establish equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms. The findings provide policy recommendations for legal reform, cultural governance, and sustainable development strategies, particularly for countries seeking to strengthen community-based cultural heritage protection. This article develops the Community Benefit-Sharing Governance Framework (CBSG Framework), a novel conceptual model that integrates six interrelated components: community rights recognition, traditional knowledge registration, prior informed consent, licensing and access governance, equitable benefit-sharing, and sustainable community development. The framework contributes to the growing discourse on traditional knowledge governance by bridging intellectual property law, indigenous rights, cultural heritage protection, and sustainable development. It offers a comprehensive governance approach that can support cultural justice, community empowerment, and long-term preservation of traditional knowledge in the twenty-first century.
เหตุผลที่อยู่ในฐานติดตาม
ระเบียนนี้ได้รับ Impact Signal 85/100 จากความใหม่ แหล่งเผยแพร่ ความร่วมมือ และสัญญาณในข้อมูลบรรณานุกรม คะแนนนี้ใช้จัดลำดับการติดตาม ไม่ใช่การตัดสินคุณภาพงานวิจัย
ประเด็นที่เกี่ยวข้อง: Intellectual Property and Patents · Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Agriculture · Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
บทบาทของนักวิจัยและสถาบันไทย
Kraiwit Settathum · Egkapong Sarnnoi · Piyapun Santaveesuk · Sripatum University · Mahasarakham University
ข้อจำกัดของข้อมูล
หน้านี้เป็นระเบียนบรรณานุกรมและข้อมูลจากบทคัดย่อ ยังไม่ใช่บทวิเคราะห์ฉบับเต็มหรือการประเมินคุณภาพงานวิจัย ควรตรวจสอบ DOI และเอกสารต้นฉบับก่อนนำไปอ้างอิง