Community Rights and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms for Traditional Knowledge Protection: A Comparative Legal Analysis and Development of the Community Benefit-Sharing Governance Framework
Identification
- Public canonical key
- doi:10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-36
- Authors
- Kraiwit Settathum · Egkapong Sarnnoi · Piyapun Santaveesuk
- Reported year
- 2026
- Reported language
- en
- Source type
- article
- First detected
- 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
- Last metadata observation
- 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
- Last HTTP verification
- Not checked
Institutions reported by the source
Mahasarakham University · Sripatum University
Reported affiliation countries
TH
Documentary abstract — original language
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.
Identifiers
- OPENALEX
- W7170166895
- DOI
- 10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-36
Documentary context
- Documentary family
- Scholarship
- Source-reported types
- article
- Jurisdictions studied — explicit sources
- AU · CA · CN · IN · NZ · TH
Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.
Sources
OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2
Documented bibliographic relations
Source-declared references and links; they do not establish legal support or UGLC qualification. Up to 20 outgoing references are displayed.
- openalex:w1523493462 · CITES
- openalex:w4206610535 · CITES
0 incoming references within the detected corpus
Documentary field provenance
Source-backed values and values with unresolved provenance are kept separately. Bibliographic provenance validates no legal claim.
- Title
- Documentary source reported
- Publication
- Documentary source reported
- Authors
- Documentary source reported
- Document type
- Documentary source reported
- Jurisdiction
- Studied subject derived from explicit documentary context
- Court
- Not recorded
- Issuing authority
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- DOI
- Documentary source reported
- ISBN
- Not recorded
- Official identifier
- Not recorded
- Source URL
- Documentary source reported
- Source-reported status
- Not recorded
- Amendment / repeal
- Not recorded
Cite this reference
Kraiwit Settathum; Egkapong Sarnnoi; Piyapun Santaveesuk. Community Rights and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms for Traditional Knowledge Protection: A Comparative Legal Analysis and Development of the Community Benefit-Sharing Governance Framework. 2026. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-36
JSON · CSL-JSON · BibTeX · RIS · CSV · JSON-LD ·
APA, Chicago, ISO 690: bibliographic formats using available fields. OSCOLA / Bluebook: structured data only; full legal citation compliance is not claimed without verification of required elements.
- APA
- Kraiwit Settathum; Egkapong Sarnnoi; Piyapun Santaveesuk. (2026). Community Rights and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms for Traditional Knowledge Protection: A Comparative Legal Analysis and Development of the Community Benefit-Sharing Governance Framework. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-36
- Chicago
- Kraiwit Settathum; Egkapong Sarnnoi; Piyapun Santaveesuk. Community Rights and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms for Traditional Knowledge Protection: A Comparative Legal Analysis and Development of the Community Benefit-Sharing Governance Framework. 2026. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-36
- ISO 690
- Kraiwit Settathum; Egkapong Sarnnoi; Piyapun Santaveesuk. Community Rights and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms for Traditional Knowledge Protection: A Comparative Legal Analysis and Development of the Community Benefit-Sharing Governance Framework. 2026. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-36
UDTR Global Rights of Nature Legal Library. Community Rights and Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms for Traditional Knowledge Protection: A Comparative Legal Analysis and Development of the Community Benefit-Sharing Governance Framework. Documentary record: https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/global-rights-of-nature-radar/reference/r-1a00a4aa6d3a60fcb2ba3bb7ffa6d813/ · Last HTTP verification: not performed
Field provenance and record version
Version e3718ef1c2889a58 · udtr-reference-1.1.2
- Title
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
- Authors
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
- Year
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
- Identifiers
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
- Source URL
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
History tracks record metadata and does not certify the state of the law.
902746d2b7bb1673 · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
6c09b454c1f2f747 · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
27a20ac0db3ab75b · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
e3718ef1c2889a58 · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.741045+00:00
Research dossiers and documentary relations
Source roles
Discovery source · https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-36
Discovery source · https://openalex.org/W7170166895
An authority link alone does not verify a legal claim. Abstracts and full texts remain subject to their source terms.
Documentary status
Relevance pending
Library
This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.