RCEP, Decentralization, and Intellectual Property Rights: Indonesia's Conundrum in Regional Integration

Chin-Ming LIN

《Nusantara：An International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences》 3卷1期 (2021/06) Pp. 49-82

https://doi.org/10.6936/NIJHSS.202106_3(1).0004

摘要

Indigenous Indonesians have traditionally used adat, an extensive system of unwritten customary norms. In this system, individual knowledge is regarded as public property and functions mainly to serve the public benefits; as such, adat does not recognize intellectual property (IP) protections. After becoming a World Trade Organization (WTO) member in 1995, the Indonesian government sought to implement meaningful IP policy reform as obligated by the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Presently, the various binding intellectual property rights (IPR) provisions of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and a composite draft of the RCEP chapter on IP show that Japanese and Korean proposals remain, seeking to elevate IP standards to levels similar to those in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP, now renamed CPTPP). This will cause a severe conundrum for Indonesia, especially in local areas which, because of the country's decentralization policies, adhere predominantly to adat (rather than governmental IP regulations). This paper will examine, from the perspective of distinction between public and private properties, the extent to which Indonesia's legal framework is compatible with the RCEP's provisions. More crucially, it will seek to ascertain Indonesia's commitment and capacity-especially in view of its decentralization reforms-to provide social safety nets that protect traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. Together with its desire to develop the domestic pharmaceutical and vaccine sector, this presents a severe challenge for Indonesia, as it is keen to engage in regional economic integration. This article will introduce some recent developments in international IPR protection, with a specific focus on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conventions and the WTO's TRIPS Agreement (now further expanded through international and transnational trade negotiations such as the RCEP). Next, the argument for IPR protection in and through foreign investment in industrial production, especially in less-developed countries, is discussed, which is followed by an overview of Indonesia's responses to international agreements on IPR protection. The fourth section is an exploration of issues related to Indigenous peoples' rights, with elaboration on various international arrangements in such areas as natural resources, health systems, and traditional culture, as well as Indigenous Indonesians' reclaiming of social justice. In the fifth section, the prospect of delegating power to local institutions is explored, along with said institutions' interactions with the national government, the implications for political and economic reforms, as well as strategic participation in international trade agreements. Brief concluding remarks are provided in the last section.

關鍵字

intellectual property ； public vs. private property ； Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership ； indigenous cultures ； decentralization

參考文獻

Allee, D. J. (1972). Public and private property rights. In Increasing understanding of public problems and policies 1972 (pp. 63–69). https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.17318

Arizona, Y., & Cahyadi, E. (2013). The revival of Indigenous peoples: Contestations over a special legislation on Masyarakat Adat. In B. Hauser-Schäublin (Ed.), Adat and Indigeneity in Indonesia: Culture and entitlements between heteronomy and self-ascription (pp. 43–62). Göttingen University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.gup.167

Cabrera Ormaza, M. V. (2013). From protection to participation? Shifting perceptions towards Indigenous peoples under international law. In B. Hauser-Schäublin (Ed.), Adat and Indigeneity in Indonesia: Culture and entitlements between heteronomy and self-ascription (pp. 31–41). Göttingen University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.gup.165

Coombe, R. J. (1993). Cultural and intellectual properties: Occupying the colonial imagination. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 16(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1525/pol.1993.16.1.8

Crook, R. C., & Manor, J. (1998). Democracy and decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511607899